text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'Let $R=k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ be a polynomial ring over a prefect field of positive characteristic. Let $I$ be an unmixed ideal in $R$ and let $J$ be a generic link of $I$ in $S=R[u_{ij}]_{c \times r}$. We describe the parameter test submodule of $S/J$ in terms of the test ideal of the pair $(R, I)$ when a reduction of $I$ is a complete intersection or almost complete intersection. As an application, we deduce a criterion for when $S/J$ has $F$-rational singularities in these cases. We also compare the $F$-pure threshold of $(R, I)$ and $(S, J)$.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Utah\
Salt Lake City\
UT 84112
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Illinois at Chicago\
Chicago\
Illinois 60607
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Michigan\
Ann Arbor\
MI 48109
- |
Department of Mathematical Sciences\
University of Arkansas\
Fayetteville\
AR 72701
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Illinois at Chicago\
Chicago\
Illinois 60607
author:
- 'Linquan Ma, Janet Page, Rebecca R.G., William Taylor, and Wenliang Zhang'
bibliography:
- 'CommonBib.bib'
title: '$F$-singularities under generic linkage'
---
[*Dedicated to Prof. Craig Huneke on the occasion of his 65th birthday*]{}
Introduction
============
Let $R=k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ be a polynomial ring over a field of positive characteristic. Let $I=(f_1,\dots, f_r)$ be an unmixed ideal in $R$ of height $c$, where unmixed means that all associated primes of $I$ have the same height [@Matsumura86]. We can define a regular sequence $g_1,\dots, g_c$ in $S=R[u_{ij}]_{c \times r}$ via $g_i:=u_{i1}f_1+\cdots +u_{ir}f_r$, where the $u_{ij}$ are variables over $S$. Then $J=(g_1,\dots,g_c):I$ is called a generic link of $I$ in $S=R[u_{ij}]$. The study of generic linkage has attracted considerable attention and has been developed widely from both algebraic and geometric points of view [@HunekeUlrichThestructureoflinkage], [@HunekeUlrichAlgebraiclinkage], [@ChardinUlrichLiaisonandCMregularity], [@EisenbudHunekeUlrichHeightsofidealsofminors], [@NiuSingularitiesofgenericlinkage].
In contrast to the quick and deep development of singularity theories in the past decades, much less has been known about the behaviors of singularities under generic linkage. A special case is a result of Chardin and Ulrich [@ChardinUlrichLiaisonandCMregularity] which says that if $R/I$ is a complete intersection and has rational (resp. $F$-rational) singularities, then a generic link $S/J$ also has rational (resp. $F$-rational singularities). This result in characteristic zero has been vastly extended in recent work of Niu [@NiuSingularitiesofgenericlinkage], which is our main motivation for this research.
\[theorem: Niu\] Let $J$ be a generic link of a reduced and equidimensional ideal $I$ in $S=R[u_{ij}]$ and assume that the characteristic of $k$ is $0$. We have
1. $\omega_{S/J}^{GR}\cong \scr{J}(R, I^c)\cdot (S/J)$, where $\omega_{S/J}^{GR}$ denotes the Grauert-Riemenschneider canonical sheaf of $S/J$ and $\scr{J}(R, I^c)$ denotes the multiplier ideal of the pair $(R, I^c)$,
2. $\operatorname{lct}(S, J)\geq \operatorname{lct}(R, I)$. In particular, if the pair $(R, I^c)$ is log canonical, then the pair $(S, J^c)$ is also log canonical.
This result gives a nice criterion for a generic link to have rational singularities in characteristic $0$. It also has applications to bounding the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of projective varieties [@NiuSingularitiesofgenericlinkage Corollary 1.2]. Since test ideals and $F$-pure thresholds are characteristic $p$ analogues of multiplier ideals and log canonical thresholds ([*c.f.*]{} [@BlickleSchwedeTuckerF-singularitiesvialterations] and [@HaraYoshidaGeneralizedTestIdeals]), it is natural to ask whether analogues of Theorem \[theorem: Niu\] hold for test ideals and $F$-pure thresholds. Our main result is the following, which partially extends Theorem \[theorem: Niu\] to characteristic $p$ and generalizes [@ChardinUlrichLiaisonandCMregularity Theorem 3.13] in characteristic $p$.
Let $J$ be a generic link of an unmixed ideal $I$ in $S=R[u_{ij}]$ and assume the characteristic of $k$ is $p>0$.
1. Suppose $I$ is reduced and that a reduction of $I$ is a complete intersection or an almost complete intersection. Then $\tau(\omega_{S/J}) \cong\tau(R, I^c)\cdot(S/J)$, where $\tau(\omega_{S/J})$ denotes the parameter test submodule and $\tau(R, I^c)$ denotes the test ideal of the pair $(R, I^c)$.
2. Suppose that a reduction of $I$ is a complete intersection. Then $\operatorname{fpt}_S(J)\geq \operatorname{fpt}_R(I)$. In particular, if the pair $(R, I^c)$ is $F$-pure, then the pair $(S, J^c)$ is also $F$-pure.
This paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we recall and prove some basic result for $F$-singularities and test ideals; in Section 3 we give a description of the parameter test submodule of $S/J$ in terms of the test ideal of the pair $(R, I)$, when a reduction of $I$ is a complete intersection or an almost complete intersection. This generalizes earlier results in [@ChardinUlrichLiaisonandCMregularity]. In Section 4 we compare the $F$-pure threshold of the pairs $(S, J)$ and $(R, I)$ when a reduction of $I$ is a complete intersection.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
Part of this work was done at Mathematics Research Community (MRC) in Commutative Algebra in June 2015. The authors would like to thank the staff and organizers of the MRC and the American Mathematical Society for their support. The first author would like to thank Karl Schwede, Shunsuke Takagi and Bernd Ulrich for fruitful discussions. The first author was partially supported by NSF CAREER Grant DMS \#1252860/1501102 and a Simons Travel Grant. The third author was partially supported by the NSF grant DGE \#1256260. The fifth author was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS \#1606414.
$F$-singularities and test ideals {#section: basics on test ideals}
=================================
In this section we collect some basic definitions of $F$-singularities and test ideals and prove a characteristic $p>0$ analogue of Ein’s Lemma in [@NiuSingularitiesofgenericlinkage], which will be used in later sections.
Let $R$ be a noetherian commutative ring of characteristic $p>0$. We will use $F^e_*R$ to denote the target of the $e$-th Frobenius endomorphism $F^e:R\xrightarrow{r\mapsto r^{p^e}}R$, [*i.e.*]{} $F^e_*R$ is an $R$-bimodule, which is the same as $R$ as an abelian group and as a right $R$-module, that acquires its left $R$-module structure via the $e$-th Frobenius endomorphism $F^e:R\xrightarrow{r\mapsto r^{p^e}}R$. When $R$ is reduced, we will use $R^{1/p^e}$ to denote the ring whose elements are $p^e$-th roots of elements of $R$. Note that these notations (when $R$ is reduced) $F^e_*R$ and $R^{1/p^e}$ are used interchangeably in the literature; we will do so in this paper as well assuming no confusion will arise.
If $R$ is a commutative ring essentially of finite type over a perfect field of characteristic $p>0$, then $R$ admits a canonical module denoted by $\omega_R$. Applying $\Hom_R(-,\omega_R)$ to the $e$-th Frobenius $R \to F^e_*R$ produces an $R$-linear map $$\Hom_R(F^e_*R,\omega_R)\to\Hom_R(R,\omega_R)=\omega_R.$$ Moreover, we have $F_*^e\omega_R\cong \Hom_R(F^e_*R,\omega_R)$ (see [@BlickleSchwedeTuckerF-singularitiesvialterations Example 2.4] for more details). Hence we have a natural $R$-linear map: $$\Phi_R^e: F_*^e\omega_R\cong \Hom_R(F^e_*R,\omega_R)\to\Hom_R(R,\omega_R)=\omega_R$$ called the trace map of the $e$-th Frobenius.
When $R=k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ is a polynomial ring over a perfect field $k$ of characteristic $p>0$, we can identify $\omega_R$ with $R$, and $\Phi_R^e$ can be identified with the usual trace $\operatorname{Tr}_R^e$, that is: $$\operatorname{Tr}_R^e(F_*^e(x_1^{i_1}x_2^{i_2}\cdots x_n^{i_n}))=\begin{cases}x_1^{\frac{i_1-(p^e-1)}{p^e}}x_2^{\frac{i_2-(p^e-1)}{p^e}}\cdots x_n^{\frac{i_n-(p^e-1)}{p^e}}, & {\rm if\ }\frac{i_t-(p^e-1)}{p^e}\in \mathbb{Z}\ {\rm for\ each\ }t\\0, & {\rm otherwise} \end{cases}$$ In this case $\Hom_R(F_*^eR, R)$ is a cyclic $F_*^eR$-module generated by $\operatorname{Tr}_R^e$. Furthermore, if $f_1,\dots, f_c$ is a regular sequence in $R$ and $T=R/(f_1,\dots,f_c)$, then we have ([@FedderFPureRat Corollary on page 465]) $$\Phi_T^e(F_*^e(-))=\operatorname{Tr}_R^e(F_*^e(f_1^{p^e-1}\cdots f_c^{p^e-1}\cdot -)).$$
\[lemma–restriction of trace\] Let $S\to R$ be a surjection of noetherian commutative rings of characteristic $p$. Assume that both $S$ and $R$ admit canonical module $\omega_S$ and $\omega_R$ respectively and $\dim S=\dim R$. Then $$\Phi_R^e=\Phi_S^e|_{\omega_R}.$$
Under our assumptions, we have $\omega_R=\Hom_S(R,\omega_S)$ and the surjection $S\to R$ induces an inclusion $\omega_R=\Hom_S(R,\omega_S)\hookrightarrow \omega_S$. Consider the following diagram $$\xymatrix{
\Hom_R(F^e_*R,\Hom_S(R,\omega_S)) \ar[d] \ar[r] & \Hom_R(R,\Hom_S(R,\omega_S)) \ar[r]^-{\sim} \ar[d]& \Hom_S(R,\omega_S)\ar[d] \\
\Hom_S(F^e_*S,\omega_S) \ar[r] &\Hom_S(S,\omega_S) \ar[r]^-{\sim} &\omega_S
}$$ Note that the top row (resp. the bottom row) induces the trace map $\Phi_R^e$ (resp. $\Phi_S^e$). To prove our lemma, it suffices to prove
1. the vertical map on the left is an inclusion, and
2. the diagram commutes
To prove (a), note that the vertical map on the left can be refined further as $$\begin{aligned}
\Hom_R(F^e_*R,\Hom_S(R,\omega_S)) &= \Hom_S(F^e_*R,\Hom_S(R,\omega_S))\notag\\
&\hookrightarrow \Hom_S(F^e_*S,\Hom_S(R,\omega_S))\ {\rm since\ }F^e_*S\twoheadrightarrow F^e_*R\notag\\
&\hookrightarrow \Hom_S(F^e_*S,\omega_S)\ {\rm since\ }\Hom_S(R,\omega_S)\hookrightarrow \omega_S\notag\end{aligned}$$
To prove (b), note that the commutativity follows directly from the commutativity of $$\xymatrix{
S\ar[r] \ar[d] & F^e_*S \ar[d]\\
R\ar[r] &F^e_*R
}$$
\[definition–parameter test submodule\] Let $R$ be an $F$-finite noetherian integral domain of characteristic $p$. The *parameter test submodule* $\tau(\omega_R)$ is the unique smallest nonzero submodule $M$ of $\omega_R$ such that $\Phi_R(F_*M)\subseteq M$. $R$ is called *$F$-rational* if $R$ is Cohen-Macaulay and $\tau(\omega_R)=\omega_R$. Note that this is not the original definition of $F$-rationality, but is known to be equivalent [@SmithFRatImpliesRat].
\[definition–test ideals\] Let $R$ be an $F$-finite noetherian integral domain of characteristic $p$. Let $I\subseteq R$ be a nonzero ideal and $t\in \Q_{\geq 0}$. We define the *test ideal* $\tau(R, I^t)$, abbreviated $\tau(I^t)$, to be the unique smallest nonzero ideal $J\subseteq R$ such that $\phi(F^e_*(I^{\lceil t(p^e-1)\rceil}J))\subseteq J$ for all $e>0$ and all $\phi\in\Hom_R(F^e_*R, R)$.
\[definition–F-pure pairs,strongly F-regular pairs, F-pure threshholds\] Let $R$ be an $F$-finite noetherian integral domain of characteristic $p$. Let $I \subset R$ be an ideal and $t \geq 0$ be a real number.
1. The pair $(R,I^t)$ is *$F$-pure* if for all large $e \gg 0$, there exists an element $d \in I^{\lfloor t(p^e-1) \rfloor}$ such that $F^e_*d R \hookrightarrow F^e_*R$ splits as an $R$-module homomorphism.
2. The pair $(R, I^t)$ is *strongly $F$-regular* if for every $c\neq 0$ there exists $e \geq 0$ and $d \in I^{\lceil tp^e \rceil}$ such that $F^e_*(cd)R \hookrightarrow F^e_*R$ splits as an $R$-module homomorphism.
3. The *$F$-pure threshold* $\operatorname{fpt}_R(I)$ of $(R,I)$ is $\sup \{ s \in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} | \text{ the pair } (R,I^{s}) \text{ is $F$-pure}\}$, and we have also $\operatorname{fpt}_R (I)=\sup \{ s \in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} | \text{ the pair } (R,I^{s}) \text{ is strongly $F$-regular}\}$.
\[remark – strong F-regularity test ideal\] Note that $(R,I^t)$ is strongly $F$-regular if and only if $\tau(I^t)=R$. Indeed, suppose $(R,I^t)$ is strongly $F$-regular. Pick a nonzero element $c \in J$ and take $e\gg 0$ and $d\in I^{\lceil tp^e\rceil}$ satisfying the conditions of strong $F$-regularity for $c$, and let $\phi:F^e_*R\to R$ be a map such that $\phi(F^e_*(cd))=1$. Then $$\phi(F^e_*(I^{\lceil t(p^e-1)\rceil}J))\supseteq \phi(F^e_*(I^{\lceil tp^e\rceil}J))=R,$$ and so $\tau(I^t)=R$.
On the other hand, if $\tau(I^t)=R$, $0\neq c\in R$, and $a\in I^{\lceil t\rceil}$, then there exists $e\geq 0$ and $\phi:F^e_*R\to R$ such that $\phi(F^e_*(I^{\lceil t(p^e-1)\rceil}acR))=R$. Let $b\in I^{\lceil t(p^e-1)\rceil}$ and $f\in R$ such that $\phi(F^e_*(c(abf)))=1$. Then we are done once we note that $abf\in I^{\lceil t\rceil}I^{\lceil t(p^e-1)\rceil}\subseteq I^{\lceil tp^e\rceil}$.
We will need the following important description of test ideals:
\[theorem–description of test ideals\] With the notations as in Definition \[definition–test ideals\], for any nonzero $a\in\tau(I^t)$, we have: $$\tau(I^t)=\sum_{e\geq 0}\sum_{\phi}\phi(F_*^e(aI^{\lceil t(p^e-1)\rceil}))$$ where the inner sum runs over all $\phi\in\Hom_R(F_*^eR, R)$.
\[remark–choose test element\] With the notations as in Definition \[definition–test ideals\], the following holds ([@BlickleSchwedeTakagiZhangDiscretenessRationality 3.3]) $$\label{test ideal using big test element}
\tau(I^t)=\sum_{e\geq 0}\sum_{\phi\in \Hom_R(F^e_*R,R)}\phi(F^e_*(dI^{\lceil tp^e \rceil }))$$ where $d$ is a big test element.
If $R=k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ is a polynomial ring over a perfect field $k$ of characteristic $p>0$, then one can set $d=1$ in (\[test ideal using big test element\]) and $\Hom_R(F_*^eR, R)$ is a cyclic $F^e_*R$-module generated by $\operatorname{Tr}_R^e$ as discussed earlier. Hence by (\[test ideal using big test element\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(I^t)&=\sum_{e\geq 0}\sum_{\phi\in \Hom_R(F^e_*R,R)}\phi(F_*^e(aI^{\lceil t(p^e-1)\rceil}))=\sum_{e\geq 0}\operatorname{Tr}_R^e(F_*^e(aI^{\lceil t(p^e-1)\rceil})),\ {\rm for\ any\ }a\in\tau(I^t)\notag\\
&=\sum_{e\geq 0}\sum_{\phi\in \Hom_R(F^e_*R,R)}\phi(F^e_*(I^{\lceil tp^e \rceil }))=\sum_{e\geq 0}\operatorname{Tr}_R^e(F^e_*(I^{\lceil tp^e \rceil }))\notag\end{aligned}$$
\[remark–description of parameter test submodule\] With the notations as in Definition \[definition–parameter test submodule\], one can show that if $R_{a'}$ is regular, then for every sufficiently large power $a$ of $a'$, $\tau(\omega_R)=\sum_e\Phi_R^e(F^e_*(a\cdot \omega_R))$. This can be proved by a similar argument as [@SchwedeTuckerAsurveyoftestideals Lemma 3.6, Lemma 3.8] so we omit the details.
The following result from [@SchwedeTuckerAsurveyoftestideals] will also be used.
Let $R$ be an integral domain essentially of finite type over a perfect field of characteristic $p>0$ and let $I,J\subseteq R$ be nonzero ideals and $t\in \R_{\geq 0}$.
1. If $J$ is a reduction of $I$, then $\tau(I^t)=\tau(J^t)$.
2. If $J$ is generated by $r$ elements, then $\tau(J^r)=J\tau(J^{r-1})$.
We are ready to prove the characteristic $p>0$ analogue of Ein’s Lemma in [@NiuSingularitiesofgenericlinkage]:
\[lemma–Ein’s lemma in char p\] Let $R$ be an integral domain essentially of finite type over a perfect field of characteristic $p>0$ and let $I\subseteq R$ be an unmixed ideal of codimension $c$. If $\tau(I^{c-1})=R$, then $\tau(I^c)=I$. In particular, if $R$ is strongly $F$-regular and $(R,I^c)$ is $F$-pure, then $\tau(I^c)=I$.
The lemma will follow from the following two inclusions: $$\label{equation--containment of test ideal 1}
\tau(I^c)\subseteq I.$$ $$\label{equation--containment of test ideal 2}
I\tau(I^{t-1})\subseteq \tau(I^t) \mbox{ for all } t\geq 1.$$ Indeed, if $\tau(I^{c-1})=R$, then $I=I\tau(I^{c-1})\subseteq \tau(I^c)\subseteq I$, and so we have equality throughout.
Since inclusion is a local condition, we may assume that $R$ is local with maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$. By replacing $R$ by $R[x]_{\mathfrak{m}R[x]}$, we may assume that $R$ has infinite residue field: it is straightforward to check that $\tau(I^c)R[x]_{\mathfrak{m}R[x]}=\tau((IR[x]_{\mathfrak{m}R[x]})^c)$. Now let $\mathfrak{p}$ be a minimal prime of $I$. Since $I$ is unmixed, $\dim R_\mathfrak{p}=c$. Hence $IR_\mathfrak{p}$ has a reduction $J\subseteq IR_\mathfrak{p}$ generated by $c$ elements. Therefore, since test ideals localize, $$\tau(I^c)R_\mathfrak{p}=\tau((IR_\mathfrak{p})^c)=\tau(J^c)=J\tau(J^{c-1})\subseteq J\subseteq IR_\mathfrak{p}.$$ Since every associated prime of $I$ is minimal, this inclusion holds for all associated primes of $I$, hence it holds globally, i.e. $\tau(I^c)\subseteq I$.
Let $t\in \R_{\geq 1}$, and pick $0\neq a\in \tau(I^t)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
I\tau(I^{t-1}) &= I\sum_{e\geq 0}\sum_{\phi}\phi\left(F_*^e\left(aI^{\lceil (t-1)(p^e-1)\rceil}\right)\right)\\
&=\sum_{e\geq 0}\sum_{\phi}\phi\left(F_*^e\left(aI^{[p^e]}I^{\lceil (t-1)(p^e-1)\rceil}\right)\right)\\
&\subseteq \sum_{e\geq 0}\sum_{\phi}\phi\left(F_*^e\left(aI^{p^e}I^{\lceil (t-1)(p^e-1)\rceil}\right)\right)\\
&=\sum_{e\geq 0}\sum_{\phi}\phi\left(F_*^e\left(aI^{p^e+\lceil (t-1)(p^e-1)\rceil}\right)\right)\\
&\subseteq \sum_{e\geq 0}\sum_{\phi}\phi\left(F_*^e\left(aI^{\lceil t(p^e-1)\rceil}\right)\right)\\
&=\tau(I^t),\end{aligned}$$ where the inner sum runs over all $\phi\in\Hom_R(F_*^eR, R)$ and the last inclusion following from the fact that $$p^e+\lceil(t-1)(p^e-1)\rceil=\lceil p^e+(t-1)(p^e-1)\rceil=\lceil t(p^e-1)+1\rceil>\lceil t(p^e-1)\rceil.\qedhere$$
For the last statement, if $(R,I^c)$ is $F$-pure, then the $F$-pure threshold of $I$ is at least $c$. Since the $F$-pure threshold is the supremum of those values $t$ for which $(R,I^t)$ is strongly $F$-regular when $R$ is strongly $F$-regular [@TakagiWatanabeFpurethresholds Proposition 2.2], we have that $(R,I^{c-1})$ is strongly $F$-regular. This means that $\tau(I^{c-1})=R$ by Remark \[remark – strong F-regularity test ideal\], and hence the first statement of the lemma tells us $\tau(I^c)=I$.
$F$-rationality under generic linkage
=====================================
In this section, we investigate how $F$-singularities ([*e.g.*]{} $F$-purity, $F$-rationality, etc) behave under a generic linkage. To this end, we will also consider the behaviors of test ideals under a generic linkage. We begin with recalling the definition of a generic link.
\[definition–generic linkage\] Let $R=k[x_1,\dots, x_n]$ be a polynomial ring over a perfect field of positive characteristic. Let $I$ be an unmixed ideal of $R$ of height $c$. Fix a generating set $\{f_1,\dots, f_r\}$ of $I$. Let $(u_{ij})$, $1\leq i\leq c$, $1\leq j\leq r$, be a $c\times r$ matrix of variables. Consider $c$ elements $g_1,\dots,g_c$ in $S=R[u_{ij}]$ defined by $$g_i:=u_{i1}f_1+u_{i2}f_2+\cdots +u_{ir}f_r$$ for $1\leq i\leq c$. Then $J=(g_1,\dots,g_c): (IS)$ is called the [*first generic link*]{} of $I$ with respect to $\{f_1,\dots, f_r\}$ (we also call $S/J$ the generic link of $R/I$ with respect to $\{f_1,\dots, f_r\}$).
\[remark–geometrically linked\] It is well known that under the above assumptions, if $I$ is reduced, then $IS$ and $J$ are [*geometrically linked*]{}, i.e., $IS=(g_1,\dots,g_c):J$ and $IS\cap J=(g_1,\dots,g_c)$. Moreover, $J$ is actually a prime ideal of height $c$ [@HunekeUlrichDivisorclassgroupsdeformations 2.6].
The following theorem is our main technical result in this section.
\[theorem–parameter test submodules under generic linkage\] With the notation as in Definition \[definition–generic linkage\], assuming $I$ is reduced, we have
1. $\tau(\omega_{S/J})\subseteq \tau(I^c)\cdot(S/J)$;
2. If $I$ has a minimal reduction generated by at most $c+1$ elements, then $\tau(\omega_{S/J})\supseteq \tau(I^c)\cdot(S/J)$; hence $\tau(\omega_{S/J})=\tau(I^c)\cdot(S/J)$ in this case.
Our proof of Theorem \[theorem–parameter test submodules under generic linkage\](2) requires considering different sets of generators of $I$. A priori, a generic link $(S,J)$ depends on the choice of generators. The following lemma guarantees that the statement in Theorem \[theorem–parameter test submodules under generic linkage\](2) is independent of the choice of generators of $I$. Its proof follows the same line as the proof of [@HunekeUlrichThestructureoflinkage Proposition 2.11].
\[lem: independent of generators for test submodule\] Let $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$ be two sets of generators of $I$ and let $(S_1,J_1)$ and $(S_2,J_2)$ be generic links of $I$ with respect to $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$ respectively. Then $\tau(\omega_{S_1/J_1})\supseteq \tau(I^c)\cdot(S_1/J_1)$ iff $\tau(\omega_{S_2/J_2})\supseteq \tau(I^c)\cdot(S_2/J_2)$.
By considering $\Lambda_1\cup \Lambda_2$, we can assume that $\Lambda_1\subseteq \Lambda_2$. By induction on the difference between the cardinality of $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$, we may assume that $\Lambda_2$ has one more element than $\Lambda_1$, [*i.e.*]{} we may assume that $\Lambda_1=\{f_1,\dots,f_r\}$ and $\Lambda_2=\Lambda_1\cup \{f_{r+1}\}$.
Denote the height of $I$ by $c$. Let $\{u_{ij}\mid 1\leq i\leq c,1\leq j\leq r+1\}$ be indeterminates over $R$. Set $S_1=R[u_{i,j}]_{1\leq i\leq c, 1\leq j\leq r}$ and $S_2=R[u_{i,j}]_{1\leq i\leq c, 1\leq j\leq r+1}$. For $i=1,\ldots ,c$, set $$g_i:=u_{i,1}f_1+\cdots +u_{i,r}f_{r}$$ and $$h_i:=u_{i,1}f_1+\cdots u_{i,r+1}f_{r+1}.$$ Then $J_1=((g_1,\ldots, g_c):_S IS)$ is the first generic link of $I$ with respect to $\Lambda_1$ and $J_2=((h_1,\ldots,h_c):_{S_2}IS_2)$ is the first generic link of $I$ with respect to $\Lambda_2$.
It is clear that $S_2=S_1[u_{1,r+1},\ldots, u_{c,r+1}]$. Since $f_{r+1}\in I$, we must have that $f_{r+1}=\sum_{j=1}^r a_jf_j$ for some $a_j\in R$. Let $\varphi:S_2\to S_2$ be the automorphism given by the linear change of variables $$u_{i,j}\mapsto u_{i,j}+u_{i,r+1}a_j$$ for $1\leq i\leq c$ and $1\leq j \leq r$ and $$u_{i,r+1}\mapsto u_{i,r+1}$$ for $1 \leq i \leq c$.
We claim that $\varphi(J_1S_2)=J_2$ and we reason as follows. For $i=1,\ldots, c$, we have that $$\varphi(g_i)=\sum_{j=1}^r(u_{i,j}+u_{i,r+1}a_j)f_j=\sum_{j=1}^ru_{i,j}f_j+u_{i,r+1}\sum_{j=1}^ra_jf_j=\sum_{j=1}^ru_{i,j}f_j+u_{i,r+1}f_{r+1}=h_i.$$ Now since $S_1\hookrightarrow S_2$ is a faithfully flat extension, we have that $$J_1S_2=((g_1,\ldots,g_c):_{S_1} IS_1)S_2=((g_1,\ldots,g_c)S_2:_{S_2} IS_2),$$ and hence $$\varphi(J_1S_2) =\varphi((g_1,\ldots, g_c)S_2:_{S_2} IS_2)
=(\varphi(g_1,\ldots, g_c)S_2:_{S_2} \varphi(IS_2))
=((h_1,\ldots,h_c):_{S_2} IS_2)
=J_2.$$ Let $S^{\varphi}_2$ denote the $S_1$-algebra that is the same as $S_2$ as a ring and whose $S_1$-module structure is induced by $S_1\hookrightarrow S_2\xrightarrow{\varphi}S_2$. Then we have shown that $J_1\otimes_{S_1}S^{\varphi}_2=J_2$ and hence $S_1/J_1\otimes_{S_1}S^{\varphi}_2=S_2/J_2$. It is straightforward to check that $$\tau(\omega_{S_1/J_1})\otimes_{S_1}S^{\varphi}_2=\tau(\omega_{S_1/J_1}\otimes_{S_1}S^{\varphi}_2)=\tau(\omega_{S_2/J_2}).$$ Our lemma follows immediately since $S^{\varphi}_2$ is faithfully flat over $S_1$.
The following lemma is also needed in the proof of Theorem \[theorem–parameter test submodules under generic linkage\].
\[claim finding exponents\] Let $c,r$ be positive integers such that $c = r$ or $c = r-1$. Let $\beta =(\beta_1,\dots,\beta_r)$ be an element of $\bN^r$, where $\bN$ is the set of non-negative integers. Assume $\sum_i \beta_i = c(p^e-1)$. Then there exist $c$ elements $\alpha_1,...,\alpha_c$ in $\bN^r$ such that:
1. each $\alpha_i$ has at most two nonzero entries;
2. the sum of the entries of each $\alpha_i$ is $p^e-1$;
3. $\beta_j = \sum_i \alpha_{ij}$, where $\alpha_i=(\alpha_{i1},\dots,\alpha_{ic})$.
We will induce on $r$. If $c=r=1$, then $\beta = (p^e-1)$ and we let $\alpha_1 = \beta$. If $c=1, r=2$, we have $\beta = (\beta_1, \beta_2)$ where $\beta_1 + \beta_2 = p^e-1$ and we can let $\alpha_1= (\beta_1,\beta_2)$ and again (1)-(3) hold.
If $c=r$ and $\beta_1=\cdots=\beta_c=p^e-1$, then we can set $\alpha_i$ to be the vector with $p^e-1$ at $i$-th spot and $0$ elsewhere. Otherwise, there must be a $\beta_i < p^e-1$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $\beta_r<p^e-1$.
We claim that $\beta_{j} \geq p^e-1-\beta_r$ for some $j$ between $1$ and $r-1$, and we reason as follows. If $c=r$, then there must be a $j$ such that $\beta_j > p^e-1$, and hence $\beta_{j} \geq p^e-1-\beta_r$. Now assume that $c = r-1$. Suppose $\beta_{i} < p^e-1-\beta_r$ for all $i\leq r-1$, as then we would have: $$\sum_{i=1}^r\beta_i < (r-1)(p^e-1-\beta_r)+\beta_r \leq (r-2)(p^e-1-\beta_r)+(p^e-1) \leq (r-1)(p^e-1)=c(p^e-1)$$ which contradicts the assumption that $\sum_{i=1}^r\beta_i=c(p^e-1)$. So, there is a $j$ between $1$ and $r-1$ such that $\beta_{j} \geq p^e-1-\beta_r$.
Set $\alpha_c := (0,\dots,0,p^e-1-\beta_r,0,\dots,\beta_r)$ where $p^e-1-\beta_r$ appears in the $j$-th spot. Consider $$(\beta_1,\dots,\beta_{j-1},\beta_j-(p^e-1-\beta_r),\beta_{j+1},\dots,\beta_{r-1}).$$ This is an element of $\bN^{r-1}$ such that the sum of its entries is $(c-1)(p^e-1)$. By our induction hypotheses, there are $\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_{c-1} \in \bN^{r-1}$ that satisfy (1), (2), and (3). For $1 \le i \le c-1$, setting $\alpha_i$ be $\gamma_i$ with a 0 added to the end completes the proof of our lemma.
By Remark \[remark–geometrically linked\], $J$ is a minimal prime of $(g_1,\dots,g_c)$. Hence once we identify $$\omega_{S/J}=\Hom_{S/(g_1,\dots,g_c)}(S/J, {S/(g_1,\dots,g_c)})=((g_1,\dots,g_c):J)\cdot (S/J)=I\cdot (S/J),$$ we know from Lemma \[lemma–restriction of trace\] that $$\Phi_{S/J}^e(F_*^e(-))=\Phi_{S/(g_1,\dots,g_c)}^e(F_*^e(-))|_{\omega_{S/J}}=\operatorname{Tr}_S^e(F_*^e(g_1^{p^e-1}\cdots g_c^{p^e-1}\cdot -))|_{I\cdot (S/J)}.$$ Next we notice that for every $1\leq k\leq c$, $(S/J)_{f_k}\cong R_{f_k}[u_{ij}|j\neq k]$ is regular. Hence for $N\gg0$, $f_k^N$ is a test element for $S/J$. Thus by Remark \[remark–description of parameter test submodule\], we have: $$\label{equation--formula for parameter test submodule}
\tau(\omega_{S/J})=\sum_e\Phi_{S/J}^e(F^e_*(f_k^N\cdot \omega_{S/J}))= \sum_{e\geq 0}\operatorname{Tr}_S^e(F_*^e(g_1^{p^e-1}\cdots g_c^{p^e-1}\cdot f_k^N \cdot IS))\cdot (S/J)$$ Since $f_k\in I$ and $R$ is regular, by Remark \[remark–choose test element\], for $N\gg0$ we also have: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equation--formula for test ideal of pair}
\tau(I^c)\cdot (S/J)&=&\sum_{e\geq 0}\operatorname{Tr}_R^e(F_*^e((f_1,\dots,f_r)^{c(p^e-1)}\cdot f_k^N\cdot R))\cdot (S/J)
$$ When we expand $g_1^{p^e-1}\cdots g_c^{p^e-1}$, it is easy to see from (\[equation–formula for parameter test submodule\]) that $\tau(\omega_{S/J})$ can be generated by elements of the form $$\label{equation--expression of generator of parameter test submodule}
\operatorname{Tr}_S^e\left(F_*^e\left(\binom{p^e-1}{\alpha_{11},\dots,\alpha_{1r}}\cdots\binom{p^e-1}{\alpha_{c1},\dots,\alpha_{cr}}f_1^{\beta_1}f_2^{\beta_2}\cdots f_r^{\beta_r}\prod u_{ij}^{\alpha_{ij}}\cdot f_k^N\cdot s\cdot \prod u_{ij}^{\gamma_{ij}}\right)\right)$$ where $0\leq \alpha_{ij}\leq p^e-1$, $\beta_j=\sum_{i=1}^c\alpha_{ij}$, $\sum_{j=1}^t\beta_j=c(p^e-1)$ and $s \in I$. By definition of the trace map, this is equal to $$\prod u_{ij}^{\frac{\alpha_{ij}+\gamma_{ij}-(p^e-1)}{p^e}}\cdot \operatorname{Tr}_R^e\left(F_*^e\left(\binom{p^e-1}{\alpha_{11},\dots,\alpha_{1r}}\cdots\binom{p^e-1}{\alpha_{c1},\dots,\alpha_{cr}}f_1^{\beta_1}f_2^{\beta_2}\cdots f_r^{\beta_r}\cdot f_k^N\cdot s\right)\right)$$ where $\frac{\alpha_{ij}+\gamma_{ij}-(p^e-1)}{p^e}$ denotes 0 if $\alpha_{ij}+\gamma_{ij}\not\equiv -1$ mod $p^e$. But it is clear that this element is in $\tau(I^c)\cdot S$ by expression (\[equation–formula for test ideal of pair\]). This proves (1).
Next we prove (2). By Lemma \[lem: independent of generators for test submodule\] we can assume that $\tilde{I}=(f_1,\ldots, f_{c+1})$ is a reduction of $I$ (the case that $I$ has a reduction generated by $c$ elements is similar). Hence by the arguments above, we have that, for $1\leq k \leq c$ and $N\gg 0$, $$\tau(I^c)\cdot(S/J)=\tau(\tilde{I}^c)\cdot (S/J)=\sum_{e\geq 0}\operatorname{Tr}_R^e(F_*^e((f_1,\dots,f_{c+1})^{c(p^e-1)}\cdot f_k^{N+1}\cdot R))\cdot (S/J)$$ Given a generator $f_1^{\beta_1}\cdots f_{c+1}^{\beta_{c+1}}$ of $ (f_1,\dots,f_{c+1})^{c(p^e-1)}$, we can find $\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_c\in \N^{c+1}$ satisfying the conclusion of Lemma \[claim finding exponents\]. Then $$\prod_{i,j}(u_{ij}f_j)^{\alpha_{ij}}=\prod_{i,j}u_{ij}^{\alpha_{ij}}\prod f_j^{\beta_j}$$ appears with coefficient $\binom{p^e-1}{\alpha_{1,1},\dots,\alpha_{1,c+1}}\cdots\binom{p^e-1}{\alpha_{c,1},\dots,\alpha_{c,c+1}}$ in the product $g_1^{p^e-1}\cdots g_c^{p^e-1}$. Because each multinomial coefficient $\binom{p^e-1}{\alpha_{i,1},\dots,\alpha_{i,c+1}}=\binom{p^e-1}{\alpha_{i,j_i}}$ for some $j_i$ by Lemma \[claim finding exponents\] (1)-(2), they are nonzero in $k$.
Each $\alpha_{i,j}$ is less than $p^e$, so let $$s'=\left(\prod_{\stackrel{1\leq i\leq c}{1\leq j\leq c+1}} u_{i,j}^{p^e-1-\alpha_{i,j}}\right)\left(\prod_{\stackrel{1\leq i\leq c}{c+2\leq j\leq r}} u_{i,j}^{p^e-1}\right).$$ Then $\operatorname{Tr}_S^e(F^e_*( -\cdot s'))$ sends $\prod_{i,j}u_{i,j}^{\alpha_{i,j}}$ to 1 and all other basis elements of the form $\prod_{i,j}u_{i,j}^{\gamma_{i,j}}$ to 0. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
&\operatorname{Tr}_S^e(F^e_*(g_1^{p^e-1}\cdots g_c^{p^e-1}\cdot f_k^{N+1} \cdot s' \cdot R))\\
=&\operatorname{Tr}_S^e\left(F^e_\ast\left(\binom{p^e-1}{\alpha_{1,1},\dots,\alpha_{1,c+1}}\cdots\binom{p^e-1}{\alpha_{c,1},\dots,\alpha_{c,c+1}}\cdot \prod_{\stackrel{1\leq i\leq c}{1\leq j\leq r}}u_{i,j}^{p^e-1}\prod_{j=1}^{c+1} f_j^{\beta_j} \cdot f_k^{N+1} R\right)\right)\\
=&\operatorname{Tr}_R^e\left(F^e_*\left(\prod_{j=1}^{c+1} f_j^{\beta_j} \cdot f_k^{N+1}\cdot R\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$\operatorname{Tr}_R^e\left(F^e_*\left(\prod_{j=1}^{c+1} f_j^{\beta_j} \cdot f_k^{N+1}\cdot R\right)\right)\cdot (S/J)=\operatorname{Tr}_S^e(F^e_*(g_1^{p^e-1}\cdots g_c^{p^e-1}\cdot f_k^N\cdot f_k s' R))\cdot (S/J)\subseteq \tau(\omega_{S/J})$$ for every generator $\prod_{j=1}^{c+1} f_j^{\beta_j}$ of $(f_1,\ldots, f_{c+1})^{c(p^e-1)}$, where the second inclusion follows from expression (\[equation–formula for parameter test submodule\]). Therefore we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(I^c)\cdot (S/J) &=\tau(\tilde{I}^c)\cdot (S/J)\\
&=\sum_{e\geq 0}\operatorname{Tr}_R^e(F_*^e((f_1,\dots,f_{c+1})^{c(p^e-1)}\cdot f_k^{N+1}\cdot R))\cdot (S/J)\\
&\subseteq \tau(\omega_{S/J}).\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
The proof of Theorem \[theorem–parameter test submodules under generic linkage\] (2) requires the minimal reduction be generated by at most $c+1$ elements. If not, then we are not in the case of Lemma \[claim finding exponents\] and it may be the case that there are always at least three nonzero entries in some $\alpha_i$. Consequently, multinomial coefficients must be taken into consideration.
\[corollary–criterion for F-rationality\] With the notation as in Definition \[definition–generic linkage\] and the assumptions as in Theorem \[theorem–parameter test submodules under generic linkage\] (2), $\tau(\omega_{S/J})=\omega_{S/J}$ if and only if $\tau(I^c)=I$. In particular, $S/J$ has $F$-rational singularities if and only if $S/J$ is Cohen-Macaulay and $\tau(I^c)=I$.
If $\tau(I^c)=I$, then Theorem \[theorem–parameter test submodules under generic linkage\] immediately implies $\tau(\omega_{S/J})=\omega_{S/J}$.
Conversely, assume that $\tau(I^c)\neq I$ and $\tau(\omega_{S/J})=\omega_{S/J}$. Since $\tau(I^c)$ is always contained in $I$ by (\[equation–containment of test ideal 1\]), at least one of the generators of $I$ is not in $\tau(I^c)$, say $f_1$. From Theorem \[theorem–parameter test submodules under generic linkage\], we can see that $\tau(I^c)S+J=IS+J$; hence $f_1\in \tau(I^c)S+J$. Thus, there are elements $a\in \tau(I^c)S$ and $b\in J$ such that $f_1=a+b$. (Note that $b\neq 0$.) Then we have $f_1-a\in J$ which implies that $(f_1-a)f_1\in (g_1,\dots,g_c)$. However, this is impossible because of the degrees in the $u_{ij}$. This is a contradiction.
The last assertion is clear because $S/J$ is $F$-rational if and only if $S/J$ is Cohen-Macaulay and $\tau(\omega_{S/J})=\omega_{S/J}$.
With the notation as in Definition \[definition–generic linkage\] and the assumptions as in Theorem \[theorem–parameter test submodules under generic linkage\] (2), if the pair $(R, I^c)$ is $F$-pure and $R/I$ is Cohen-Macaulay, then $S/J$ is $F$-rational. In particular, if $R/I$ is an $F$-pure complete intersection, then $S/J$ is $F$-rational.
By Lemma \[lemma–Ein’s lemma in char p\], $(R, I^c)$ is $F$-pure implies $\tau(I^c)=I$. The first statement thus follows from Corollary \[corollary–criterion for F-rationality\]. Finally, it is well known that when $R/I$ is an $F$-pure complete intersection, the pair $(R, I^c)$ is $F$-pure. This follows from a Fedder type criterion ([@TakagiFsingularitiesofpairsandinversionofadjunction Lemma 3.9] and others).
We can recover [@NiuSingularitiesofgenericlinkage Corollary 3.4] in the complete intersection and almost complete intersection cases.
Let $I=(f_1,\dots,f_r)$ be an ideal of $\bC[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ and let $c$ be the codimension of $I$. Let $S$ and $J$ be in Definition \[definition–generic linkage\]. Assume that $r\leq c+1$. Then $S/J$ has rational singularities if and only if $S/J$ is Cohen-Macaulay and $\scr{I}(I^c)=I$, where $\scr{I}(I^c)$ is the multiplier ideal of $I^c$.
By [@SmithFRatImpliesRat] and [@HaraRatImpliesFRat], $S/J$ has rational singularities if and only if its reduction $(S/J)_p$ is $F$-rational for all $p\gg 0$. It is easy to see that, for $p\gg 0$, the reduction $J_p$ of $J$ is a generic link of the reduction $I_p$ of $I$. Hence, $S/J$ has rational singularities if and only if $(S/J)_p$ is Cohen-Macaulay and $\tau(I^c_p)=I_p$ for $p\gg 0$ by Corollary \[corollary–criterion for F-rationality\]. On the other hand, it was proved in [@HaraYoshidaGeneralizedTestIdeals] that $\scr{I}(I^c)_p=\tau(I^c_p)$ for all $p\gg 0$. Therefore, we have $S/J$ has rational singularities if and only if $(S/J)_p$ is Cohen-Macaulay and $\scr{I}(I^c)_p=I_p$ for $p\gg 0$. This completes the proof.
Behavior of $F$-pure threshold under generic linkage {#section: FPT under linkage}
====================================================
In this section we investigate behaviors of $F$-pure thresholds under generic linkages. We begin with an easy lemma.
\[lem: independent of generators for FPT\] Let $R=k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ be a polynomial ring over a perfect field of characteristic $p$ and $I$ be an unmixed ideal of $R$. Let $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$ be 2 sets of generators of $I$ and let $(S_i,J_i)$ be the generic link with respect to $\Lambda_i$ (i=1,2). Then $$\operatorname{fpt}_{S_1}(J_1)=\operatorname{fpt}_{S_2}(J_2).$$
As in the proof of Lemma \[lem: independent of generators for test submodule\], we can assume that $\Lambda_1=\{f_1,\dots,f_r\}$ and $\Lambda_2=\{f_1,\dots,f_r,f_{r+1}\}$. Let $\varphi$ and $S^{\varphi}_2$ be the same as in the proof of Lemma \[lem: independent of generators for test submodule\]. It is straightforward to check that $$\tau(J^t_1)\otimes_{S_1}S^{\varphi}_2=\tau(J^t_2)$$ for each nonnegative real number $t$. Our lemma follows immediately.
\[remark: index of perfect fields\] Let $k\subseteq K$ be an extension of perfect fields and let $R=k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ and $T=K[x_1,\dots,x_n]$. Since $\Hom_{R}(R^{1/p^e},R)$ and $\Hom_{T}(T^{1/p^e},T)$ are generated by the same projection, we have $\tau_R(I^t)=\tau_{T}((IT)^t)$ ([*c.f.*]{} [@BlickleMustataSmithDiscretenessRationalityF-Thresholds Remark 2.18]).
\[theorem: FPT lower bound on g’s\] Let $R=k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ be a polynomial ring over a perfect field of characteristic $p$ and $I$ be an unmixed ideal of height $c$ in $R$. Assume that $I=(f_1,\ldots,f_s)$ and that $I$ has a reduction $\tilde{I}$ generated by $r$ elements. Let $S=R[u_{i,j}]_{1 \le i \le c, 1 \le j \le s}$ be a polynomial ring over $R$. For $1 \le i \le c$, let $$g_i=u_{i,1}f_1+u_{i,2}f_2+\ldots+u_{i,s}f_s.$$ Then $\operatorname{fpt}_S(g_1,\ldots, g_c)\geq \frac{c}{r}\operatorname{fpt}_{R}(I)$.
By Lemma \[lem: independent of generators for FPT\], we can add the generators of $\tilde{I}$ to those of $I$ and then assume that $\tilde{I}=(f_1,\ldots,f_r)$. Since $\tilde{I}$ is a reduction of $I$, it follows from [@TakagiWatanabeFpurethresholds Proposition 2.2(6)] that $\operatorname{fpt}_R(I)=\operatorname{fpt}_R(\tilde{I})$. Hence it suffices to show that $\tau_R(\tilde{I}^t)=R$ implies $\tau_S((g_1,\ldots, g_c)^{\frac{ct}{r}})=S$ for a positive real number $t$. To this end, assume that $\tau_R(\tilde{I}^t)=R$. By Remark \[remark: index of perfect fields\], we may assume that $k$ is algebraically closed.
We wish to show that $\tau_S((g_1,\ldots, g_c)^{\frac{ct}{r}})=S$. Suppose otherwise and we seek a contradiction. There is a maximal ideal ${\mathfrak{m}}$ of $S$ such that $\tau_S((g_1,\ldots, g_c)^{\frac{ct}{r}})\subseteq {\mathfrak{m}}$. Since $k$ is algebraically closed, we can write ${\mathfrak{m}}=(x_1-a_1,\ldots,x_n-a_n,u_{11}-b_{11},\ldots,u_{cr}-b_{cr})$ for some $a_i,b_{ij}\in k$. Set ${\mathfrak{n}}=(x_1-a_1,\ldots,x_n-a_n)$. Since $\tau_R(\tilde{I}^t)=R$, there exist an integer $e$, an $R$-linear map $\phi\in \Hom_R(R^{1/p^e},R)$, and nonnegative integers $a_1,\ldots,a_r$ with $\sum_ia_i=\lceil tp^e \rceil$ such that $\phi(f^{a_1/p^e}_1\cdots f^{a_r/p^e}_r)\notin {\mathfrak{n}}$.
Without loss of generality, we may assume that $a_1\geq a_2\geq \cdots \geq a_r$. Consequently, $$a_1+\cdots +a_c\geq \left\lceil{\frac{c}{r}(a_1+\cdots +a_r)}\right\rceil=\left\lceil\frac{c}{r}\lceil tp^e\rceil\right\rceil\geq \left\lceil\frac{c}{r}tp^e\right\rceil$$
Let $\phi_{\underline{a}}=\phi(f^{a_{c+1}/p^e}_{c+1}\cdots f^{a_r/p^e}_r\cdot -)$, [*i.e.*]{} pre-multiplication by $f^{a_{c+1}/p^e}_{c+1}\cdots f^{a_r/p^e}_r$ followed by the application of $\phi$. It is clear that $\phi_{\underline{a}}:R^{1/p^e}\to R$ is an $R$-linear map and that $\phi_{\underline{a}}(f^{a_1/p^e}_1\cdots f^{a_c/p^e}_c)\notin {\mathfrak{n}}$. We can extend $\phi_{\underline{a}}$ to an $S$-linear map $\psi_{\underline{a}}:R^{1/p^e}[u_{ij}]\to S=R[u_{ij}]$ that sends each $u_{ij}$ to itself and restricts to $\phi_{\underline{a}}$ on $R^{1/p^e}$.
It is clear that $S^{1/p^e}=R^{1/p^e}[u^{1/p^e}_{ij}]$ is a free $R^{1/p^e}[u_{ij}]$-module with a basis $\{\prod_{0\leq b_{ij}\leq p^e-1}u^{b_{ij}/p^e}_{ij}\}$. Let $\pi_{\underline{a}}:R^{1/p^e}[u^{1/p^e}_{ij}]\to R^{1/p^e}[u_{ij}]$ be the projection that sends $u^{a_1/p^e}_{11}\cdots u^{a_c/p^e}_{cc}$ to 1 and all other basis element to 0.
Let $\theta_{\underline{a}}$ be the composition of $S^{1/p^e}\xrightarrow{\pi_{\underline{a}}}R^{1/p^e}[u_{ij}]\xrightarrow{\psi_{z_{\underline{a}}}} S$. It is clear that $\theta_{\underline{a}}$ is $S$-linear. By the construction of $\pi_{\underline{a}}$, it is straightforward to check that $$\theta_{\underline{a}}(g^{a_1/p^e}_1\cdots g^{a_c/p^e}_c)=\theta_{\underline{a}}((u_{11}f_1)^{a_1/p^e}\cdots (u_{cc}f_c)^{a_c/p^e})=\phi(f^{a_1/p^e}_1\cdots f^{a_r/p^e}_r).$$
Since $\phi(f^{a_1/p^e}_1\cdots f^{a_r/p^e}_r)$ in $R$ but not in ${\mathfrak{n}}=(x_1-a_1,\ldots,x_n-a_n)$, we must have $$\phi(f^{a_1/p^e}_1\cdots f^{a_r/p^e}_r)\notin {\mathfrak{m}}=(x_1-a_1,\ldots,x_n-a_n,u_{11}-b_{11},\ldots,u_{cr}-b_{cr}),$$ a contradiction to the assumption that $\tau_S((g_1,\ldots, g_c)^{\frac{ct}{r}})\subseteq {\mathfrak{m}}$ (note that $g^{a_1}_1\cdots g^{a_c}_c\in (g_1,\ldots, g_c)^{\lceil \frac{ct}{r} p^e\rceil}$).
We have some immediate corollaries.
\[corollary – generic link lower bound\] Let $R=k[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ be a polynomial ring over a perfect field of characteristic $p$ and $I$ be an unmixed ideal of height $c$ in $R$. Let $J$ be a generic link of $I$ in $S=R[u_{ij}]$. The following hold:
1. If $I$ has a reduction generated by $r$ elements, then $\operatorname{fpt}_{S}(J)\geq \frac{c}{r}\operatorname{fpt}_{R}(I)$.
2. If $I$ has a reduction generated by $c$ elements, in particular if $I$ is a complete intersection, then $\operatorname{fpt}_{S}(J)\geq \operatorname{fpt}_R(I)$.
3. $\operatorname{fpt}_{S}(J)\geq \frac{c}{n}\operatorname{fpt}_{R}(I)$ (note $n=\dim(R)$).
To prove (1), note that since $(g_1,\dots,g_c)\subseteq J$, we have $\operatorname{fpt}_S(J)\geq \operatorname{fpt}_S(g_1,\dots,g_c)$. Theorem \[theorem: FPT lower bound on g’s\] then completes the proof.
\(2) is an immediate consequence of (1).
\(3) By Remark \[remark: index of perfect fields\], passing to the algebraic closure of $k$ doesn’t affect $\operatorname{fpt}_R(I)$ and $\operatorname{fpt}_S(J)$. Hence we can assume that $k$ is algebraically closed and hence is infinite. [@LyubeznikReductionidealsinPolynomialRings Theorem] asserts that each ideal $I$ admits a reduction generated by $n$ elements. We are done by (1).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using Majorana fermions and elementary mesons we find new massless quantum field theories with weakly interacting ultraviolet fixed points. We also find new classes of large $N$ equivalences amongst $SU$, $SO$ and $Sp$ gauge theories with different types of matter fields and Yukawa interactions. Results include a triality of asymptotically safe theories and dualities between asymptotically free matter-gauge theories with identical fixed points, phase diagrams, and scaling exponents. Implications for conformal field theory and orbifold reductions are indicated.'
author:
- 'Andrew D. Bond'
- 'Daniel F. Litim'
- Tom Steudtner
bibliography:
- 'PriceASbib.bib'
title: Asymptotic safety with Majorana fermions and new large $N$ equivalences
---
**Introduction**
================
Equivalences or dualities between seemingly different theories can provide valuable insights into the dynamics of quantum fields at weak and strong coupling. Well-known examples include equivalences between $SU$, $SO$, and $Sp$ gauge theories in the limit where the rank of the gauge group is large [@Lovelace:1982hz], electric-magnetic duality in supersymmetric theories [@Seiberg:1994pq], the seminal AdS/CFT conjecture [@Maldacena:1997re], or equivalences between theories related by orbifold/orientifold projections [@Kachru:1998ys; @Bershadsky:1998cb; @Schmaltz:1998bg; @Erlich:1998gb; @Strassler:2001fs; @Armoni:2003gp] where parent and child theories achieve coinciding perturbative expansions in the planar limit, and, under some conditions, non-perturbative equivalence [@Kovtun:2004bz; @Dunne:2016nmc]. Large $N$ equivalences have also seen many applications in QCD-like theories including on the lattice [@Kovtun:2007py; @Hanada:2011ju; @Lucini:2012gg].
On a different tack, the discovery of interacting ultraviolet fixed points in QCD-like theories, first conjectured in [@Bailin:1974bq], has sparked a lot of interest [@Litim:2014uca; @Litim:2015iea; @Bond:2016dvk; @Codello:2016muj; @Bond:2017wut; @Bond:2017sem; @Buyukbese:2017ehm; @Bond:2017tbw; @Bond:2017lnq; @Bond:2017suy; @Kowalska:2017fzw; @Bond:2018oco; @Barducci:2018ysr; @Hiller:2019tvg; @Hiller:2019mou]. It has led to a general classification of $4d$ quantum field theories including necessary and sufficient conditions and strict no-go theorems for weakly interacting fixed points [@Bond:2016dvk; @Bond:2018oco]. In the large $N$ limit, proofs for asymptotic safety with Dirac fermions are available with [@Bond:2017suy] and without supersymmetry [@Litim:2014uca; @Bond:2017tbw; @Buyukbese:2017ehm; @Bond:2017lnq]. Key ingredients are Yukawa interactions which can stabilise non-free gauge couplings [@Bond:2016dvk]. At finite $N$, these ideas are used to UV complete the Standard Model [@Bond:2017wut; @Kowalska:2017fzw; @Barducci:2018ysr] and to study aspects of flavour and vacuum stability [@Hiller:2019tvg; @Hiller:2019mou].
In this paper, we explain how asymptotic safety materialises in theories with Majorana fermions and elementary mesons, and how this compares to settings with Dirac fermions. With the help of perturbation theory, the renormalisation group (RG), negative dimensionality theorems, and ideas from string theory, we also put forward new classes of large $N$ equivalences amongst gauge-Yukawa theories with different gauge or global symmetries, and different types of matter fields. Results include a triality of asymptotically safe theories with $SU$, $SO$ or $Sp$ gauge groups with identical phase diagrams and scaling exponents at ultraviolet critical points, and dualities between asymptotically free gauge-matter theories with identical infrared critical points, and more.
----------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
**Invariant & $\bm{SU(N)}$ & $\bm{SO(N)}$ & $\bm{Sp(N)}$\
$d_R$ & $N$ & $N$ & $N$\
$C_2^R$ & $\frac12(N - 1/N)$ & $\frac14(N-1)$ & $\frac14(N+1)$\
$d_G$ & $N^2 -1$ & $\frac12 N (N - 1)$ & $\frac12 N (N + 1)$\
$C_2^G$ & $N$ & $\frac12({N-2})$ & $\frac12({N+2})$\
**
----------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
: Dimensions and quadratic Casimirs of fundamental and adjoint representations with Dynkin index $S_2^R=\s012$.[]{data-label="tab:reps"}
-- ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ \bm{\alpha_g^*}\ $ $\ \bm{\alpha_y^*}\ $ $\bm{\alpha_u^*}$ $\bm{\alpha_v^*}$ ${}\ \ $ $\ \bm{\vartheta_1}\ $ $\ \bm{\vartheta_2}\ $ $\ \bm{\vartheta_3}\ $ $\ \bm{\vartheta_4}\ $ ** Type \
** FP${}_{\bm 1}\ \ $& $-\s0{8}{75}\eps$&0&0&0 & &$\ \ \0{16}{225}\, \eps^2$ &$\ \ \0{8}{25}\, \eps$ &$0$ &$0$ & **IR\
**FP${}_{\bm 2}$ &$\ \ \ \ \s0{52}{57}\eps\ \ $ &$\ \ \s08{19}\eps\ \ $ &$\ \ \s0{2\left(\sqrt{23}-1\right)}{19}\,\eps\ \ $ &$a_{{}_{\rm UV}}\,\eps$ & &$\ \ -\0{104}{171}\,\eps^2\ \ $ &$\ \ \0{52}{19}\, \eps $ &$\ \ \0{8}{19} \sqrt{20 + 6 \sqrt{23}}\,\eps$ &$\ \ \ \ \0{16}{19}\sqrt{23}\,\eps\ \ $ &**UV\
**FP${}_{\bm 3}$ &$-\s0{10}{3}\eps$ &$\ \ -\s0{4}{3}\eps\ \ $ &$\0{1-2\sqrt{3}}{3}\,\eps$ &$a_{{}{\rm IR}}\,\eps$ & &$\ \ \0{20}{9}\,\eps^2$ &$ -10\, \eps$ &$-8 \left(1 + \s043 \sqrt{3}\right)^{1/2}\,\eps$ &$-\0{32}{\sqrt{3}}\,\eps$ &**IR\
**************
-- ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-.5cm
-.3cm
**Majorana fermions**
=====================
We consider non-abelian gauge theories coupled to Majorana fermions $\Psi_i$ and singlet complex scalar fields $H_{ij}$. Majorana fermions are their own charge conjugates $\Psi^c = \Psi$ whose left- and right-handed chiral components $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\psi,\,\psi^c\right)^\intercal \label{majorana}\end{aligned}$$ relate to the same Weyl field $\psi$ with charge conjugation $\psi^c = \varepsilon \psi^*$ and $\varepsilon=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \phantom{+}0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$. Real representations ensure that both Weyl components undergo identical gauge transformations, whose generators are purely imaginary and antisymmetric $t^a = - \left(t^a\right)^\intercal = - \left(t^a\right)^*$. For theories with chiral Yukawa interactions the requirement for real representations can be weakened to include pseudo-real ones which are real up to a transformation $\left(t^a\right)^\intercal = - M\,t^a M^{-1}$. In either case chiral gauge anomalies cancel due to the vanishing of $$\label{eq:no-anomaly}
d^{abc} \equiv \tfrac12 \Tr\left[t^a\left\{t^b,\,t^c\right\}\right] = 0\,.$$ To ensure strict perturbative control, we use a suitable large $N$ limit [@Veneziano:1979ec] which necessitates the Majorana fermions to be in the fundamental representation. The latter implies that unitary or any of the exceptional gauge groups are excluded, which leaves us with orthogonal or symplectic gauge groups.
[**Orthogonal gauge symmetry $\bm{SO(N)}$.**]{} We begin with a theory of ${N_f}$ Majorana fermions in the fundamental representation of an $SO(N)$ gauge theory, interacting with gauge-singlet complex scalar fields $H$. The theory has a global $SU\left({N_f}\right)$ flavour symmetry with the Weyl components transforming in the fundamental and the scalars in the two-index symmetric representation $H_{ij} = H_{(ij)}$. The Lagrangian reads \[LM\]
[rcl]{} L&=&-14 F\^a\_F\^[a]{}\
&& +([\^]{} i\^D\_ )+ ( \_H\^\^H )\
&& -012 y (\^h H + [\^]{} h H\^\^\*)\
&& -u(H \^H )\^2 -v(H \^H )\^2
where $F^a_{\mu\nu}$ denotes the non-abelian field strength, the trace sums over gauge and flavour indices, and gauge-contractions of fermion bilinears $ \left(\chi\,\xi\right) = \chi_\alpha h^{\alpha\beta} \xi_\beta$ are symmetric with $h^{\alpha\beta} = h^{\beta \alpha}$ and $h^{\alpha\beta}h_{\beta\gamma} = \delta^\alpha_{\phantom{\alpha} \gamma}$. The four canonically marginal couplings $\{g,y,u,v\}$ of the perturbatively renormalisable theory are the gauge, Yukawa, single, and double trace quartic, respectively.
Next, we investigate the renormalisation group equations for the running couplings [@Machacek:1983tz; @Machacek:1983fi; @Machacek:1984zw; @Luo:2002ti] and search for perturbative fixed points of the theory [@Bond:2016dvk]. Perturbative control is achieved using a Veneziano limit [@Veneziano:1979ec] where the dimension of the fundamental representation $d_R$ and the number of fermion flavours ${N_f}$ are send to infinity while their ratio is kept fixed (see Tab. \[tab:reps\] for our conventions of group-theoretical parameters). The parameter \[eps\] =- becomes continuous and may take any value within the range $-\s0{11}{2}<\eps<\infty$. For $\eps<0$, the theory is asymptotically free, while asymptotic freedom is absent for $\eps>0$. Following ’t Hooft [@tHooft:1973alw], we introduce rescaled couplings suitable for a planar or large $N$ limit $$\label{thooft}
\alpha_x =
\frac{d_R \, x^2}{(4 \pi)^2}, \qquad
\alpha_u =
\frac{{N_f}\,u}{(4 \pi)^2}, \qquad
\alpha_v = \frac{{N_f}^2 \,v}{(4 \pi)^2}\,,$$ where $ x=g$ or $y$, and beta functions $\beta_i\equiv d\alpha_i/d\ln \mu$. To the leading non-trivial orders in perturbation theory which is two loop in the gauge and one loop in the Yukawa and quartic beta functions, we find $$\begin{array}{lcl}\label{rges:NcSO}
\beta_g&=& \alpha_g^2\left[\frac{2}{3} \eps\, + \left(\frac{25}{4} + \frac{13}{6}\eps\right)\alpha_g - \frac12 \left(\frac{11}{2} + \eps\right)^2 \alpha_y \right]\,,\\
\beta_y &=& \alpha_y\left[\left(\frac{13}{2} + \eps \right)\alpha_y - 3 \alpha_g\right]\,,\\
\beta_u&=& 4 \alpha_u^2 + 2 \alpha_y \alpha_u - \left(\frac{11}{2} + \eps\right) \alpha_y^2\,,\\
\beta_v&=& 2 \alpha_v^2 + 8 \alpha_u \alpha_v + 6 \alpha_u^2 + 2 \alpha_y \alpha_v \,.
\end{array}$$ In any $4d$ quantum field theory, the weakly coupled fixed point solutions to $\beta_i=0$ are either of the Banks-Zaks or of the gauge-Yukawa type [@Bond:2016dvk; @Bond:2018oco]. For small $\eps$ they arise as a strict power series in $\eps$ where subleading terms up to order $\eps^n$ are obtained from the loop order $(n+1,n,n)$ in the gauge, Yukawa, and quartic beta functions [@Bond:2017lnq; @Bond:2017tbw]. Also, any weakly coupled fixed point corresponds to a (unitary) conformal field theory [@Luty:2012ww].
![Phase diagram with asymptotic safety ($\eps = 0.01$), projected onto the $(\alpha_g.\alpha_y)$ plane. Arrows point from the UV to the IR. Asymptotically safe trajectories emanate from the gauge-Yukawa fixed point 2 and run along a separatrix towards either a weakly or a strongly coupled IR regime. []{data-label="fig:AS-phase"}](pAS_new.pdf){width=".8\columnwidth"}
Our results are summarised in Tab. \[FPs\]. In the regime with asymptotic freedom the theory with displays a Banks-Zaks fixed point 1. Infrared gauge-Yukawa fixed points are absent. In the regime where asymptotic freedom is lost, the gauge-Yukawa fixed point 2 arises with $(\alpha_g^*,\alpha_y^*,\alpha_u^*,\alpha_u^*+\alpha_v^*) \approx (0.91,0.42,0.40,0.13)\,\eps$ and a stable quantum vacuum [@Gildener:1975cj; @Litim:2015iea] $$\label{majorana-stab}
\alpha^*_u \ge 0\,, \quad \alpha^*_u + \alpha^*_v \ge 0\,.$$ A secondary fixed point in the scalar sector does not lead to a stable vacuum and has been discarded. The universal exponents $\vartheta_1<0<\vartheta_{2,3,4}$ establish that the fixed point is UV and the scaling power-law rather than logarithmic, and that the UV critical surface is one-dimensional corresponding to a single relevant coupling.
The phase diagram with RG trajectories in the $(\alpha_g,\alpha_y)$-plane is displayed in Fig. \[fig:AS-phase\]. Switching on mass terms for the vector-like fermions or the scalars adds additional relevant directions (not shown), because perturbatively small anomalous dimensions cannot turn these into irrelevant operators. By the same token, higher dimensional interactions remain strictly irrelevant [@Buyukbese:2017ehm].
The separatrix which connects the UV fixed point with the free IR fixed point is shown in Fig. \[fig:running\]. The scale $\mu_c=\Lambda \exp t_c$ with $\Lambda$ the high scale and $\alpha_g(t_c) = \tfrac23 \alpha_g^*$ [@Litim:2015iea] characterises the cross-over between the two fixed points and is the analogue of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ in QCD. A second separatrix exists towards a regime with strong coupling and confinement in the IR (not shown).
Finally, we note that all previously known quantum field theories in four dimensions with exact asymptotic safety involve unitary gauge symmetry and Dirac fermions [@Litim:2014uca; @Bond:2017tbw; @Bond:2017suy; @Bond:2017lnq]. In this light, the theory with offers the first proof of existence for asymptotic safety in gauge theories with $SO(N)$ gauge symmetry, and in theories with Majorana fermions.
![Cross-over of running couplings from asymptotic safety to infrared freedom in units of $\alpha_g^*$ with $ \mu_c=\Lambda\exp t_c$. []{data-label="fig:running"}](runCweak.pdf){width=".8\columnwidth"}
[**Symplectic gauge symmetry $\bm{Sp(N)}$.**]{} Next, we turn to a theory of ${N_f}$ Majorana fermions in the fundamental representation of an $Sp(N)$ gauge theory interacting with gauge-singlet complex scalar fields $H$. In our conventions $N$ is an even integer, and $Sp(2)\simeq SO(3) \simeq SU(2)$. The theory has a global $SU\left({N_f}\right)$ flavour symmetry with Weyl components transforming in the fundamental and $H$ in the two-index antisymmetric representation $H_{ij} = H_{[ij]}$. To avoid a Witten anomaly [@Witten:1982fp] ${N_f}$ has to be an even integer as well. The perturbatively renormalisable Lagrangian of the theory takes the form \[LM2\]
[rcl]{} L&=&-14 F\^a\_F\^[a]{}\
&& +([\^]{} i\^D\_ )+ ( \_H\^\^H )\
&& -012 y (\^f H + [\^]{}f H\^\^\*)\
&& -u(H \^H )\^2 -v(H \^H )\^2
where we recall that gauge-contractions of fermion bilinears $ \left(\chi\,\xi\right) = \chi_\alpha f^{\alpha\beta} \xi_\beta$ are antisymmetric with $f^{\alpha\beta} = - f^{\beta \alpha}$ and $f^{\alpha\beta}f_{\beta\gamma} = - \delta^\alpha_{\phantom{\alpha} \gamma}$.
A Veneziano limit is established using and rescaled couplings . Introducing the parameter $\eps$ as in , we find the RG beta functions for all couplings to the leading non-trivial order in perturbation theory. Denoting the ‘t Hooft couplings for the theories and as $\alpha_{i}^{SO}$ and $\alpha_{i}^{Sp}$ respectively, we find the remarkable result that the RG beta functions for the theory agree exactly with those of the theory , after the identification of couplings \[id\]\_[i]{}\^[SO]{} = \_[i]{}\^[Sp]{}. Consequently the fixed points and scaling exponents (1 and 2 in Tab. \[FPs\]), and the RG trajectories and phase diagrams (Figs. \[fig:AS-phase\] and \[fig:running\]) of the theories and are [*identical*]{} in the Veneziano limit. However, we also note that the equivalence is mildly violated beyond the Veneziano limit at large yet finite $N$ and ${N_f}$ due to subleading corrections of order $1/N$ and $1/{N_f}$ which arise with the same magnitude but opposite sign.
Finally, we emphasise that the theory yields the first rigorous example for asymptotic safety in a symplectic gauge theory coupled to matter. The result thus establishes that asymptotic safety can be achieved in $4d$ quantum field theories with any of the non-exceptional gauge groups, and for sufficiently large $N$.
**Dirac fermions**
==================
Next, we consider theories of ${N_f}$ Dirac fermions $\Psi_i$ interacting with non-abelian gauge fields and gauge-singlet complex scalar fields $H_{ij}$. The theories have a global $SU({N_f})\times SU({N_f})$ flavour symmetry with the elementary scalars $H$ transforming in the bifundamental. The perturbatively renormalisable Lagrangian is given by \[LD\]
[rcl]{} L&=&-14 F\^a\_F\_a\^\
&& +( i )+ ( \_H\^\^H )\
&& -y (\_L H \_R + \_R H\^\_L)\
&& -u(H \^H )\^2 -v(H \^H )\^2
where $F^a_{\mu\nu}$ denotes the non-abelian field strength, the trace sums over all indices and the decomposition $\Psi=\Psi_L+\Psi_R$ with $\Psi_{L/R}=\frac 12(1\pm \gamma_5)\Psi$ is understood. Due to the fermions being vector-like, gauge-anomalies cancel by design and no restriction on their representations apply. In addition to the gauge coupling $g$ and the Yukawa coupling $y$, we observe two independent quartic self interactions $u$ and $v$, which provides us with a set of four canonically marginal couplings $\{g,y,u,v\}$. In the following, we consider the Dirac fermions in the fundamental gauge representation of $SU(N)$, $SO(2N)$ and $Sp(2N)$. We also establish a Veneziano limit using the parameter and adopt the same set of ‘t Hooft couplings as in the cases with Majorana fermions.
[**Unitary gauge symmetry $\bm{SU(N)}$.**]{} For unitary gauge groups, the theory has been studied in a number of works [@Terao:2007jm; @Kaplan:2009kr; @Litim:2014uca; @Litim:2015iea; @Bond:2017tbw]. In the regime with asymptotic freedom, it can display a Banks-Zaks fixed point. Once asymptotic freedom is lost, it develops a weakly interacting asymptotically safe UV fixed point [@Litim:2014uca] with a stable quantum vacuum [@Litim:2015iea]. The corresponding UV conformal window has been determined up to the complete next-to-next-to-leading order in perturbation theory which is three loop in the gauge and two loop in the Yukawa and quartic couplings [@Bond:2017tbw].
The main observation here is that the theory with $SU$ gauge symmetry and Dirac fermions is intimately related to the theories with $SO$ and to with $Sp$ gauge symmetry and Majoranas. Introducing the parameter $\eps$ as in and denoting the couplings for the theory with unitary gauge symmetry as $\alpha_{i}^{SU}$, we find that beta functions in the Veneziano limit are [*identical*]{} to those of the theories and , given by , provided we rescale the ‘t Hooft couplings by a factor of two, $$\label{super-universality}
\alpha_{i}^{SO}= \alpha_{i}^{Sp}=2\,\alpha_{i}^{SU}\,.$$ Consequently fixed points are either of the Banks-Zaks (1) or the gauge-Yukawa-type (2) and take the values given in Tab. \[FPs\] after rescaling. Phase diagrams and RG trajectories in these theories are also identical up to , and given by Figs. \[fig:AS-phase\] and \[fig:running\]. Most notably, universal scaling exponents, which are insensitive to the normalisation of couplings, are identical between the two theories, and take the values given in Tab. \[FPs\].
[**$\bm{SO(2N)}$ gauge symmetry.**]{} Next, we consider settings with ${N_f}$ Dirac fermions in the fundamental representation of $SO(2N)$ gauge symmetry, again coupled to scalars in the bifundamental two-index representation of the global $SU({N_f})\times SU({N_f})$ flavour symmetry, and with action . Notice that since Dirac fermions have twice as many degrees of freedom as Majorana fermions, and to ensure that the definition for the small parameter $\eps$ remains unchanged, the dimension of the gauge group has been taken twice as large as in the case with $SU$ gauge symmetry. Then, to the leading order in perturbation theory and in the Veneziano limit, we find $$\begin{array}{lcl}\label{rges:DcSO}
\beta_g&=& \alpha_g^2\left[\frac{2}{3} \eps\, + \left(\frac{25}{4} + \frac{13}{6}\eps\right)\alpha_g - \frac12 \left(\frac{11}{2} + \eps\right)^2 \alpha_y \right]\,,\\
\beta_y &=& \alpha_y\left[\left(\frac{15}{2} + \eps \right)\alpha_y - 3 \alpha_g\right]\,,\\
\beta_u&=& 8 \alpha_u^2 + 4 \alpha_y \alpha_u - \left(\frac{11}{2} + \eps\right) \alpha_y^2\,,\\
\beta_v&=& 4 \alpha_v^2 + 16 \alpha_u \alpha_v + 12 \alpha_u^2 + 4 \alpha_y \alpha_v
\end{array}$$ for models with orthogonal gauge symmetry.
In stark contrast to the previous examples, no interacting UV fixed points are found as soon as asymptotic freedom is absent [@Bond:2016dvk]. However, the beta functions admit interacting fixed points provided the theory is asymptotically free ($\eps<0)$. These are either of the Banks-Zaks (1) or of the gauge-Yukawa-type (3), with fixed point coordinates and scaling exponents summarised in Tab. \[FPs\]. The gauge-Yukawa fixed point 3 at $(\alpha_g^*,\alpha_y^*,\alpha_u^*,\alpha_u^*+\alpha_v^*) \approx -(3.33, 1.33, 1.23, 0.58)\,\eps$ also displays a stable quantum vacuum .
The universal exponents $0<\vartheta_{1,2,3,4}$ establish that the fixed point 3 is fully attractive in all canonically marginal couplings thus corresponding to an IR sink [@Bond:2017wut], and that the scaling is power-law rather than logarithmic. The phase diagram in regimes with asymptotic freedom is shown in Fig. \[fig:noAS-phase\]. We notice that the Banks-Zaks fixed point is parametrically small compared to the gauge-Yukawa fixed point (see the inset in Fig. \[fig:noAS-phase\]). It implies that the UV critical surface at the Gaussian fixed point, which is two-dimensional, [*effectively*]{} becomes one-dimensional, given by the separatrix connecting the Gaussian and the GY fixed point.
[**$\bm{Sp(2N)}$ gauge symmetry.**]{} Finally, we turn to the models with ${N_f}$ Dirac fermions in the fundamental of $Sp(2N)$ gauge symmetry, coupled to scalars in the bifundamental two-index representation of the global $SU({N_f})\times SU({N_f})$ flavour symmetry. Using , introducing couplings as in , and following the same steps as before, we find once more that the beta functions in the Veneziano limit come out [*identical*]{} to those found in after a straight identification of couplings . It follows that the running of couplings, the phase diagrams, and the conformal critical points of theories are identical, irrespective of whether we impose an orthogonal or symplectic gauge symmetry.
![Phase diagram with asymptotic freedom ($\eps =-0.01$) projected onto the $(\alpha_g,\alpha_y)$ plane. Arrows point from the UV to the IR. Dots show the Gaussian (G), the Banks-Zaks (BZ), and the infrared gauge-Yukawa (GY) fixed points. The inset highlights the two-dimensionality of the UV critical surface (red shaded area) which becomes effectively one-dimensional in the cross-over to the IR.[]{data-label="fig:noAS-phase"}](pIRGYinset.pdf "fig:"){width=".75\columnwidth"} -.3cm
**Large $N$ equivalences**
==========================
In this section, we investigate the kinematical equivalences detected in the previous sections from the point of view of weak-coupling dualities and orbifold projections, and discuss implications for asymptotic safety.
[**Negative dimensionality theorems.**]{} Some of our results can be understood with the help of so-called negative dimensionality theorems [@King:1971rs; @Mkrtchian:1981bb; @Cvitanovic:1982bq; @Cvitanovic:2008zz; @Mkrtchyan:2010tt]. They state that for any $SO(L)$ invariant scalar there exists a corresponding $Sp(L)$ invariant scalar, and vice versa, obtained by exchanging symmetrisations and antisymmetrisations, replacing the $SO(L)$ symmetric bilinear invariant $h_{\alpha\beta}$ by the $Sp(L)$ antisymmetric bilinear invariant $f_{\alpha\beta}$, and replacing $L$ by $-L$. Similarly, for any $SU(M)$ invariant scalar exchanging symmetrisations and antisymmetrisations is equivalent to replacing $M$ by $-M$. Schematically, we write the theorems as $$\label{SoSp}
SO\left(L\right) = \overline{Sp}\left(-L\right), \qquad SU\left(M\right) = \overline{SU}\left(-M\right)\,,$$ where overlines indicate the transposition of Young tableaux for all representations, corresponding precisely to the interchange of symmetrisation and antisymmetrisation [@King:1971rs; @Mkrtchian:1981bb; @Cvitanovic:1982bq; @Cvitanovic:2008zz; @Mkrtchyan:2010tt].
![ Triality of asymptotic safety, and large $N$ equivalences amongst matter-gauge theories with global $SU(2{N_f})$ flavour symmetry and Majorana fermions (top), and a theory with a global $SU({N_f})\times SU({N_f})$ flavour symmetry and Dirac fermions (bottom). The horizontal arrow emphasises that RG flows, phase diagrams, and critical points are identical. Top-down arrows indicate equivalence after orbifold reduction.[]{data-label="triality"}](duality.pdf "fig:"){width=".8\columnwidth"} -.3cm
[**Symplectic vs orthogonal gauge groups.**]{} Let us now clarify how the negative dimensionality theorems impact on our models. On the level of the local symmetries in the models with Majorana fermions , , the relations interchange orthogonal and symplectic gauge theories. When applied to the global $SU({N_f})$ symmetry the transposition of global representations accounts for the different symmetrisations of the scalars, interchanging $H_{(ij)}$ with $H_{[ij]}$, and all of this accompanied by the analytic continuation of field multiplicities towards negative values \[minusN\] N -N,[N\_f]{}-[N\_f]{}. Fingerprints of the negative dimensionality theorems can be seen on the level of the renormalisation group equations. For theories with Majorana fermions, we have confirmed at the leading orders in perturbation theory that the beta functions for the gauge, Yukawa and quartic couplings of the theory are [*identical*]{} to the beta functions of the theory for any $N$ and ${N_f}$, provided we make the replacement in the later together with $\{g^2,y^2,u,v\} \mapsto \{-g^2,-y^2,-u,v\}$. This implies that the gauge, Yukawa, and the single and double trace quartic ‘t Hooft couplings \[invariant\] {N g\^2, Ny\^2, [N\_f]{}u,[N\_f]{}\^2 v} are strictly invariant and remain positive even within the theory which has negative $N$ and ${N_f}$, as they must [@Dyson:1952tj]. For pure quantum gauge theories the invariance of $N\,g^2$ under is explained in [@Mkrtchian:1981bb]. Moreover, we have also confirmed that the exact same equivalence holds true for beta functions and running couplings in theories with Dirac fermions coupled to orthogonal or symplectic gauge fields. In summary, we conclude that the negative dimensionality theorems manifest themselves in the quantum theory through the equivalence of ‘t Hooft couplings and their beta functions for any $N$ and any ${N_f}$. We expect this equivalence to hold true to any order in the perturbative loop expansion.
![ Duality of conformal fixed points, and large $N$ equivalences of matter-gauge theories with global $SU({N_f})\times SU({N_f})$ flavour symmetry.[]{data-label="duality1"}](duality1.pdf "fig:"){width=".65\columnwidth"} -.3cm
[ccccccccc]{} Model &
------------
Lagrangian
------------
&
---------------------
Gauge
\[-0.3em\] symmetry
---------------------
&
---------------------
Global
\[-0.3em\] symmetry
---------------------
&
-------------------
Gauge
\[-0.3em\] bosons
-------------------
&
-----------------
Fermion
\[-0.3em\] type
-----------------
&
-----------------------
Weyl
\[-0.3em\] components
-----------------------
&Scalars &
-----------------------
Real scalar
\[-0.3em\] components
-----------------------
\
1 &Eq. (\[LM\]) & $SO(2N)$ & $SU(2 {N_f})$ & $2N^2$ &Majorana &$2N\cdot 2 {N_f}$ &$H_{(ij)}$ &$4 {N_f}^2 $\
2 &Eq. (\[LM2\]) & $Sp(2N)$ & $SU(2 {N_f})$ & $2N^2$ &Majorana &$2N\cdot 2 {N_f}$ &$H_{[ij]}$ &$4 {N_f}^2 $\
3 &Eq. (\[LD\]) & $SU(N)$ & $SU({N_f})\times SU({N_f})$ & $N^2$ &Dirac &$N\cdot 2{N_f}$ &$H_{ij}$ &$2{N_f}^2 $\
4 &Eq. (\[LD\]) & $SO(2N)$ & $SU({N_f})\times SU({N_f})$ & $2N^2$ &Dirac &$2N\cdot 2{N_f}$ &$H_{ij}$ & $2 {N_f}^2 $\
5 &Eq. (\[LD\]) & $Sp(2N)$ & $SU({N_f})\times SU({N_f})$ & $2N^2$ &Dirac &$2N\cdot 2{N_f}$ &$H_{ij}$ &$ 2 {N_f}^2 $\
-.5cm
-.3cm
For positive $N$ and ${N_f}$, the large $N$ equivalence of the theories and , and of the theories with either $SO$ or $Sp$ gauge symmetry, is now simple to understand, the key point being that the explicit dependence of beta functions on field multiplicities arises, in the Veneziano limit, only through the parameter $\eps$ given in . Since $\eps$ is insensitive to the combined sign change , the mapping of negative field multiplicities in the partner theory back to positive ones leaves all beta functions for ‘t Hooft couplings invariant. The price to pay (for having positive field multiplicities on either side of the duality) is that the equivalence holds only in the large $N$ limit. In fact, in either theory the subleading corrections start at order $1/N$ and $1/{N_f}$ and enter with the same magnitude but opposite signs (once more owing to the negative dimensionality theorems) thus breaking the duality beyond large $N$. This pattern explains the equivalence of beta functions for ‘t Hooft couplings as well as the structure of subleading corrections found in the previous sections, and illustrated in Figs. \[triality\] and \[duality1\].
There are two further points worth noting with regards to large $N$ equivalences. First, counting the number of gauge fields, Weyl fermions, and real scalar fields in either of these, we find that dual theories have the exact same number of degrees of freedom (see Model 1 vs Model 2, and Model 4 vs Model 5 in Tab. \[dofs\]). This no longer holds true beyond large $N$. Second, we also emphasize that dual theories described here, in all cases, have the same global symmetry but different gauge symmetry. This supports the view that global symmetry is a property of the system, whereas gauge symmetry is a property of the description of the system [@Witten:2017hdv].
[**Unitary gauge groups.**]{} For the theories with Dirac fermions and $SU$ gauge symmetry we confirm that beta functions for ‘t Hooft couplings are mapped onto themselves under the replacement , , valid for all $N$. Moreover, subleading corrections in the large $N$ limit arise as inverse even powers of field multiplicities $1/N^2$ and $1/{N_f}^2$ and are insensitive to a change in sign , meaning that the theory is effectively self-dual and mapped onto itself for any $N$, ${N_f}$, as it must. The result generalises to $SU$ gauge theories with matter sectors different from .
[**Orbifold equivalence.**]{} We now turn to the equivalence of theories between Dirac fermions coupled to unitary gauge fields, and Majorana fermions coupled to orthogonal or symplectic gauge fields, illustrated in Fig. \[triality\]. Theories have different global symmetries, and those with Dirac fermions contain exactly half as many gauge, Weyl, and scalar degrees of freedom as those with Majorana fermions in the Veneziano limit (see Models 1 and 2 vs Model 3 in Tab. \[dofs\]). Still, after the identification of couplings via the map , all three theories have identical beta functions, phase diagrams, conformal fixed points, and scaling exponents. This pattern suggests that the theories are related by orbifolding.
Orbifold projections in quantum field theory link a parent theory to a child theory with the help of a discrete subgroup of the parent’s global symmetry [@Bershadsky:1998cb; @Schmaltz:1998bg; @Erlich:1998gb; @Strassler:2001fs; @Armoni:2003gp; @Kovtun:2004bz; @Kovtun:2007py; @Hanada:2011ju] (see [@Lucini:2012gg; @Dunne:2016nmc] for reviews). “Orbifolding” eliminates those degrees of freedom from the parent theory which are not invariant under the discrete subgroup, leading to the child theory. At the perturbative level, orbifold equivalence is based on the observation that planar diagrams of the parent and child theories coincide to all loop orders, possibly up to a rescaling of couplings, and that correlation functions of gauge-invariant operators obey the same set of closed equations [@Bershadsky:1998cb]. In has also been shown that the equivalence of theories holds non-perturbatively as long as the global symmetry used for the orbifolding is not broken spontaneously [@Kovtun:2007py].
In the setting illustrated in Fig. \[triality\], the Majorana models and with $SO(2N)$ or $Sp(2N)$ gauge symmetry and $SU\left(2{N_f}\right)$ global symmetry represent parent theories. Then, using a suitable $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry in the gauge and flavour groups [@Hanada:2011ju] leads in both cases to the child theory with Dirac fermions, $SU(N)$ gauge symmetry, and $SU\left({N_f}\right) \times SU\left({N_f}\right)$ global symmetry [@Steudtner:2019]. In the Veneziano limit, the orbifold equivalence between parent and child theories is exact, explaining the links observed in Fig. \[triality\]. The factor of two which appears in the rescaling reflects that the parent theories contain twice as many gauge, Weyl, and scalar degrees of freedom as the child theory, see Tab. \[dofs\].
In the literature, some orbifold/orientifold reductions have been reported which relate supersymmetric with non-supersymmetric theories [@Armoni:2003gp; @Dunne:2016nmc]. On the account that asymptotic safety in supersymmetry necessitates the gauge group to be semi-simple [@Bond:2017suy; @Martin:2000cr], however, we do not expect to find a supersymmetric parent for the non-supersymmetric theories with weakly coupled ultraviolet fixed points and simple gauge group studied here.
[**Dirac vs Majorana fermions.**]{} Another important observation of this study is that $SO$ and $Sp$ gauge theories with Majorana fermions and elementary mesons can develop asymptotically safe UV fixed points while their counterparts with Dirac fermions cannot. To appreciate the origin for this we write the leading loop contributions to the gauge and Yukawa beta functions as $\partial_t\alpha_g=\alpha^2_g(-B+C\alpha_g-D\alpha_y)$ and $\partial_t\alpha_y=\alpha_y(E\alpha_y-F\alpha_g)$ with $C,D$ and $B,E, F$ denoting universal two-loop and one-loop coefficients respectively. A necessary condition for weakly interacting UV fixed points is given by [@Bond:2016dvk] \[C’\] C’C-DF/E<0.A generic asymptotically non-free theory ($B<0)$ has loop coefficients $C,D,E, F>0$ [@Bond:2016dvk], implying $C'\le C$. The condition states that asymptotic safety requires the (Yukawa-shifted) two loop term to become negative, $C'<0$. In all theories with exact asymptotic safety (meaning 2 in Tab. \[FPs\]) we find the universal shift \[AS\] C’/C=-, assuming small $0<\eps\ll 1$. Hence, the Yukawa interactions roughly induce a $-112\%$ correction to the two-loop gauge coefficient, which is large enough to change the sign of $C$ and to enable asymptotic safety.
Replacing Majorana by Dirac fermions in the theories with $SO$ or $Sp$ gauge symmetry effectively changes the scalar matter content. In fact, adjusting $N$ and ${N_f}$ such that theories display the same number of gauge fields and Weyl fermions, we find that the settings with Dirac fermions only feature half as many scalar degrees of freedom (see Models 1 and 2 vs Models 4 and 5 in Tab. \[dofs\]). Although scalars are gauge singlets, they propagate in loops and modify the Yukawa loop coefficient $E$ which is proportional to the number of degrees of freedom [@Bond:2019]. Here, the coefficient $E|_{\rm Majorana}\sim 2{N_f}+2N$ reduces down to $E|_{\rm Dirac}\sim {N_f}+2N$ and gives the first term in $\beta_y$ of and , respectively, after ‘t Hooft normalisation. With all other coefficients untouched, we find \[AF\] C’/C= instead of . This corresponds to a $-97\%$ correction of the two-loop gauge coefficient $C$, which is narrowly too small to change the overall sign of $C$. The result explains why models with Dirac fermions and $SO$ or $Sp$ gauge symmetry may display interacting [infrared]{} fixed points, but cannot develop interacting [ultraviolet]{} ones, much unlike their counterparts with Majoranas.
As a final remark, we note that the ratio also dictates the ratio of gauge couplings at the Banks-Zaks fixed point compared to the gauge-Yukawa fixed point in asymptotically free $SO$ and $Sp$ gauge theories with Dirac fermions . There, we found that $\alpha_g^{\rm BZ}/\alpha_g^{\rm GY}|_*=C'/C$ provided that $0<-\eps\ll 1$ (see 1 and 3 in Tab. \[FPs\]). Hence, the parametric smallness of the ratio of fixed point couplings, as observed in Fig. \[fig:noAS-phase\], can now be attributed to the “near-miss” of asymptotic safety due to .
**Discussion and conclusions**
==============================
As a proof of principle, we have established that asymptotic safety arises in matter-gauge theories with Majorana fermions, and in theories with $SO$ and $Sp$ gauge symmetry , . Together with the earlier discovery of asymptotic safety with Dirac fermions in $SU$ gauge theories , our results clarify that interacting ultraviolet fixed points can readily be realised for either type of fermions and for any of the classical gauge groups. Intriguingly though, $SU$ gauge symmetry does require fermions to be Dirac, whereas $SO,\,Sp$ gauge symmetry does require fermions to be Majorana.
We have also put forward new classes of large $N$ equivalences between seemingly different gauge-matter theories. Equivalences between pure $SU$, $SO$ and $Sp$ gauge theories in the planar limit have been known for a long time. Here, we have explained how equivalences arise amongst theories with different local symmetries, different matter content, and, possibly, different global symmetries. Invariably, they imply identical all-order RG flows, phase diagrams, and conformal critical points (Tab. \[FPs\]). Examples (Tab. \[dofs\]) include a triality of asymptotic safety (Figs. \[fig:AS-phase\] and \[triality\]) or dualities amongst theories with identical infrared critical points (Figs. \[fig:noAS-phase\] and \[duality1\]). Based on the underlying structure, many more large $N$ equivalences arise in gauge theories with matter and Yukawa interactions, also offering new directions for orbifold reductions [@Dunne:2016nmc; @Steudtner:2019].
Finally, we note that our theories, at interacting fixed points, correspond to unitary conformal field theories. This link allows the extraction of conformal data such as scaling dimensions [@Litim:2014uca; @Bond:2017tbw; @Bond:2017lnq; @Bond:2017suy] or structure coefficients [@Codello:2017hhh] directly from the renormalisation group [@cardy_1996], and in a manner complementary to the conformal bootstrap [@Poland:2018epd]. It will be interesting to see whether the equivalences discovered here (Figs. \[triality\] and \[duality1\]) extend to all conformal data. This is left for future work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '**Rectification of thermal fluctuations in mesoscopic conductors is the key idea of today’s attempts to build nanoscale thermoelectric energy harvesters in order to convert heat into a useful electric power [@White_Beyond_2008; @Mahan_Best_1996; @Radousky_Energy_2012]. So far, most concepts make use of the Seebeck effect in a two-terminal geometry [@Shakouri_Recent_2011; @Humphrey_Reversible_2005; @Hicks_Effect_1993; @Whitney_Nonlinear_2013; @Juergens_Thermoelectric_2013] where heat and charge are both carried by the same particles. Here, we experimentally demonstrate the working principle of a new kind of energy harvester, proposed recently [@Sanchez_Optimal_2011], using two capacitively coupled quantum dots (QD). We show that due to its novel three-terminal design which spatially separates the heat reservoir from the conductor circuit, the directions of charge and heat flow become decoupled in our device. This enables us to manipulate the direction of the generated charge current by means of external gate voltages while leaving the direction of heat flow unaffected. Our results pave the way for a new generation of multi-terminal, highly efficient nanoscale heat engines.**'
author:
- 'Holger Thierschmann$^{1,5,*}$, Rafael Sánchez$^2$, Björn Sothmann$^3$, Fabian Arnold$^1$, Christian Heyn$^4$, Wolfgang Hansen$^4$, Hartmut Buhmann$^1$ and Laurens W. Molenkamp$^1$'
title: ' Three-Terminal Energy Harvester with Coupled Quantum Dots\'
---
<http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v10/n10/abs/nnano.2015.176.html>\
Conventional thermoelectric devices are based on the Seebeck effect in a two-terminal geometry: For two electronic reservoirs being at different temperature, the resulting heat flow $J$ is accompanied by a net charge current $I$ if transport is energy dependent, i.e. if particle-hole-symmetry is broken [@Cutler_Observation_1969; @Sivan_Multichannel_1986; @Beenakker_Theory_1992; @Molenkamp_Quantum_1990]. $I$ and $J$ are carried by the same particles and thus, the direction of $I$ is directly imposed by the temperature bias. For applications, however, this has considerable drawbacks because the heat reservoir necessarily is part of the electrical circuit which poses the problem of good thermal insulation while maintaining good electrical conduction [@Shakouri_Recent_2011]. In this context, three-terminal thermoelectrics have attracted increasing attention. These devices open up the possibility to break the intimate coupling between $I$ and $J$ by spatially separating the heat reservoir and the conductor circuit and at the same time perform at high efficiencies [@Entin-Wohlman_Three_2010; @Sanchez_Thermoelectric_2011; @Jiang_Thermoelectric_2012; @Sothmann_Rectification_2012; @Jordan_Powerful_2013; @Bergenfeldt_Hybrid_2014; @Brandner_Strong_2013].
Here we present the first experimental realization of a three-terminal thermoelectric energy harvester operating at the nanoscale. We realize a device proposed recently [@Sanchez_Optimal_2011] using the layout sketched in Fig. \[fig:2\]a: One terminal (H) serves as a heat reservoir at a high temperature $T + \Delta T$. The other two terminals (L,R) are kept at a lower temperature $T$ and constitute the conductor circuit. Particle exchange between these two subsystems of different temperature is suppressed. Energy transfer, however, is provided through a two-quantum dot system (QD$_{\rm C}$, QD$_{\rm G}$) which is tunnel coupled to the heat reservoir on one side through QD$_{\rm G}$ and to both reservoirs of the conductor system on the other side through QD$_{\rm C}$. The two dots interact with each other only capacitively. Hence, a change in occupation number ($N_{\rm C}$, $N_{\rm G}$) by one on either dot changes the energy of the respective other dot by an amount $U$ equal to the electrostatic coupling energy [@Molenkamp_Scaling_1995]. Because particle exchange with the electronic reservoirs is enabled for each dot individually, the occupation numbers, and thus energies, of the dots fluctuate according to the thermal fluctuations of carriers in the reservoirs. In order to harvest these thermal fluctuations our device uses the working principle depicted in the cycle of energy diagrams in Fig. \[fig:1\]. When occupation fluctuations on both QDs are correlated such that the QD system undergoes the sequence $(N_\text{C},N_\text{G})\to(N_\text{C}+1,N_\text{G})\to(N_\text{C}+1,N_\text{G}+1)\to(N_\text{C},N_\text{G}+1)\to(N_\text{C},N_\text{G})$ an energy amount $U$ is extracted from reservoir H and is delivered to the cold subsystem. This defines the direction of heat flow $J$. If the cold conductor system is symmetric with respect to L and R, the energy is dissipated equally to either lead on a time average. However, we can use the tunneling rates $\Gamma_{{\rm L},i}$ and $\Gamma_{{\rm R},i}$ of the barriers at low ($i=0$) and high ($i=1$) energies to break this symmetry. In this case energy flow becomes directed: If the tunneling coefficients are asymmetric with respect to both energy and reservoirs, electrons intrinsically favor entering QD$_{\rm C}$ from one reservoir at a low energy and leaving it to the other reservoir at a higher energy. This generates a charge current which, in an unbiased conductor, is proportional to the asymmetry factor $\Lambda=(\Gamma_{\rm L0}\Gamma_{\rm R1}-\Gamma_{\rm L1}\Gamma_{\rm R0})/\Gamma_{0}\Gamma_{1}$, with $\Gamma_{i}=\Gamma_{{\rm L}i}+\Gamma_{{\rm R}i}$, and the transferred heat current, $J$, [@Sanchez_Optimal_2011] $$I=\frac{e\Lambda}{U}J.
\label{Eq:1}$$ Hence, for a given $J$ the direction of the generated current depends only on the sign of $\Lambda$.
For the experimental realization it is therefore crucial to gain direct control over the tunneling rates. For this purpose top-gate defined quantum dot structures are especially well suited because they allow for a high flexibility in tuning the coupling energy of a QD to its environment. Our device is realized with this technique using the pattern of gate-electrodes shown in Fig. \[fig:2\]b on a GaAs/AlGaAs interface 2DEG. The two quantum dots QD$_\text{G}$ and QD$_\text{C}$ are positioned in close vicinity to each other in order to ensure a sufficiently large $U$ through good capacitive interdot coupling. We use the electrodes PC and PG to control the electro-chemical potential $\mu_\text{C}$ and $\mu_\text{G}$ of QD$_\text{C}$ and QD$_\text{G}$, respectively. This allows us to precisely adjust the electron occupation number $(N_\text{C},N_\text{G})$ of the system. The voltages applied to gates 7 and 8 directly influence the corresponding tunneling barriers. In this manner we can control the tunneling asymmetry $\Lambda$ in the conductor system: A state of broken left-right symmetry is obtained by increasing $V_8$ so that the potential barrier height between QD$_{\rm C}$ and reservoir R is increased thus reducing the corresponding tunneling coefficients. Energy dependent tunneling rates typically occur quite naturally in top gate defined structures [@MacLean_Energy_2007]. However, a direct control over this parameter is desirable. Therefore, we apply a smaller bias to gate 6 than to gate 5. This strongly affects the shape of the potential barrier between QD$_\text{C}$ and R due to the change in potential landscape in the vicinity of the tunnel junction. In doing so we emphasize the energy dependence of electron tunneling rates between QD$_\text{C}$ and L or R. A simple sketch of the potential barriers associated with this gate voltage configuration (called configuration $A$ from now on) is given in Fig. \[fig:2\]d. From conductance peak amplitude analysis we determine the asymmetry of tunneling coefficients at the Fermi level $\gamma$ for the left and right barrier individually \[cf. supplementary material\]. This gives $ \gamma_L =\unit[32.2]{\mu eV} \approx \gamma_R \times 2.6$.
When we measure the conductance $G$ of QD$_\text{C}$ without a temperature difference applied ($T_\text{H}= T_\text{L,R} \approx \unit[230]{mK}$ electron temperature) while varying $V_\text{PC}$ and $V_\text{PG}$ we obtain the stability diagram shown in Fig. \[fig:2\]c. Here high $G$ corresponds to an alignment of $\mu_{\rm C}$ with $\mu_{\rm L,R}$, denoted with red, solid lines. Dashed lines indicate configurations for which $\mu_\text{G} = \mu_\text{H}$. The intermediate areas correspond to regions of stable charge configurations. At the meeting points of three stability regions (triple points, TP) both QD occupation numbers can fluctuate [@VanderWiel_Electron_2002]. The TPs occur in pairs, separated by the interaction energy $U$. From d$I$/d$V$ measurements and the data in Fig. \[fig:2\]c we obtain $U \approx \unit[70]{\mu eV}$. For our energy harvester, optimal working conditions exist when for the $(N_{\rm C}, N_{\rm G})$ state, $\mu_{\rm C}$ and $\mu_{\rm G}$ both lie closely below the chemical potential of the adjacent reservoir, while they are situated above when the energy is increased by $U$ (cf. Fig. \[fig:1\]). Thus, the region of interest is between two neighboring TPs.
In order to establish a temperature difference across the QD-system we use a current heating technique [@Molenkamp_Quantum_1990] by applying an ac-current of $I_{\rm h} = \unit[150]{nA}$ at $f= \unit[11]{Hz}$ to reservoir H. This increases locally the electron temperature in reservoir H by $\Delta T \approx \unit[100]{mK}$ while the other reservoirs remain at base temperature. Moreover, it ensures that all signals resulting from a change of $T_{\rm H}$ occur at a doubled frequency $2f$, allowing a convenient detection with lock-in technique \[see methods\]. We now detect the electrons pushed into reservoir R due to a temperature increase $\Delta T$ in reservoir H by using a current amplifier connected to R and a lock-in amplifier detecting at $2f$, while reservoir L is grounded.
Figure \[fig:3\]a shows the detected signal for the TP pair framed in Fig. \[fig:2\]c. Black lines denote the borders of the stability regions as obtained from the conductance data. Surrounding the stability vertex we observe a finite current signal of both positive and negative sign (section I-IV in Fig. \[fig:3\]a). This signal is due to thermal gating [@Thierschmann_Thermal_2015] of a small current resulting from a finite potential difference $\Delta\mu_{\rm LR}$ between reservoirs L and R which is created by the current amplifier \[$10~\mu {\rm V} > \Delta \mu_{\rm LR} > 0 $\]. This effect is expected to give contributions only outside the TP region. However, between the TPs is where we expect the energy harvester to have its largest output current. In this region a finite negative current $I_{\rm R} \approx -\unit[0.6]{pA}$ is clearly observed. We verify that this current is not due to $\Delta \mu_{\rm LR}$ by reversing the potential difference \[Fig. \[fig:3\]b\]. As expected for thermal gating [@Thierschmann_Thermal_2015], the current outside the stability vertex changes sign. However, at the center, the direction of $I_{\rm R}$ is independent of a small bias voltage.
Theory predicts $I_{\rm R}$ to first sharply increase with $\Delta T$ followed by a flattening of the curve for large $\Delta T$ [@Sanchez_Optimal_2011]. In Fig. \[fig:3\]c, we show $I_{\rm R}$ as a function of the squared heating current ($\Delta T \propto I_{\rm h}^2$, cf. methods) for a slightly different $\Lambda$. The observed behavior is in qualitative agreement with theory.
Our observations are confirmed by model calculations based on the rate equation approach presented in Ref. [@Sanchez_Optimal_2011], using parameters extracted from the experiments \[cf. methods and supplementary material\]. For fully symmetric tunneling coefficients ($\Lambda = 0$) the calculations reproduce the current signal in the periphery of the TP pair while zero current is obtained at the center between the TPs (Figs. \[fig:3\]d). When introducing a small asymmetry, $\Lambda \neq 0$, heat conversion becomes enabled. A finite current peak appears between the TP, thus yielding excellent agreement with the experiments for both $\Delta \mu_{\rm LR}<0$ (Fig. \[fig:3\]e) and $\Delta \mu_{\rm LR}>0$ (Fig. \[fig:3\]f). This is strong evidence that $I_{\rm R}$ observed in this region is indeed a result of the conversion of thermal energy into a directed charge current.
As mentioned above, a unique property of our energy harvesting device, and a direct result of its three-terminal geometry, is that the direction of the generated charge current $I_{\rm R}$ is determined by the asymmetry factor $\Lambda$ of the tunneling coefficients. In our experiment, this parameter can be controlled by external gate voltages. When we increase the gate voltage V$_7$ while reducing V$_8$, i.e. pinching off reservoir L more strongly from QD$_{\rm C}$ than reservoir R \[cf. supplementary\], we obtain potential barriers as shown in the sketch in Fig. \[fig:2\]d labeled configuration $B$. This setting corresponds to an inverted left-right asymmetry compared to configuration $A$. Because the energy dependence of the tunneling barriers is still present, we can expect $\Lambda$ to be inverted, as well. The resulting $I_\text{R}$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:4\]a. We now observe a positive $I_\text{R} \approx \unit[0.2]{pA}$ between the TP. This directly demonstrates how the direction of the thermally generated current can be manipulated by inverting the asymmetry of the tunneling rates between QD$_{\rm C}$ and L, R. This is also consistent with model calculations which are based on the experimental parameters for configuration $B$ \[cf. Fig. \[fig:4\]b\].
A similar effect can be achieved if we manipulate the energy dependence of the barriers. Figure \[fig:4\]c shows data for a barrier configuration which exhibits symmetric tunneling coefficients at the Fermi level. \[Note, that for these measurements $-\unit[10]{\mu V} < \Delta \mu_{\rm LR} < 0$.\] However, since the barriers exhibit different shapes, $\Lambda \neq 0$. As shown in Fig. \[fig:4\]e the asymmetry can be tuned by carefully increasing the voltage applied to gate 6. This mainly affects the shape and thus the energy dependence of the tunneling barrier connecting QD$_{\rm C}$ and R. As a result the thermally generated current changes the direction. Again, the experiments are in excellent agreement with theory \[cf. Figs. \[fig:4\]d, f\].
As discussed in detail in Ref. [@Sanchez_Optimal_2011], energy harvesters based on our mechanism can, in principle, work as an optimal heat engine reaching Carnot efficiency $\eta_C$. The device performance is directly related to the tunneling asymmetry $\Lambda$, which is inherently low in gate defined quantum dots. We obtain excellent agreement with the experiments when we use $\Lambda = 0.04$ for configuration A and $\Lambda = 0.01$ for configuration B in the model calculations. We point out that a further increase of $\eta$ can be achieved by an optimized sample layout which improves the tunneling asymmetry $\Lambda$ (e.g. by a more elaborate injection scheme [@Sanchez_Optimal_2011]) and also the achievable temperature difference $\Delta T$ and the parameter $U$.
Methods
-------
*Heating Current Technique:* The heating channel, reservoir H, has a width of $\unit[2]{\mu m}$ over a length of $\unit[20]{\mu m}$, shaped by gates 1-4. The constriction at its center formed by gates 1 and 2 can be used as a voltage probe for the channel. By adjusting $V_1$ and $V_2$, its conductance is set to $G=\unit[10]{e^2/h}$ thus ensuring that no thermovoltage arises when the temperature in reservoir H is increased. Left and right of the channel, reservoir H opens into large contact areas. The temperature $T_{\rm H}$ in the heat bath H is controlled by applying an ac-current $I_{\rm h} = \unit[150]{nA}$ at a frequency of $f = \unit[11]{Hz}$ to the channel [@Molenkamp_Quantum_1990]. This introduces the Joule-heating-power $P \propto I_{\rm h}^2$ into the electron gas. Due to the reduced electron-lattice interaction in GaAs/AlGaAs 2DEGs at low temperature, electron-electron scattering dominates electron-phonon scattering in the channel. Thus, the electron temperature increases here by $\Delta T$. In the wide contact areas left and right of the channel, however, spatial dimensions are sufficiently large to ensure cooling of the 2DEG by electron-lattice scattering. Hence, we locally increase the temperature in the channel by $\Delta T \approx \unit[100]{mK}$ (estimated from QPC thermometry, [@Molenkamp_Quantum_1990]). The quadratic relation between $I_{\rm h}$ and $P$ causes $T_{\rm H}$ to oscillate with twice the frequency of I$_{\rm h}$. This provides thermal effects in the device with the signature of an oscillation frequency $2f = \unit[22]{Hz}$.
*Theory:* For the calculations we use a rate equation approach as presented in the model section of the supplementary material. The following parameters are used. $\mu_{\rm L,R}=\pm\unit[5]{\mu V}$, $U=\unit[70]{\mu eV}$, $T=\unit[19.82]{\mu eV}$, $\Delta T=\unit[8.6]{\mu eV}$. The tunneling rates for QD$_{\rm G}$ have been chosen to be: $\Gamma_{\rm H0}=\Gamma_{\rm H1}=\unit[10.0]{\mu eV}$. In order to obtain the results shown in Fig. \[fig:3\]d we use symmetric tunneling coefficients $\Gamma_{\rm L0} = \Gamma_{\rm R0} = \unit[32.2]{\mu eV}$, $\Gamma_{\rm L1} = \Gamma_{\rm R1} = \unit[25.8]{\mu eV}$. The tunneling rates used for configuration $A$ in Fig. \[fig:3\]e and f are $\Gamma_{\rm L0}=\unit[23.2]{\mu eV}$, $\Gamma_{\rm L1}=\unit[25.8]{\mu eV}$, $\Gamma_{\rm R0}=\unit[9.0]{\mu eV}$, $\Gamma_{\rm R1}=\unit[12.5]{\mu eV}$. For Configuration $B$ we have used (Fig. \[fig:4\]): $\Gamma_{\rm L0}=\unit[4.6]{\mu eV}$, $\Gamma_{\rm L1}=\unit[5.5]{\mu eV}$, $\Gamma_{\rm R0}=\unit[23.0]{\mu eV}$, $\Gamma_{\rm R1}=\unit[24.2]{\mu eV}$. The behaviour observed in Fig. \[fig:4\]c is reproduced by the model, when we allow the tunneling rates to have a small energy dependence around the Fermi energy, which is different in each barrier: i.e. $\gamma_l\approx(\Gamma_{l0}+\Gamma_{l1})/2$, and $\Delta\Gamma_\text{L}\ne\Delta\Gamma_\text{R}$ with $\Delta\Gamma_l=\Gamma_{l0}-\Gamma_{l1}$ and $\gamma_\text{L}=\gamma_\text{R}$. (Parameters used: $\gamma_l=(\Gamma_{l0}+\Gamma_{l1})/2$: $\Gamma_{\rm L0}=\unit[21.6]{\mu eV}$, $\Gamma_{\rm L1}=\unit[24.9]{\mu eV}$, $\Gamma_{\rm R0}=\unit[20.9]{\mu eV}$, $\Gamma_{\rm R1}=\unit[25.5]{\mu eV}$) This is enough to generate a response (cf. Fig \[fig:4\]d) which is then tunable by increasing the energy dependence in one of the barriers, in this case $\Delta\Gamma_{\rm R}$, while keeping the average $\gamma_\text{R}$ fixed (cf. Fig \[fig:4\]f) ($\Gamma_{\rm L0}=\unit[21.0]{\mu eV}$, $\Gamma_{\rm L1}=\unit[25.4]{\mu eV}$, $\Gamma_{\rm R0}=\unit[20.3]{\mu eV}$, $\Gamma_{\rm R1}=\unit[21.2]{\mu eV}$).
Acknowledgements
----------------
We gratefully acknowledge Markus Büttiker for drawing our attention to the subject. Furthermore, the authors thank Cornelius Thienel for discussions and Luis Maier for help with device fabrication. This work has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft via SPP1386, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Spanish MICINN Juan de la Cierva program and MAT2011-24331, COST Action MP1209.
Author Contributions
--------------------
H.T., H.B. and L.W.M. designed the experiment, C.H. and W.H. provided the wafer material, F.A. fabricated the sample, H.T. and F.A. conducted the measurements, B.S. and R.S. performed the model calculations. All authors discussed the results. H.T., B.S., R.S., H.B. and L.W.M. wrote the manuscript.
Competing financial interests
-----------------------------
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
White, B. E. Beyond the battery. *Nature Nanotechnology* **3,** 71-72 (2008). Mahan, G. D. and Sofo, J. O. The best Thermoelectric. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* [93]{}, 7436-7439 (1996).
Radousky, H. B. and Liang, H. Energy harvesting: an integrated view of materials, devices and applications. *Nanotechnology* **23,** 502001 (2012).
Shakouri, A. Recent Developments in Semiconductor Thermoelectric Physics and Materials. *Ann. Rev. of Mat. Res.* **41,** 399-431 (2011).
Humphrey, T. and Linke, H. Reversible Thermoelectric Nanomaterials. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **94** 096601 (2005).
Hicks, L. and Dresselhaus, M. S. Effect of quantum-well structures on the thermoelectric figure of merit. *Phys. Rev. B* **47,** 12727-12731 (1993).
Whitney, R. S., Nonlinear thermoelectricity in point contacts at pinch off: A catastrophe aids cooling. *Phys. Rev. B.* **88,** 064302 (2013).
Juergens, S., Haupt, F., Moskalets, M., and Splettstoesser, J. Thermoelectric performance of a driven double quantum dot. *Phys. Rev. B* **87,** 245423 (2013).
Sánchez, R. and Büttiker, M. Optimal energy quanta to current conversion. *Phys. Rev. B.* **83,** 085428 (2011).
Cutler, M. and Mott, N. F. Observation of Anderson Localization in an Electron Gas. *Phys. Rev.* **181,** 1336-1340 (1969).
Sivan, U. and Imry, Y. Multichannel Landauer formula for thermoelectric transport with application to thermopower near the mobility edge. *Phys. Rev. B* **33,** 551-558 (1986).
Beenakker, C. W. J. and Staring, A. A. M. Theory of the thermopower of a quantum dot. *Phys. Rev. B* **46,** 9667-9676 (1992).
Molenkamp, L. W., Van Houten, H., Beenakker, C. W. J., Eppenga, R. and Foxon, C.T. Quantum oscillations in the transverse voltage of a channel in the nonlinear transport regime. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **65,**, 1052 (1990).
Entin-Wohlman, O., Imry, Y. and Aharony, A. Three-terminal thermoelectric transport through a molecular junction. *Phys. Rev. B* **82,** 115314 (2010).
Sánchez, D. and Serra, L. Thermoelectric transport of mesoscopic conductors coupled to voltage and thermal probes. *Phys. Rev. B* **84**, 201307(R) (2011).
Jiang, J.-H., Entin-Wohlman, O. and Imry, Y. Thermoelectric three-terminal hopping transport through one-dimensional nanosystems. *Phys. Rev. B* **85,** 075412 (2012).
Sothmann, B., Sánchez, R., Jordan, A. N. and Büttiker, M. Rectification of thermal fluctuations in a chaotic cavity heat engine. *Phys. Rev. B* **85,** 205301 (2012).
Jordan, A. N., Sothmann, B., Sánchez, R. and Büttiker, M. Powerful and efficient energy harvester with resonant-tunneling quantum dots. *Phys. Rev. B* **87,** 075312 (2013).
Bergenfeldt, C., Samuelsson, P., Sothmann, B., Flindt, C. and Büttiker, M. Hybrid Microwave-Cavity Heat Engine. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **112,** 076803 (2014).
Brandner, K., Saito, K. and Seifert, U. Strong Bounds on Onsager Coefficients and Efficiency for Three-Terminal Thermoelectric Transport in a Magnetic Field. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **110,** 070603 (2013).
Molenkamp, L. W., Flensberg, K. and Kemerink, M. Scaling of the Coulomb Energy Due to Quantum Fluctuations in the Charge on a Quantum Dot. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **75,** 4282 (1995).
MacLean, K. *et al.* Energy-Dependent Tunneling in a Quantum Dot. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **98,** 036802 (2007).
van der Wiel, W. G. *et al.* Electron transport through double quantum dots. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **75,** 1-22 (2002).
Thierschmann, H. *et al.* Thermal Gating of Charge Currents with Coulomb Coupled Quantum Dots. *New J. Phys.* **17** 113030 (2015).
Supplementary
=============
Sample Information and Fabrication Technique
--------------------------------------------
The device is fabricated from a GaAs/AlGaAs wafer containing a 2-dimensional electron system (2DES) at 92 nm below the surface. The nominal carrier density $n$ and mobility $\mu$ at 4K are $n =-\unit[2.14 \times 10^{11}]{cm^{-2}}$ and $\mu = \unit[0.71 \times 10^{6}]{cm^{2}(Vs)^{-1}}$. The electronic reservoirs are equipped with annealed Au/Ge pads which provide good electrical contact to the 2DES. Using standard optical and e-beam lithography Ti/Au electrodes are patterned onto the sample surface which can then be used as gates to deplete the 2DES underneath by applying negative voltages with respect to the electron system.
An SEM-micrograph of the QD-system is given in Fig.\[fig:S1\] a. The lithographical size of each QD is $\unit[(300 \times 300)]{nm^2}$. However, due to electrostatic depletion by the gates the effective QD size is expected to further decrease to approximately $\unit[(200 \times 200)]{nm^2}$. From these numbers and the electron density $n$ an average QD occupation number of the order of 100 can be estimated. d$I$/d$V$ measurements for QD$_{\rm C}$ \[cf. Fig. \[fig:S1\] b\] yield a single dot charging energy of $E_{\rm C} = \unit[0.95]{meV}$.
Tunnel Barrier Asymmetry
------------------------
The conductance amplitude $G_0$ of a Coulomb resonance is given by
$$G_0 = \frac{1}{4 k_B T} \frac{\gamma_{\rm L} \gamma_{\rm R}}{\gamma_{\rm L}+\gamma_{\rm R}} \frac{e^2}{h}$$
where $\gamma_L$ and $\gamma_R$ denote the tunneling coefficient at the Fermi level between QD$_{\rm C}$ and reservoirs L and R, respectively. Obviously, Eq. 1 becomes largest for symmetric barriers, i.e. $\gamma_L = \gamma_R$. This relation can be used to obtain quantitative information about the coefficients for tunneling processes between QD$_{\rm C}$ and reservoirs L and R in our experiment. We therefore proceed as follows: First, $V_7$ and $V_8$ \[cf. Fig. \[fig:S1\]a\] are tuned so that the amplitude of the conductance peak is maximized ($V_8 = \unit[614]{mV}$, $V_7 = \unit[520]{mV}$). This gate voltage configuration then corresponds to symmetric coupling energies at the Fermi level $E_{\rm F}$. The conductance peak obtained for this setting is labeled *Sym* (black) in Fig. \[fig:S2\]a. For the peak amplitude we obtain $G_0 = \unit[0.145]{e^2/h}$. Using Eq. 1 and $T = \unit[230]{mK}$ then yields $\gamma_{\rm L} = \gamma_{\rm R} = \unit[23.2]{\mu eV}$. Next, we carefully increase $V_8$ by $\unit[15]{mV}$.
This causes the conductance peak amplitude to decrease. This new gate voltage setting corresponds to configuration $A$. The conductance resonance for this configuration is shown in Fig. \[fig:S2\]a (red). We determine the peak value to be $G_0 = \unit[0.084]{e^2/h}$. As a first approximation we assume that a variation of $V_8$ only affects $\gamma_{\rm R}$ while $\gamma_{\rm L}$ stays constant ($\gamma_{\rm L}= \unit[23.2]{\mu eV}$). In this case, we obtain $\gamma_{\rm R}= \unit[9]{\mu eV}$. This gives for the source-drain asymmetry $\gamma_{\rm L} \approx 2.6 \gamma_{\rm R}$. In a similar manner we can proceed with the left barrier. When $V_7$ is increased instead of $V_8$ by , we obtain the opposite barrier asymmetry, configuration $B$. For this setting we obtain the peak denoted $B$ in Fig. \[fig:S1\]b (blue) with $G_0 = \unit[0.048]{e^2/h}$. Correspondingly, we find $\gamma_{\rm L} = \unit[4.6]{\mu eV}$ while $\gamma_{\rm R}= \unit[23.2]{\mu eV}$. Thus, the tunneling coefficients at the Fermi level relate to each other as $\gamma_{\rm R} \approx 5 \gamma_{\rm L}$.
Quantum Point Contact Thermometry
---------------------------------
In order to estimate the temperature difference arising between the heating channel (reservoir H) and the other reservoirs of the device, we use Quantum Point Contact (QPC) thermometry [@Streda_Quantized_1989; @Molenkamp_Quantum_1990; @Houten_Thermo_1992; @Appleyard_Thermometer_1998].
For the channel temperature measurements all gates are grounded execpt for those which define the heating channel (gates 1,2,3 and 4, cf. Fig. \[fig:S2\]b). QPC 1,2 is set to the conductance plateau $G=\unit[10]{e^2/h}$, thus ensuring that no thermovoltage arises from this QPC. Next, a heating current $I_{\rm h}$ is applied to the heating channel via contacts $I_{\rm 1}$ and $I_{\rm 2}$ which oscillates with the frequency $f = \unit[11]{Hz}$. Note that $\Phi_{\rm 2}$ is directly connected to ground potential thus keeping the potential at the channel center fixed. The excitation voltage for the heating current is applied in such a manner that the chemical potential at both channel contacts then oscillates symmetrically with respect ot this point. This way it is ensured that no unwanted $2f$ contributions arise from direct capacitive coupling of the heating channel to the QD system. We then detect the voltage arising between the voltage probes $\Phi_{\rm 1}$ and $\Phi_{\rm 2}$ at the second harmonic $2f=\unit[22]{Hz}$ with a lock-in amplifier while varying the potential of gates 3 and 4. The detected signal is then given by $V_{\rm T} = (S_{\rm QPC 12} - S_{\rm QPC 34})\Delta T$. Because $S_{\rm QPC12}=0$, $V_{\rm T}$ can be assigned entirely to the QPC 3,4. Since for a QPC with a saddle shaped potential $S_{\rm max}\approx 20 \mu V K^{-1}$, $V_{\rm T}$ can be used to calculated the corresponding $\Delta T$. The detected $V_{\rm T}$ is shown for several heating currents in Fig. \[fig:S3\]a. The corresponding conductance data are shown as a dashed line. Fig \[fig:S3\]b gives the thermovoltage peak values at the transition from 4 to 2 conducting modes \[marked with a red arrow in Fig. \[fig:S3\]a\] as a function of $I_{\rm h}$. The non-linear but parabolic behavior is evidence that the signal indeed originates from electron heating [@Molenkamp_Quantum_1990]. For $I_{\rm h}=\unit[150]{nA}$ we obtain $V_T=\unit[1.15]{\mu V}$ which corresponds to $\Delta T \approx \unit[60]{mK}$. We point out, however, that this number provides only a lower boundary. The steps in QPC conductance are strongly smeared out. This is especially pronounced at the transition from 4 to 2 conducting modes, indicating that the assumption of an ideally saddle shaped potential, as required for $S_{\rm max} \approx \unit[20]{\mu V K^{-1}}$, is only a very rough estimate. $S_\text{max}$ is actually somewhat smaller. In practice, $S$ is therefore usually calibrated from current- and temperature dependent resistance measurements on the channel (Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations or universal conductance fluctuations). Based on this experience, for the present case we estimate $S_{\rm max} \approx \unit[(10-15)]{\mu VK^{-1}}$, thus suggesting that $\Delta T$ actually is of the order of 100 mK.
Model Calculations
------------------
In the sequential tunneling regime, transport can be described within a rate equation approach. The vector $\mathbf P=(P_{00},P_{10},P_{01},P_{11})$ contains the probabilities to find the double dot empty, occupied with one electron on QD$_{\rm C}$ and QD$_{\rm G}$, respectively, and occupied with one electron on each dot. In the stationary state, the occupation probabilities obey the master equation $\mathbf{W P}=0$ where the transition rates $\mathbf W$ are given by Fermi’s golden rule. In particular, we have $W^\pm_{\alpha n}=\Gamma_{\alpha n} f^\pm_r(\mu_{\alpha n})$ for the rate of an electron tunneling in or out of QD$_{\alpha}$ when the other quantum dot is occupied with $n$ electrons. Here, $f^\pm_r(x)=\{\exp[(x-\mu_r)/k_{\rm B} T_r]+1\}^{-1}$ denotes the Fermi function of reservoir $r$. The addition energies are given by $\mu_{\alpha 0}=\varepsilon_\alpha$ and $\mu_{\alpha 1}=\varepsilon_\alpha+U$. The current through the system is given by ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{Tr}(\mathbf{W}^I \mathbf{P})}}$ where the current rates $\mathbf{W}^I$ take into account the number of electrons transferred during a tunneling event. The dependence of the level positions on gate voltages is modeled as $\varepsilon_\text{C,G}=\varepsilon_\text{C,G}^0+aeV_{\text{PC,PG}}+beV_{\text{PG,PC}}$ with $a=0.03$ and $b=0.2a$ depending on the geometric capacitances of the system.
For modeling the experimental data we fix the asymmetry at the Fermi level according to the rates determined in the experiment and add a small energy dependence of the barrier transparency. The effect of the load is taken into account as a reference current. The measured signal is given by the difference of the current with and without a temperature gradient $\Delta T$ applied to terminal H: $\Delta I_\text{R}=I_\text{R}(\Delta \mu_{\rm L,R},\Delta T)-I_\text{R}(\Delta \mu_{\rm L,R},0)$.
P. Streda. Quantised thermopower of a channel in the ballistic regime. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **1,** 1025 (1989).
Molenkamp, L. W., Van Houten, H., Beenakker, C. W. J., Eppenga, R. and Foxon, C.T. Quantum oscillations in the transverse voltage of a channel in the nonlinear transport regime. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **65,** 1052 (1990).
van Houten, H., Molenkamp, L. W., Beenakker, C. W. J. and Foxon, C. T. Thermo-electric properties of quantum point contacts. *Semicond. Sci. Tech.* **7,** B215 (1992).
Appleyard, N.J., Nicholls, J. T., Simmons, M. Y., Tribe, W. R. and Pepper, M. Thermometer for the 2D Electron Gas using 1D thermopower. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **81,** 3491 (1998).
![ Working mechanism of the energy harvester. Two quantum dots are capacitively coupled thus exchanging energy in packages of $U$, but not particles. One of them (QD$_\text{C}$) is connected to two terminals L and R. The other one (QD$_\text{G}$) is coupled to a third terminal H which is at a higher temperature. When charge fluctuations according to the depicted 4-stage sequence take place, an energy package is extracted from reservoir H and gets delivered to the cold subsystem. There, these fluctuations are rectified and converted into a charge current when the product of tunneling coefficients $\Gamma_{\rm L0}\Gamma_{\rm R1}$ differs from that of the opposite process $\Gamma_{\rm R0}\Gamma_{\rm L1}$ (*not shown*), i.e. when both particle-hole-symmetry and left-right-symmetry are broken.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](Fig1.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
![**a** Schematic of the three-terminal device geometry. One electronic reservoir H (red) is at a high temperature ($T + \Delta T$) and can exchange electrons (green) with quantum dot QD$_{\rm G}$ (yellow disc), as indicated with a red arrow. Two other reservoirs (L and R, blue) at a lower temperature $T$ are tunnel coupled to another quantum dot (QD$_{\rm C}$). The quantum dots interact only capacitively (yellow wave) while particle exchange between them is suppressed. **b** Schematic of the gate layout (black). The individual gates are denoted with numbers. Gates 1-4 form the heating channel, representing reservoir H, gates 3-8 form the QD system. In addition gates PC and PG are used to tune the energies of the dots individually. **c** Conductance ($G$) stability diagram of the QD system for configuration $A$ and T$_\text{H} = T_\text{L,R}=\unit[230]{mK}$. Borders of the stability regions are denoted with red lines (solid and dashed), regions of stable charge configuration are labeled ($N_{\rm C}, N_{\rm G}$). **d** Cartoon sketches of QD$_{\rm C}$ for two configurations $A,B$ of tunnel barrier settings each corresponding to different products of tunneling coefficients $\Gamma_{\rm L0} \Gamma_{\rm R1}$ and $\Gamma_{\rm L1} \Gamma_{\rm R0}$ which leads to different signs for $\Lambda$. []{data-label="fig:2"}](Fig2.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
![2f-current in reservoir R, $I_{\rm R}$, for configuration $A$ in the vicinity of a TP pair. Black lines denote the stability region borders as obtained from the conductance data. **a** Experimental data for $0<\Delta \mu_{\rm LR}<\unit[10]{\mu V}$. The signal around the TP pair is a result of thermal gating (regions I - IV). It becomes reversed if $\Delta \mu_{\rm LR}$ is inverted, $-\unit[10]{\mu V}<\Delta \mu_{\rm LR}<0$, as shown in **b**. The signal between the TPs is due to the proposed mechanism of energy harvesting. It stays negative, irrespective of the sign of the voltage bias $\Delta \mu_{\rm LR}$. **c** $I_{\rm R}$ as a function of squared heating current $I_{\rm h}^2$ between two TPs for slightly different $\Lambda$. **d** Model calculation for energy dependent tunneling barriers of QD$_{\rm C}$, symmetric with respect to L and R. The signal between the TP is zero, only the effect of thermal gating is present. **e** Calculation using asymmetric and energy dependent tunnel barriers as obtained for configuration A with $0<\Delta \mu_{\rm LR}<\unit[10]{\mu V}$. **f** Model calculations for $-\unit[10]{\mu V}<\Delta \mu_{\rm LR}<0$.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](Fig3.pdf){width="0.99\linewidth"}
![**a** Measured $I_{\rm R}$ for configuration $B$. **b** Model calculation for configuration $B$ **c** $I_{\rm R}$ for tunnel barriers tuned to symmetric tunneling coefficients at the Fermi level of the reservoirs. A finite $I_{\rm R}$ is still visible at the center due to a difference in energy dependence of the confining potential barriers. Corresponding model calculations are shown in **d**. **e** Increasing the gate voltage applied to gate 6 changes the energy dependence of the tunnel barrier connecting QD$_{\rm C}$ to reservoir R. This also inverts the tunneling asymmetry factor $\Lambda$ and thus the generated charge current changes sign. **f** Model calculation for changed energy dependence of tunneling coefficients. []{data-label="fig:4"}](Fig4.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
![**a** SEM-micrograph of the QD system **b** d$I$/d$V$ data obtained for QD$_{\rm C}$. Dashed lines indicate the Coulomb diamonds.[]{data-label="fig:S1"}](Fig_1_Supplement.pdf){width="0.85\linewidth"}
![**a** Coulomb conductance resonance of QD$_{\rm C}$ for gate configurations with $\gamma_{\rm L} = \gamma_{\rm R}$ ($Sym$, black), $\gamma_{\rm L} = 2.6 \gamma_{\rm R} $ ($A$, red) and $\gamma_{\rm R} = 5\gamma_{\rm L}$ ($B$, blue). **b** Schematic of the gate geometry. For QPC thermometry only those gates which define the heating channel are energized (black). All other gates are grounded (gray). White indicates conducting regions. The heating current is applied between contacts $I_{\rm 1}$ and $I_{\rm 2}$. The thermovoltage $V_{\rm T}$ is detected between $\Phi_{\rm 1}$ and $\Phi_{\rm 2}$.[]{data-label="fig:S2"}](Fig_2_Supplement.pdf){width="0.85\linewidth"}
![**a** Thermovoltage $V_{\rm T}$ of QPC 3,4 for $I_{\rm h}=\unit[10]{nA}...\unit[250]{nA}$ with QPC 1,2 set to the $G=\unit[10]{e^2/h}$ plateau. The dashed line shows the measured conductance (right axis). **b** $V_{\rm T}$ vs. $I_{\rm h}$ extracted from the maximum indicated with an arrow in a.[]{data-label="fig:S3"}](Fig_3_Supplement.pdf){width="0.85\linewidth"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Esteban F. E. Morales'
- Friedrich Wyrowski
- Frederic Schuller
- 'Karl M. Menten'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
date: 'Received 3 April 2013 / Accepted 16 September 2013'
title: 'Stellar clusters in the inner Galaxy and their correlation with cold dust emission[^1]'
---
[Stars are born within dense clumps of giant molecular clouds, constituting young stellar agglomerates known as embedded clusters, which only evolve into bound open clusters under special conditions.]{} [We statistically study all embedded clusters (ECs) and open clusters (OCs) known so far in the inner Galaxy, investigating particularly their interaction with the surrounding molecular environment and the differences in their evolution.]{} [We first compiled a merged list of 3904 clusters from optical and infrared clusters catalogs in the literature, including 75 new (mostly embedded) clusters discovered by us in the GLIMPSE survey. From this list, 695 clusters are within the Galactic range $|\ell| \le 60\degr$ and $|b| \le 1.5\degr$ covered by the ATLASGAL survey, which was used to search for correlations with submm dust continuum emission tracing dense molecular gas. We defined an evolutionary sequence of five morphological types: deeply embedded cluster (EC1), partially embedded cluster (EC2), emerging open cluster (OC0), OC still associated with a submm clump in the vicinity (OC1), and OC without correlation with ATLASGAL emission (OC2). Together with this process, we performed a thorough literature survey of these 695 clusters, compiling a considerable number of physical and observational properties in a catalog that is publicly available.]{} [We found that an OC defined observationally as OC0, OC1, or OC2 and confirmed as a real cluster is equivalent to the physical concept of OC (a bound exposed cluster) for ages in excess of $\sim 16$ Myr. Some observed OCs younger than this limit can actually be unbound associations. We found that our OC and EC samples are roughly complete up to $\sim 1$ kpc and $\sim 1.8$ kpc from the Sun, respectively, beyond which the completeness decays exponentially. Using available age estimates for a few ECs, we derived an upper limit of 3 Myr for the duration of the embedded phase. Combined with the OC age distribution within 3 kpc of the Sun, which shows an excess of young exposed clusters compared to a theoretical fit that considers classical disruption mechanisms, we computed an embedded and young cluster dissolution fraction of $88 \pm 8\%$. This high fraction is thought to be produced by several factors and not only by the classical paradigm of fast gas expulsion.]{}
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Stars form by gravitational collapse of high-density fluctuations in the interstellar molecular gas, which are generated by supersonic turbulent motions [e.g., @Klessen2011-lectures]. Following the nomenclature of @Williams2000, star formation takes place in dense ($n \gtrsim 10^4$ ) *clumps*, which are in turn fragmented into denser ($n \gtrsim 10^5$ ) *cores*, in which individual stars or small multiple systems are born. Given this nature of the star formation process, stars are born correlated in space and time, with typical scales of 1 pc and 1 Myr, respectively [see @Kroupa2011], constituting young stellar agglomerates known as *embedded clusters* (ECs). @Bressert2010 studied the spatial distribution of star formation within 500 pc from the Sun and found that, in fact, most of the young stellar objects (YSOs) in their sample are found in regions with number densities greater than $\sim 2\,{\rm pc}^{-3}$, which is more than an order of magnitude higher than the density of field stars in the Galactic disk, $0.13\,{\rm pc}^{-3}$ [@Chabrier2001].
Many of the ECs defined in this way, however, are not gravitationally bound and will not become classical open clusters (OCs), i.e., bound stellar agglomerates that are free of gas and have lifetimes on the order of 100 Myr. It is very important to make the distinction from the start because there is often some confusion about this in the literature. In the definition used throughout this work (see Section \[sec:cluster-definition\]), ECs are *not* necessarily the direct progenitors of bound OCs, but just the natural outcome of the star formation process, which is “clustered” with respect to the field stars.
The dynamical evolution of an EC is quite complex and can progress in several possible ways, depending on both the characteristics of the recently born stellar population and the physical properties of the parent molecular cloud. A gravitationally unbound molecular cloud or an unbound region of a molecular complex might still be able to form stars in subregions that are locally bound [e.g., @Bonnell2011], but the resulting EC born there is globally unbound and quickly disperses into the field. On the other hand, within a molecular complex, especially in bound regions, many ECs might merge and form a few large entities [@Maschberger2010]. If a certain EC (once born or after merging) manages to remain gravitationally bound in the gas potential, at some point the effect of stellar feedback starts to influence the parent molecular material in the vicinity. These feedback mechanisms include protostellar outflows, evaporation driven by non-ionizing ultraviolet radiation, photoionization and subsequent region expansion, stellar winds, radiation pressure and, eventually, supernovae. Again, the relative importance of a certain dissipation process is determined by the physical conditions of the system and the environment [@Fall2010].
The energy and momentum introduced by stellar feedback eventually disrupts the clump and sweeps up the residual gas out of the cluster volume. The stars of this emerging cluster are now tied to each other uniquely by the stellar gravitational potential, which might not be sufficient to keep the stars together, so that the cluster dissolves. This is the classical “infant mortality” paradigm established by @LadaLada2003. However, @Kruijssen2011 argue that this effect is only important in low-density regions, and by analyzing the dynamical state of the ECs arising from star formation hydrodynamic simulations, they find that in dense regions the formed clusters are actually bound and even close to virial equilibrium. They propose that those clusters are instead destroyed via tidal shocks from the surrounding dense gas. An alternative disruption mechanism for small-$N$ systems or larger clusters with a hierarchical substructure has recently been studied by @Moeckel2012, who find through $N$-body simulations that those clusters undergo a quick expansion owing fast internal relaxation. Bound exposed clusters are therefore the few survivors of all these processes and represent the remnants of originally more massive ECs.
The observational study of ECs is fundamental to account for most of the newly formed stellar population in the Galaxy and to investigate the interaction with its parent molecular material through stellar feedback. In the past decade, thanks to the development of all-sky infrared imaging surveys, such as 2MASS and GLIMPSE (see Section \[sec:galactic-surveys\]), many new ECs have been discovered in the Galaxy [e.g., @Dutra2003-2mass; @Bica2003-2mass; @Mercer2005; @Borissova2011], significantly increasing the number of known systems. However, so far there have only been a few systematic studies of the whole current sample of ECs and OCs in a significant fraction of the Galactic plane [e.g., @BonattoBica2011; @Kharchenko2012], and none of these studies has distinguished clearly the embedded population from the OC sample (see below). The main goal of this paper is to fill this gap.
Here, we statistically study all OCs and ECs known so far in the inner Galaxy from different cluster catalogs in the literature, after compiling a considerable number of physical and observational properties of these objects, particularly their degree of correlation with the surrounding molecular environment, if present. We take advantage of the recently completed ATLASGAL submm continuum survey (see Section \[sec:galactic-surveys\]), which provides a spatially unbiased view of the distribution of the dense molecular material in the Milky Way. While the distinction of ECs from OCs in these catalogs has primarily been made via correlations with known regions or nebulae seen in the infrared, the ATLASGAL survey allows us to objectively tell[^2] whether or not these objects are associated with dense molecular gas, as well as to possibly detect the presence of stellar feedback via simple morphological criteria.
This paper is organized as follows. In the remainder of this introduction, we shortly present the main observational data and the nomenclature used throughout this work (Sections \[sec:galactic-surveys\] and \[sec:cluster-definition\], respectively). In Section \[sec:catalogs-summary\], we describe the literature compilation of a merged list of Galactic OCs and ECs, including a new search for ECs we conducted on the GLIMPSE survey; more details about the literature cluster lists used here are given in Appendix \[sec:catalogs-long\]. Section \[sec:huge-table\] summarizes the construction of an extensive catalog for the cluster sample within the Galactic range covered by ATLASGAL, with many pieces of information, including: characteristics of the submm and mid-infrared emission, correlation with known objects, distances (kinematic and/or stellar), ages, and membership in big molecular complexes. A more detailed description of all the assumptions and procedures made when organizing this information in the catalog is given in Appendix \[sec:huge-table-details\]. In Section \[sec:analysis\], we report the results of a statistical analysis performed on this catalog, in which we delineate a morphological evolutionary sequence with decreasing correlation with ATLASGAL emission, classify the sample in ECs and OCs, and separately study their distance distribution, completeness, and age distribution. Finally, Section \[sec:conclusions\] summarizes the main conclusions of this paper.
Observations: Galactic surveys {#sec:galactic-surveys}
------------------------------
The APEX Telescope Large Area Survey of the Galaxy [ATLASGAL, @Schuller2009] is the first unbiased submm continuum survey of the whole inner Galactic disk, covering a total of 360 square degrees of the sky with Galactic coordinates in the range $|\ell| \le 60\degr$ and $|b| \le 1.5\degr$. The observations were carried out at 870 using the Large APEX Bolometer Camera [LABOCA; @Siringo2009] of the APEX telescope [@Guensten2006], located on Llano de Chajnantor, Chile, at 5100 m of altitude. With an antenna diameter of 12 m, the observations reach an angular resolution[^3] of $19.2''$ at this wavelength. The submm continuum emission mainly represents thermal radiation from cool dust, which is generally optically thin and, therefore, an excellent tracer of the amount of interstellar material on the line of sight. The ATLASGAL survey reaches an average rms noise level of $\sim 50$ mJy/beam, which translates in a $3\sigma$ detection limit of $\sim 4~M_{\sun}$ of total molecular mass (for a nominal distance of 2 kpc and a dust temperature of $T_\rd = 20$ K).
In the infrared, we primarily use two large scale surveys that cover the inner Galactic plane: The Two Micron All Sky Survey [2MASS, @Skrutskie2006] which provides near-infrared (NIR) images of the whole sky, in the $J$ (1.25 ), $H$ (1.65 ), and $K_s$ (2.16 ) filters, with an angular resolution of $\sim 2.5''$; and the Galactic Legacy Infrared Mid-Plane Survey Extraordinaire [GLIMPSE, @Benjamin2003; @Churchwell2009], which is a set of various mid-infrared (MIR) surveys of the Galactic plane carried out with the InfraRed Array Camera [IRAC, @Fazio2004], on board of the *Spitzer Space Telescope* [@Werner2004]. Here we use the GLIMPSE I and II surveys which cover the $(\ell,b)$ ranges: $5\degr < |\ell| \le 65\degr$ and $|b| \le 1\degr$; $2\degr < |\ell| \le 5\degr$ and $|b| \le 1.5\degr$; $|\ell| \le 2\degr$ and $|b| \le 2\degr$, comprising a total of 274 square degrees. The IRAC camera provides images at four filters centered at wavelengths 3.6, 4.5, 5.6, and 8.0 , with an angular resolution of $\sim 2''$.
The GLIMPSE surveys have revealed very peculiar structures in star-forming regions [a summary is provided in Section 2 of @Churchwell2009]. The 8.0 filter is particularly useful to detect the presence of bright fluorescent emission from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are excited by the stellar far ultraviolet (UV) field, but are destroyed by the harder UV radiation present within ionized gas regions. Thus, PAH emission is often observed from *IR bubbles*, which appear projected as ring-like structures and in many cases are tracing molecular material swept up by the expansion of regions created by the ionizing radiation from massive stars [@Deharveng2010]. On the other hand, *infrared dark clouds* (IRDCs), already found in previous MIR surveys, are seen as extinction features against the bright and diffuse mid-infrared Galactic background. They represent the densest and coldest condensations within giant molecular clouds and are the most likely sites of future star formation.
For a few regions within the ATLASGAL Galactic range not covered by the GLIMPSE survey, we use data from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer [WISE, @Wright2010], which mapped the entire sky in four infrared bands centered at 3.4, 4.6, 12, and 22 , with an angular resolution of $\sim 6''$ in the first three bands. Despite the lower sensitivity and coarser resolution as compared with GLIMPSE, bright PAH emission and prominent IRDCs can still be identified in the WISE images, specially at 12 (see Section \[sec:MIR-morphology\]).
“Stellar cluster” definitions {#sec:cluster-definition}
-----------------------------
In this paper, we define:
- an *embedded cluster* (EC) as any stellar group recently born and still containing an important fraction of residual gas within and surrounding its volume, keeping in mind that it may never become a bound open cluster on its own. Since star formation takes place in molecular clouds, this definition is equivalent to the concept of a *correlated star formation event* introduced by @Kroupa2011; we keep the term “cluster” in order to match older designations in the literature.
- an *open cluster* (OC) as any agglomerate of spatially correlated stars, and relatively free of the remaining gas. We use this observational definition of OC (see also Section \[sec:classification-oc-ec\]) in order to account for those objects that observationally appear like classical OCs, but whose dynamical state is unknown, in some cases they can actually be gravitationally unbound.
- a *physical OC* as a gravitationally bound OC (i.e., a classical OC).
- an *association* as an unbound OC.
In this work, we sometimes use the term “star clusters” generically for all the classes defined above, especially when concerning observations. Bound, exposed star clusters, however, will be always be referred to explicitly as *physical OCs*.
Compilation of cluster lists {#sec:catalogs-summary}
============================
Although the number of known OCs and ECs in the Galaxy has considerably increased over the last years, the current cluster sample is still far from being complete. As we discuss in Section \[sec:completeness\], the detection of a stellar cluster in the inner Galactic plane is particularly difficult, due to the high extinction and the crowded stellar background, making the cluster sample severely incomplete for distances larger than a few kpc from the Sun. If we are able to quantify this incompleteness, however, all the statistical results can properly be corrected, as we do in this work. Of course, the more complete the cluster sample, the smaller the corresponding uncertainties.
We thus performed an extensive compilation of all Galactic star cluster catalogs from the literature. For completeness, this compilation was initially not restricted to the ATLASGAL Galactic range; we only did it afterwards for the comparison with ATLASGAL emission and all the subsequent analysis. The catalogs are listed in the first three columns of Table \[tab:catalogs\], where we give, respectively, an ID used throughout this work, the corresponding reference, and its category according to the wavelength at which the clusters are detected: *optical*, *NIR* or *MIR*. Optical clusters are taken mostly from the current version (3.1, from November, 2010) of the catalog by @Dias2002. NIR cluster catalogs are compilations, or lists from visual and automated searches mainly performed on the 2MASS survey. MIR clusters represent the objects detected by @Mercer2005 in the GLIMPSE data, and the new clusters discovered by us using a different search method on the same survey, which were missing in the @Mercer2005 list (see Section \[sec:newglimpse\]). In our total sample, we also included individual star clusters from the literature not listed in the previous catalogs (referred to as “Not cataloged clusters” in Table \[tab:catalogs\]). A more detailed description of the diverse catalogs and references used to construct our cluster sample is given in Appendix \[sec:catalogs-long\]. This literature compilation has been updated till August, 2011.
Since we are dealing with different cluster catalogs which were constructed independently, a specific object can be present in more than one list. We therefore implemented a simple merging procedure to finally have an unique sample of stellar clusters. The first condition to identify one repetition, i.e., the same object in two different catalogs, was that the angular distance between the two given center positions were less than both listed angular diameters. We checked all merged objects under this criterion looking for the corresponding cluster names, when available, and confirmed a repetition when the names coincided. Otherwise (names not available or different), two clusters were considered the same object when the angular distance was less than both angular radii, which were also required to agree within a factor of 5. The last condition was imposed to account for the case when a compact infrared cluster shares the same field of view of a (different) optical cluster with a large angular size. This cross-identification process was not intended to be perfect, but good enough to not affect the statistical results of the whole cluster sample. Within the ATLASGAL Galactic range, a much more thorough revision was done (see Section \[sec:huge-table\]), further refining the cross-identifications, and even recognizing a few duplications and spurious clusters which were excluded from the final sample (see Section \[sec:spurious\]).
---- ------------------------- ----------- -------------- ---------------- -------------- ---------------- -------------- ----------------
Type
ID Reference $N_{\rm cl}$ $N_{\rm cl}^*$ $N_{\rm cl}$ $N_{\rm cl}^*$ $N_{\rm cl}$ $N_{\rm cl}^*$
01 @Dias2002 [ver. 3.1] *Optical* 2117 2117 216 216 29 29
02 @Kronberger2006 *Optical* 239 130 29 11 5 4
03 @DutraBica2000 *NIR* 22 8 18 8 8 2
04 @Bica2003-lit *NIR* 275 264 30 28 28 26
05 @Dutra2003-2mass *NIR* 174 167 81 80 78 77
06 @Bica2003-2mass *NIR* 163 155 69 68 63 62
07 @LadaLada2003 *NIR* 76 12 4 0 4 0
08 @Porras2003 *NIR* 73 21 0 0 0 0
09 @Mercer2005 *MIR* 90 86 83 81 55 54
10 @Kumar2006 *NIR* 54 20 0 0 0 0
11 @Froebrich2007 *NIR* 998 676 44 21 2 0
12 @Faustini2009 *NIR* 23 16 9 9 9 9
13 @Glushkova2010 *NIR* 194 32 12 4 1 0
14 @Borissova2011 *NIR* 96 96 85 85 65 65
15 Not cataloged (NIR) *NIR* 26 26 12 12 10 10
16 Not cataloged (MIR) *MIR* 3 3 3 3 0 0
17 New GLIMPSE (this work) *MIR* 111 75 103 69 94 67
Total *Optical* 2247 2247 227 227 33 33
Total *NIR* 1950 1493 356 315 265 251
Total *MIR* 197 164 182 153 144 121
---- ------------------------- ----------- -------------- ---------------- -------------- ---------------- -------------- ----------------
In Table \[tab:catalogs\], for a given reference, we represent as $N_{\rm cl}$ the absolute (original) number of clusters in the catalog, whereas $N_{\rm cl}^*$ is the number of different entries with respect to all catalogs listed before it (i.e., after merging). The optical catalogs were put first, so that any cluster visible in the optical is considered an *optical* cluster. The infrared lists (including the *NIR* and *MIR* clusters) were positioned afterwards in chronological order, and therefore following roughly the discovery time. Absolute and after-merging numbers are presented for the total sky range of every list, the ATLASGAL Galactic range ($|\ell| \le 60\degr$ and $|b| \le 1.5\degr$), and finally for only those associated with ATLASGAL emission according to the criterion explained in Section \[sec:evolutionary-sequence\]. We warn that the number of clusters given there are after removing a few spurious objects and globular clusters (listed in Table \[tab:spurious\]).
After cross-identifications, we ended up with a final sample of 3904 stellar clusters, of which 2247 are *optical*, 1493 *NIR*, and 164 *MIR* clusters. Taking into account the repetitions within each category, but not between them, the numbers of objects are 2247 for *optical*, 1950 for *NIR*, and 197 for *MIR*. Note that the low number of *MIR* clusters is due to the confined Galactic range of the GLIMPSE survey; actually, when only considering the ATLASGAL range, which is similar to the GLIMPSE range, the numbers of objects are of the same order for the different categories: 227 *optical*, 315 *NIR*, and 153 *MIR* clusters, after merging.
As argued in Section \[sec:spurious\], for ECs (as defined in this work) we expect a minimal contamination by spurious detections, whereas for OCs that have not been confirmed by follow-up studies, we estimate a spurious contamination rate of $\sim 50\%$, following @Froebrich2007.
New search for ECs in GLIMPSE {#sec:newglimpse}
-----------------------------
The GLIMPSE on-line viewer[^4] from the Space Science Institute represents a very useful tool to quickly examine color images constructed from data collected in the four 3.6, 4.5, 5.8 and 8.0 IRAC filters, of the whole survey. By inspecting some specific regions with this viewer, we noticed that some heavily ECs are still missing in the @Mercer2005 list. An EC consists mostly of YSOs, which are intrinsically redder than field stars due to thermal emission from circumstellar dust, so that they are distinguished from background/foreground stars mainly by their red colors. Such a cluster would therefore produce a clearer spatial overdensity of stars in a point source catalog previously filtered by a red-color criterion, and would be more likely missed in a search of overdensities considering the totality of point sources, due the high number of field stars. We believe that this is the principal reason which would explain the incompleteness of the @Mercer2005 catalog.
We then implemented a very simple automated algorithm using the GLIMPSE point source catalog to find the locations of EC candidates. First, we selected all point sources satisfying a red-color criterion: $[4.5] - [8.0] \ge 1$, following @Robitaille2008, who applied this condition to create their catalog of GLIMPSE intrinsically red sources. As already explained in that work, the use of these specific IRAC bands is supported by the fact that the interstellar extinction law is approximately flat between 4.5 and 8.0 , and therefore the contamination by extinguished field stars in this selection is reduced compared to other red-color criteria. By applying this condition to the entire GLIMPSE catalog, 268513 sources were selected. We did not impose the additional brightness and quality restrictions used by @Robitaille2008 because we favor the number of sources (and therefore higher sensitivity to possible YSO overdensities) rather than strict completeness and photometric reliability, which are not needed to only detect the locations of potential ECs. With the 268513 selected sources, a stellar surface density map was constructed by counting the number of sources within boxes of 0.01$\degr$ ($=36\arcsec$), in steps of 0.002$\degr$ ($=7.2\arcsec$). This significant oversampling was adopted in order to detect density enhancements that would have fallen into two or more boxes if we had used not overlapping bins. The bin size correspond to the typical angular dimension of some ECs serendipitously found using the on-line GLIMPSE viewer. To account for larger overdensities, a second stellar density map was produced with a bin size of 0.018$\degr$ ($=64.8\arcsec$), using the same step size of 0.002$\degr$.
The red-source density maps were checked in a test field, and we found that thresholds of 5 sources for the small bin, and 7 sources for the large bin, are needed to detect the positions of all clusters which can be identified by-eye using the GLIMPSE on-line viewer within that area, although at the same time these low thresholds yield the detection of many spurious red-source overdensities that do not contain clusters. We decided to keep these thresholds in order not to miss any real cluster that might have a low number of members listed in the point source catalog, and perform a visual inspection of the images after the automated search to filter all spurious detections. It was also noticed that using the GLIMPSE point source archive instead of the catalog is roughly equivalent to utilizing the catalog with a lower threshold, so as long as we choose a correct threshold, the use of the more reliable GLIMPSE catalog (with respect to the archive) is justified. Within the whole GLIMPSE area, we detected 702 independent positions of overdensities (bins containing not-intersecting subsets of red sources), corresponding to 172 bins of 36$\arcsec$ with densities $\geq 5$ sources/bin, 195 bins of 64.8$\arcsec$ with densities $\geq 7$ sources/bin, and 335 locations satisfying the thresholds for both bin sizes. It should be noted that since the red-color criterion produced density maps with low crowding and therefore the local background density is always close to zero, a more sophisticated algorithm is not needed. In fact, the red-source density maps have a mean and a standard deviation of 0.039 and 0.21 sources/bin for the small bin, and 0.13 and 0.43 sources/bin for the large bin, which means that the used thresholds are above the $15\sigma$ level. Again, we emphasize that the automated search was only used to find possible locations of ECs; we did not intend to catch the complete YSO population for a given cluster in this process.
[lrrccrrcl]{}
\
G3CC & $\ell$ & $b$ & $\alpha$ & $\delta$ & Diam. & $N_{\rm circ}$ & Det. & Flags\
& ($\degr$)& ($\degr$)& (J2000) & (J2000) & ($\arcsec$) & & &\
(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9)\
\
G3CC & $l$ & $b$ & $\alpha$ & $\delta$ & Diam. & $N_{\rm circ}$ & Det. & Flags\
& ($\degr$)& ($\degr$)& (J2000) & (J2000) & ($\arcsec$) & & &\
(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) & (8) & (9)\
1 & 295.151 & $-$0.587 & 11:43:24.9 & $-$62:25:36 & 98 & 16 & A & C8,E8,S\
2 & 299.014 & 0.128 & 12:17:24.9 & $-$62:29:04 & 60 & 4 & V & B,E8\
3 & 299.051 & 0.181 & 12:17:47.9 & $-$62:26:12 & 81 & 14 & A & C8\
4 & 299.337 & $-$0.319 & 12:19:43.1 & $-$62:58:08 & 51 & 9 & A & BR,E8\
5 & 300.913 & 0.887 & 12:34:16.2 & $-$61:55:04 & 76 & 10 & A & C8,E8\
6 & 301.643 & $-$0.240 & 12:40:02.6 & $-$63:05:01 & 67 & 9 & A & DC,E8,S\
7 & 301.947 & 0.313 & 12:42:53.7 & $-$62:32:32 & 65 & 12 & A & E8\
8 & 303.927 & $-$0.687 & 13:00:22.2 & $-$63:32:30 & 107 & 14 & A & C8,E8\
9 & 304.002 & 0.464 & 13:00:40.3 & $-$62:23:17 & 82 & $\cdots$ & A & BR,E8,S\
10 & 304.887 & 0.635 & 13:08:12.3 & $-$62:10:23 & 41 & 7 & A & DC,E4\
11 & 307.083 & 0.528 & 13:26:58.8 & $-$62:03:25 & 71 & 8 & A & C8,DC,E8,S\
12 & 309.421 & $-$0.621 & 13:48:38.1 & $-$62:46:11 & 48 & 10 & A & DC\
13 & 309.537 & $-$0.742 & 13:49:51.6 & $-$62:51:42 & 38 & 7 & A & C8,DC,E8\
14 & 309.968 & 0.302 & 13:51:25.6 & $-$61:44:51 & 40 & 6 & A & DC,E8\
15 & 309.996 & 0.507 & 13:51:15.8 & $-$61:32:30 & 88 & 8 & A & E8,DC\
16 & 313.762 & $-$0.860 & 14:24:58.6 & $-$61:44:56 & 80 & 15 & A & BR,C8,DC,E4,E8,U8\
17 & 314.203 & 0.213 & 14:25:15.4 & $-$60:35:22 & 86 & 12 & A & C8,E8,U8\
18 & 314.269 & 0.092 & 14:26:06.6 & $-$60:40:43 & 87 & 8 & A & C8,DC,E8,S,V2\
19 & 317.466 & $-$0.401 & 14:51:19.3 & $-$59:50:46 & 45 & 7 & A & DC,E4,E8\
20 & 317.884 & $-$0.253 & 14:53:45.6 & $-$59:31:34 & 74 & 15 & A & DC,E4,E8\
21 & 318.049 & 0.088 & 14:53:42.2 & $-$59:08:49 & 88 & 20 & A & C8,DC,U8\
22 & 318.777 & $-$0.144 & 14:59:33.5 & $-$59:00:59 & 105 & 8 & A & B,E8,V2\
23 & 319.336 & 0.912 & 14:59:31.0 & $-$57:49:18 & 65 & 12 & A &\
24 & 321.937 & $-$0.006 & 15:19:43.2 & $-$57:18:04 & 33 & 9 & A & C8,DC,E8\
25 & 321.952 & 0.014 & 15:19:44.6 & $-$57:16:35 & 37 & 10 & A & E8\
26 & 326.476 & 0.699 & 15:43:18.0 & $-$54:07:23 & 81 & 12 & A & C8,DC,E4,U8\
27 & 326.796 & 0.385 & 15:46:20.3 & $-$54:10:35 & 54 & 10 & A & DC,E4\
28 & 328.165 & 0.587 & 15:52:42.6 & $-$53:09:48 & 31 & 6 & A & E4,U8\
29 & 328.252 & $-$0.531 & 15:57:58.9 & $-$53:58:02 & 58 & 9 & A & C8,DC,E4,E8\
30 & 328.809 & 0.635 & 15:55:48.4 & $-$52:43:00 & 82 & 9 & V & C8,DC,E4\
31 & 329.184 & $-$0.313 & 16:01:47.0 & $-$53:11:40 & 73 & 8 & A & DC,E4,U8\
32 & 330.031 & 1.043 & 16:00:09.4 & $-$51:36:52 & 56 & 6 & A & DC,E8,S\
33 & 335.061 & $-$0.428 & 16:29:23.5 & $-$49:12:25 & 63 & 6 & A & C8,DC,E4\
34 & 337.153 & $-$0.393 & 16:37:48.5 & $-$47:38:53 & 49 & 4 & A & DC,U8,V2\
35 & 338.396 & $-$0.406 & 16:42:43.2 & $-$46:43:36 & 65 & 8 & A & C8,DC,E4\
36 & 338.922 & 0.390 & 16:41:15.7 & $-$45:48:23 & 97 & 11 & A & C8,E8,S\
37 & 338.930 & $-$0.495 & 16:45:08.6 & $-$46:22:50 & 80 & 11 & A & C8,DC,E8,U8\
38 & 339.584 & $-$0.127 & 16:45:59.1 & $-$45:38:44 & 53 & 9 & A & DC,E4,E8\
39 & 344.221 & $-$0.569 & 17:04:06.6 & $-$42:18:57 & 51 & 11 & A & BR,E4,E8\
40 & 344.996 & $-$0.224 & 17:05:09.7 & $-$41:29:26 & 75 & 15 & A & DC,E4,U8\
41 & 347.883 & $-$0.291 & 17:14:27.3 & $-$39:12:35 & 62 & 6 & V & C8,E8\
42 & 348.180 & 0.483 & 17:12:08.1 & $-$38:30:54 & 38 & 7 & A & E8\
43 & 348.584 & $-$0.920 & 17:19:11.6 & $-$39:00:08 & 52 & 10 & A & C8,E4\
44 & 350.105 & 0.085 & 17:19:26.7 & $-$37:10:48 & 167 & 25 & A & C8,E8,V2\
45 & 350.930 & 0.753 & 17:19:04.7 & $-$36:07:16 & 90 & 14 & A & C8,DC,E8,S\
46 & 351.776 & $-$0.538 & 17:26:43.1 & $-$36:09:18 & 93 & 14 & A & C8,DC,E4,E8\
47 & 352.489 & 0.797 & 17:23:15.6 & $-$34:48:53 & 84 & 7 & A & C8,E8\
48 & 358.386 & $-$0.482 & 17:43:37.5 & $-$30:33:51 & 57 & 5 & A & C8,DC,E4,E8,V2\
49 & 0.675 & $-$0.046 & 17:47:23.7 & $-$28:22:59 & 140 & 23 & A & C8,E8,S\
50 & 4.001 & 0.335 & 17:53:34.5 & $-$25:19:57 & 56 & 12 & A & BR,C8,E8\
51 & 5.636 & 0.239 & 17:57:33.9 & $-$23:58:05 & 65 & 7 & A & C8,DC,E8\
52 & 6.797 & $-$0.256 & 18:01:57.6 & $-$23:12:26 & 50 & 11 & A & C8,DC,E4,U8\
53 & 8.492 & $-$0.633 & 18:06:59.3 & $-$21:54:55 & 126 & 28 & A & DC,S\
54 & 9.221 & 0.166 & 18:05:31.3 & $-$20:53:21 & 42 & 7 & A & DC,E8\
55 & 14.113 & $-$0.571 & 18:18:12.4 & $-$16:57:18 & 57 & 9 & A & DC,E8\
56 & 14.341 & $-$0.642 & 18:18:55.2 & $-$16:47:15 & 124 & 15 & A & C8,DC,E4,E8\
57 & 17.168 & 0.815 & 18:19:08.4 & $-$13:36:29 & 61 & 12 & A & DC\
58 & 25.297 & 0.309 & 18:36:20.5 & $-$06:38:57 & 39 & 8 & A & E8\
59 & 26.507 & 0.284 & 18:38:40.0 & $-$05:35:06 & 49 & 7 & A & C8,DC\
60 & 31.158 & 0.047 & 18:48:02.1 & $-$01:33:26 & 50 & 8 & A & E8\
61 & 34.403 & 0.229 & 18:53:18.4 & 01:24:47 & 91 & 8 & A & DC,E4\
62 & 39.497 & $-$0.993 & 19:07:00.0 & 05:23:05 & 53 & 7 & A & C8,V2\
63 & 43.040 & $-$0.451 & 19:11:38.7 & 08:46:40 & 52 & 6 & A & C8,E4,E8\
64 & 43.893 & $-$0.785 & 19:14:26.8 & 09:22:44 & 63 & 7 & A & C8,E8\
65 & 47.874 & 0.309 & 19:18:04.1 & 13:24:41 & 68 & 11 & A & C8,E8\
66 & 49.912 & 0.369 & 19:21:47.7 & 15:14:20 & 55 & 11 & V & BR,C8,E8\
67 & 50.053 & 0.064 & 19:23:11.3 & 15:13:10 & 107 & 14 & A & DC,S\
68 & 52.570 & $-$0.955 & 19:31:54.7 & 16:56:44 & 44 & 9 & A & E4,E8\
69 & 53.147 & 0.071 & 19:29:18.0 & 17:56:41 & 119 & 13 & A & C8,DC,S\
70 & 53.237 & 0.056 & 19:29:32.3 & 18:00:57 & 76 & 19 & A & DC,S\
71 & 56.961 & $-$0.234 & 19:38:16.7 & 21:08:02 & 58 & 8 & A & C8,E8\
72 & 58.471 & 0.432 & 19:38:58.4 & 22:46:32 & 73 & 10 & A & C8,E8\
73 & 59.783 & 0.071 & 19:43:09.9 & 23:44:14 & 120 & 11 & A & C8,E4,E8,V2\
74 & 62.379 & 0.298 & 19:48:02.4 & 26:05:51 & 47 & 7 & A &\
75 & 64.272 & $-$0.425 & 19:55:09.4 & 27:21:18 & 55 & 10 & A & BR\
As pointed out above, a subsequent visual selection was performed by examining the GLIMPSE images, based on a series of criteria which are explained in the following. Because the GLIMPSE on-line viewer has limited pixel resolution and is not efficient to inspect a high number of specific locations, we downloaded original GLIMPSE cutouts around these 702 positions and constructed three-color images using the 3.6 (blue), 4.5 (green) and 8.0 (red) IRAC bands. This by-eye inspection led us to finally select 88 overdensities as locations of clusters, 17 of which are identified as known clusters from our literature compilation presented before. The remaining 71 new objects are listed in Table \[tab:newglimpse\]. The adopted identification is a record number (column 1) preceded by the acronym “G3CC” (GLIMPSE 3-Color Cluster[^5]). The final coordinates and the angular diameter (column 6) were estimated by eye on the GLIMPSE three-color images fitting circles interactively with the display software *SAO Image DS9*[^6]. The visual criteria applied to select the 88 overdensities are identified for each new object as flags in the last column of Table \[tab:newglimpse\]. Figure \[fig:newglimpse-examples\] shows GLIMPSE three-color images of 6 clusters, illustrating these different criteria. An almost ubiquitous characteristic of the selected clusters (present in 82 cases) is their association with typical mid-infrared star formation signposts (see Section \[sec:galactic-surveys\]), namely: extended 8.0 emission in the immediate surroundings (flag E8, see Fig. \[fig:newglimpse-examples\](a,b,c,d,f)), likely representing radiation from UV-excited PAHs or warm dust; more localized extended 4.5 emission within the cluster area (flag E4, Fig. \[fig:newglimpse-examples\](a)), which might trace shocked gas by outflowing activity from protostars [see @Cyganowski2008 and references therein]; and presence of an infrared dark cloud in which the cluster is embedded (flag DC, Fig. \[fig:newglimpse-examples\](a,e)). We also indicate whether a cluster appears to have more stellar members than those identified by the red-color criterion, including the following situations: cluster composed of red sources and additional bright normal (not reddened) stars (flag BR, Fig. \[fig:newglimpse-examples\](d)), suggesting that the cluster is in a more evolved phase, probably emerging from the molecular cloud; cluster exclusively composed of bright normal stars (flag B, but only two cases, in conjunction with flag V2, see below); and presence of additional probable YSOs within the cluster, identified as sources uniquely detected at 8.0 (flag U8, representing extreme cases of red color), or compact 8.0 objects not listed in the point source catalog or archive (flag C8, Fig. \[fig:newglimpse-examples\](b,c,d,f)), due to the bright and variable extended emission at this wavelength, saturation for bright sources, or localized diffuse emission around a particular source which makes its apparent size larger than a point-source. The other flags indicate when the cluster shows up as a sparse, not centrally condensed set of sources (flag S, Fig. \[fig:newglimpse-examples\](b)), or if the cluster was noticed by-eye on the GLIMPSE images in a nearby location of an automatically detected overdensity, but not exactly at the same position (flag V2).
{width="90.00000%"}
The remaining positions were rejected as clusters, and typically correspond to background stars extinguished by dark clouds or seen behind foreground 8.0 diffuse emission, producing a red-source density enhancement by chance, sometimes together in the same line of sight with a couple of intrinsically red sources (YSOs) which however do not represent a cluster by their own. Quantitatively, we found that, in general, most of the rejected positions are overdensities with fewer elements than the ones selected as clusters. In fact, if we choose stricter thresholds of 8 sources for the small bin, and 10 sources for the large bin, instead of the originally used 5 and 7, respectively, the total set of overdensities decreases from 702 to just 87 independent positions, 37 of which represent our clusters. This would mean an improved “success” rate of $37/87 = 43\%$ for the automated method rather than the original $88/702 = 13\%$. Furthermore, if we consider the *effective* number of elements in the 88 bins originally selected as being locations of clusters, i.e., summing possible additional stellar members (flags BR,C8,U8) within the bins, we find that 61 of our clusters satisfy the new threshold. We emphasize, however, that the additional stellar members of each cluster were recognized after detailed inspection of the GLIMPSE images, so that the use of low density thresholds in the automated method was necessary to identify the initial cluster locations, despite of the consequent detection of many spurious red-source overdensities. If we had used from the beginning the stricter thresholds, we would have missed $88-37=51$ clusters. Column 7 of Table \[tab:newglimpse\] lists for every cluster the estimated number of stellar members within the assumed radius, $N_{\rm circ}$, counting the YSOs selected by the red-color criterion and the additional members identified in the images (flags BR,C8,U8). Note that this number represents a lower limit, especially in distant clusters, since lower mass members could still be undetected due to the limited angular resolution and sensitivity of the GLIMPSE data.
We note that, because our simple automated method to find YSO overdensities is based on the GLIMPSE point source catalog, it is unavoidably biased towards young ECs that are not yet associated with very bright extended emission, which would hide many of the cluster members from the point source detection algorithm. Fortunately, it is quite likely that those bright nebulae were already looked for the presence of clusters by previous by-eye searches (see Section \[sec:completeness\]), so probably a few of them are really missing in our total compiled sample. We tried anyway to complete our list of new clusters by performing a systematic visual inspection with the on-line viewer over the entire area surveyed by GLIMPSE, including also fully exposed clusters that appear bright at 3.6 (equivalent to flag ‘B’). We found from this process 23 additional clusters, of which, however, only 4 are new discoveries with respect to our literature compilation. They are marked in column 8 of Table \[tab:newglimpse\] with a ‘V’, while the ones detected by the automated method are indicated with an ‘A’. We remark that, of the 17 known clusters we rediscovered from the red-source overdensities, only 3 are from the @Mercer2005 list. This practically null overlap between the two detection methods demonstrates that our search is fully complementary and particularly useful to detect ECs, confirming the ideas we presented at the beginning of this Section.
Although our literature compilation of clusters is up to date until August, 2011, it is interesting to cross-check our list of new GLIMPSE clusters with the ECs recently discovered by @Majaess2013, who applied a combination of color and spectral index criteria to find YSO candidates using the WISE and 2MASS catalogs, and then looked for clusters by visually inspecting the YSOs spatial distribution. We found that only 5 new GLIMPSE clusters (they are indicated in Table \[tab:newglimpse\]) are associated with objects from the published list by @Majaess2013, in particular these 5 clusters are *contained* within the corresponding objects identified by @Majaess2013, which cover a much larger area. Due to the coarser angular resolution of WISE data with respect to GLIMPSE data, the typical stellar densities in our ECs are probably too high to make all the individual members detectable at the WISE resolution, and consequently they are hidden in the @Majaess2013 YSO selection.
Properties of the cluster sample {#sec:huge-table}
================================
The next step of this work was to characterize the ATLASGAL emission, if present, at the positions of the star clusters compiled in Section \[sec:catalogs-summary\], and to compare this emission with NIR and MIR images. Hereafter, our study is naturally restricted to the ATLASGAL Galactic range ($|\ell| \le 60\degr$ and $|b| \le 1.5\degr$), and we refer to the list of the 695 stellar clusters within that range as the “whole cluster sample” (or simply as the “cluster sample”), unless noted. Together with this process, we performed a critical literature revision in order to add and update distances and ages for an important fraction of the sample, as well as to look for connections with known regions, IRDCs, and IR bubbles. We organize all this information in an unique catalog, whose construction is summarized in the following, and described in more detail in Appendix \[sec:huge-table-details\]. The catalog is only available in electronic form at the CDS, together with a companion list of all the references with the corresponding identification numbers used throughout the table. For illustration, an excerpt of the catalog is given in Appendix \[sec:catalog-excerpt\].
ATLASGAL and MIR emission {#sec:atlasgal-and-mir}
-------------------------
In order to search for submm dust continuum emission tracing molecular gas likely associated with the clusters, we examined the ATLASGAL emission around the cluster positions. The column `Morph` is a text flag that gives information about the morphology of the detected ATLASGAL emission versus the IR emission. It is composed of two parts separated by a period. The first part tells about how the ATLASGAL emission is distributed throughout the immediate star cluster area, including the following cases:
- `emb`: cluster fully embedded, with its center matching the submm clump peak (Fig. \[fig:EC-examples\], *top*).
- `p-emb`: cluster partially embedded, whose area is not completely covered, or the submm clump peak is significantly shifted from the (proto-) stars locations (Fig. \[fig:EC-examples\], *bottom*).
- `surr`: possibly associated submm emission surrounding the cluster or close to its boundaries (Fig. \[fig:OC-examples\], *top*).
- `few`: one or a few ATLASGAL clumps within the cluster area (mostly for optical clusters having a large angular size), not necessarily physically related with the cluster.
- `few*`: the same morphology as before, but now the clump(s) is (are) likely associated with the star cluster according to previous studies in the literature, or because the kinematic distance derived from molecular lines agrees with the stellar distance. See Section \[sec:distance-and-ages\] for a brief description of the distance determinations.
- `exp`: exposed cluster, without ATLASGAL emission in immediate surroundings (Fig. \[fig:OC-examples\], *middle* and *bottom*).
- `exp*`: cluster that is physically exposed, but presents submm emission within the cluster area which appears in the same line of sight, but with a kinematic distance discrepant from the stellar distance (the cluster would be categorized as `few` or `surr` if no distance information were available).
We indicate in the second part of the column `Morph` (after the period) details about the mid-infrared morphology of each cluster, after visually inspecting GLIMPSE three-color images made with the 3.6 (blue), 4.5 (green) and 8.0 (red) bands. For a few clusters with no coverage in the GLIMPSE survey (7% of the cluster sample), we instead examined WISE three-color images using the 3.4, 4.6 and 12 filters. This flag includes the following cases:
- `bub-cen`: presence of an IR bubble which seems to be produced by the cluster through stellar feedback, and appears in the images centered near the cluster position (Fig. \[fig:OC-examples\], *top*).
- `bub-cen-trig`: the same situation than before, together with the presence of possible YSOs at the periphery of the bubble identified by their reddened appearance in the images, suggesting triggered star formation generated by the cluster (see also Fig. \[fig:OC-examples\], *top*).
- `bub-edge`: in this case, the cluster itself appears at the edge of an IR bubble, suggesting that it was probably formed by triggering from an independent cluster or massive star.
- `pah`: presence of bright and irregular emission at 8.0 (12 for WISE) which seems to be produced by the cluster through stellar radiative feedback (Fig. \[fig:EC-examples\], *bottom*); it is attributed to radiation from UV excited PAHs or warm dust, but is not clearly identified as an IR bubble (though it sometimes shows bubble-like borders)[^7].
![Examples of the two morphological types defined for ECs (see Section \[sec:evolutionary-sequence\]): The cluster G3CC 38 of type EC1 (top panels), and the cluster $[$DBS2003$]$ 113 of type EC2 (bottom panels). The left panels show *Spitzer*-IRAC three-color images made with the 3.6 (blue), 4.5 (green) and 8.0 (red) bands. The right panels present 2MASS three-color images of the same field of view, constructed with the $J$ (blue), $H$ (green), and $K_s$ (red) bands. The overlaid contours on the 2MASS images represent ATLASGAL emission (870 ); the contour levels are $\{5,8.8,15,25,46,88,170\}\times \sigma$, where $\sigma$ is the local rms noise level ($\sigma = 45$ mJy/beam for G3CC 38, and $\sigma = 42$ mJy/beam for $[$DBS2003$]$ 113). The images are in Galactic coordinates and the given offsets are with respect to the cluster center, indicated in the left panels below the cluster name. The dashed circles represent the estimated angular sizes from the original cluster catalogs (see Section \[sec:basic-information\]). The 1 pc scale-bar was estimated using the corresponding distance adopted in our catalog.[]{data-label="fig:EC-examples"}](figures/morph-sequence-ec.eps){width="49.00000%"}
![Examples of the three morphological types defined for OCs (see Section \[sec:evolutionary-sequence\]): The cluster $[$DBS2003$]$ 176 of type OC0 (top panels), the cluster NGC 6823 of type OC1 (middle panels), and the cluster BH 222 of type OC2 (bottom panels). The local rms noise level of the ATLASGAL emission is, respectively, 36, 46, and 29 mJy/beam. See caption of Figure \[fig:EC-examples\] for more details of the images.[]{data-label="fig:OC-examples"}](figures/morph-sequence-oc.eps){width="49.00000%"}
Correlation with known objects {#sec:known-objects}
------------------------------
Associated IR bubbles that are listed in the catalogs by @Churchwell2006 [@Churchwell2007] are identified in the table column `Bub`. On the GLIMPSE three-color images and on the 8.0 images (WISE three-color and 12 images when GLIMPSE data were not available), we also identified the presence of an infrared dark cloud in which the cluster appears to be embedded (column `IRDC`; see Fig. \[fig:EC-examples\], *top*), and we give the designation from the catalogs by @Simon2006 or @PerettoFuller2009 when the object is listed there. Finally, we searched in the literature for associated regions (column `HII_reg`), and we flagged the sources that have been classified in the literature as ultra compact (UC) regions.
Distance and age {#sec:distance-and-ages}
----------------
An important part of this work was to assign distances to as many clusters as possible. In this regard, we took advantage of the fact that many of the ATLASGAL clumps at the locations or in the vicinity of the stellar clusters have measurements of molecular line LSR velocities [e.g., @Wienen2012; @Bronfman1996; @Urquhart2008]. Using these velocities and a combined rotation curve based on the models by @BrandBlitz1993 and @Levine2008, we computed kinematic distances for the clumps (column `KDist`) and, therefore, for the corresponding clusters when they were assumed to be physically associated. The kinematic distance ambiguity (KDA) was disentangled mainly by searching for previous resolutions in the literature [e.g. @CaswellHaynes1987; @Faundez2004; @AndersonBania2009; @Roman-Duval2009], for the clumps themselves or nearby regions in the phase space. A total of 424 clusters have kinematic distance estimates for the ATLASGAL clumps, 92% of which have available KDA solutions. The uncertainties (column `e_KDist`) have been determined by shifting the LSR velocities by $\pm 7$ to account for random motions, following @Reid2009, who suggest this value as the typical virial velocity dispersion of a massive star-forming region.
We also compiled values for the stellar distance (column `SDist`) and age (column `Age`), estimated from studies of the stellar population of the clusters. These data were obtained from the original cluster catalogs or from new references found in SIMBAD. To prevent underestimation of the uncertainties (provided in columns `e_SDist` and `e_Age`), we imposed minimum errors depending on the computation method for the stellar distance, and on the range for the age [the latter following @BonattoBica2011]. Stellar distances are available for 222 clusters (32% of the sample), and ages for 209 clusters (30% of the sample). The most common method for stellar distance and age determination is isochrone fitting [e.g., @Loktin2001], which implies that these parameters are available mainly for exposed clusters (see Section \[sec:age-distribution\]).
The final adopted distance for each cluster (column `Dist`) was chosen to be the available distance estimate with the lowest uncertainty. In some cases, we adopted independent distance estimates from the literature if they were more accurate than `SDist` and `KDist` [e.g., from maser parallax measurements; see @Reid2009 and references therein]. Clusters within a particular complex (identified in the column `Complex`) were assumed to be all located at the same distance, determined from the literature, or kinematically from an average position and velocity.
In total, there are distance determinations (`Dist`) for 538 clusters, i.e., for 77% of our sample. Naturally, there is a dichotomy in the distance estimation method depending on whether or not the cluster is associated with an ATLASGAL source with available velocity, so that most exposed clusters uniquely have stellar distances, whereas the distances for ECs are mainly kinematic or from associations with complexes. However, it is still possible to compare stellar and kinematic determinations for a subsample of 38 clusters (mostly embedded) which have distances available from both methods. This comparison is shown in Figure \[fig:dist-comparison\], where plus symbols mean agreement between stellar and kinematic distances within the corresponding uncertainties, and circles are the cases in which there is a discrepancy between both techniques; the color indicates which distance estimate was finally adopted in our catalog: stellar (*red*), kinematic (*blue*), and other (*black*). The plot reveals that in our cluster sample, both methods are quite consistent with each other, with a 84% of agreement (32 out of 38 objects). We note that among the discrepant cases, there are two ECs (points $(2.16, 4.30)$ kpc and $(5.05, 1.30)$ kpc in the plot) whose method for age and (stellar) distance estimation was found to be particularly inaccurate (see Section \[sec:age-embedded\]).
The rms between the stellar and kinematic distances compared in Figure \[fig:dist-comparison\] is 1.28 kpc, which represents the combined error, for this particular subsample, of both stellar and kinematic distances added in quadrature. If we compute this error from the estimated uncertainties `e_KDist` and `e_SDist` averaged over the subsample, we obtain a value of 1.59 kpc, which means that we slightly overestimated some of the uncertainties, probably because we were quite conservative in determining the minimum errors for the stellar distances (see Section \[sec:physical-parameters\]). The average uncertainties are $\langle\verb|e_KDist|\rangle = 0.67$ kpc and $\langle\verb|e_SDist|\rangle = 1.45$ kpc for the subsample of the 38 clusters used for comparison, and $\langle\verb|e_KDist|\rangle = 0.68$ kpc and $\langle\verb|e_SDist|\rangle = 0.58$ kpc for the whole sample. The high average error for the stellar distance in the subsample with respect to the whole sample is due to the fact that most of these clusters have stellar distances estimated from the spectrophotometric method, which is more inaccurate than, e.g., main sequence or isochrone fitting (see Section \[sec:physical-parameters\]). The average estimated uncertainty in the adopted distance is $\langle\verb|e_Dist|\rangle = 0.51$ kpc for the whole sample (and 0.52 kpc for the subsample).
Analysis {#sec:analysis}
========
Morphological evolutionary sequence {#sec:evolutionary-sequence}
-----------------------------------
Here, we use the characterization of the ATLASGAL emission found throughout each cluster’s area and/or environment (described in Section \[sec:atlasgal-and-mir\]) to define main morphological types and delineate an evolutionary sequence. First, in order to test our visual ATLASGAL morphological flags specified above (corresponding to the first part of the column `Morph`, and represented hereafter by `m`$_0$), we compared them against the more quantitative parameter $s \equiv \verb|Clump_sep|$ of our catalog, which is the projected distance of the nearest ATLASGAL emission pixel, normalized to the cluster angular radius. We found a reasonable correlation: $s = 0$ for all deeply ECs (`m`$_0$ = `emb`), $s < 0.42$ for partially ECs (`m`$_0$ = `p-emb`), $0.40 < s < 1.97$ for clusters surrounded by submm emission (`m`$_0$ = `surr`), and $s > 0.94$ for exposed clusters (`m`$_0$ = `exp`). Exposed clusters with $s < 1$ only comprise a few cases with a large angular size and very faint emission close to their borders. The remaining morphological flags are very specific and we do not expect any correlation with the quantity `Clump_sep`.
![Comparison of kinematic and stellar distances for the 38 clusters of our sample with both estimations available. Plus signs (+) indicate agreement within the errors, and circles mark the discrepant cases. Colors indicate which distance estimate was finally adopted in our catalog: stellar (*red*), kinematic (*blue*), and other (*black*). The dashed line is the identity.[]{data-label="fig:dist-comparison"}](figures/distance-comparison.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Denoting by `Cf`$_0$ the first digit of the flag `Clump_flag` from our catalog (a value $>0$ means that the nearest ATLASGAL clump is likely associated with the cluster), and using the logical operators $\land$, $\lor$ and $\lnot$ (‘and’, ‘or’, and ‘not’, respectively), we define five morphological types as follows:
- EC1: $\verb|m|_0 = \verb|emb|$
- EC2: $\verb|m|_0 = \verb|p-emb|$
- OC0: $\verb|m|_0 = \verb|surr| ~\lor~ \verb|m|_0 = \verb|few*| ~\lor~
(\verb|m|_0 = \verb|few| ~\land~ \verb|Cf|_0 > 0)$
- OC1: $\verb|m|_0 = \verb|exp| ~\land~ (\verb|Cf|_0 > 0 ~\lor~
\verb|KDist| \simeq \verb|SDist|)$
- OC2: ($\verb|m|_0 = \verb|exp| ~\lor~ \verb|m|_0 = \verb|exp*| ~\lor~
\verb|m|_0 = \verb|few|) ~\land~ \lnot(\rm{OC1} ~\lor~ \rm{OC2})$
The morphological type for each cluster is given in the column `Morph_type` of our catalog. Figures \[fig:EC-examples\] and \[fig:OC-examples\] present one example cluster for each morphological type, shown in GLIMPSE three-color images, and 2MASS three-color images overlaid with ATLASGAL contours. In simpler words, given that star clusters are expected to be less and less associated with molecular gas as time evolves, due to gas dispersal driven by stellar feedback, we have defined above a morphological evolutionary sequence, with decreasing correlation with ATLASGAL emission. EC1 are deeply ECs (Fig. \[fig:EC-examples\], *top*), EC2 are partially ECs (Fig. \[fig:EC-examples\], *bottom*), OC0 are emerging exposed clusters (Fig. \[fig:OC-examples\], *top*), and finally there are two kinds of totally exposed clusters: OC1 are still physically associated with molecular gas in their surrounding neighborhood (an ATLASGAL clump at a projected distance of `Clump_sep` times the cluster radius, see Fig. \[fig:OC-examples\], *middle*), whereas OC2 are all the remaining exposed clusters, which present no correlation with ATLASGAL emission (Fig. \[fig:OC-examples\], *bottom*).
|ref\_Conf|
------ -------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
Type $N_{\rm cl}$ $N_{\rm cl}$($D$ avail.) $N_{\rm cl}(\le D_{\rm rep})$ $N_{\rm cl}^{\rm conf}(\le D_{\rm rep})$ $N_{\rm cl}^{\rm tot}(\le D_{\rm rep})$
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
EC1 132 125 44 16 56
EC2 195 177 54 25 68
OC0 56 49 17 10 36
OC1 22 22 6 3 11
OC2 290 167 136 133 475
------ -------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
Note that, however, this classification is not perfect. For example, although the gas velocity and stellar distance data are quite extensive, they are not complete to identify all the $\verb|m|_0 = \verb|few*|$, $\verb|m|_0 = \verb|exp*|$ and $\verb|KDist| \simeq \verb|SDist|$ cases, so that some misclassification might occur in the type OC2. Similarly, the physical link between the submm emission and the ECs was based on the morphology seen in the images, and some chance alignments might still be present in a few cases (estimated to be about 5%, see Section \[sec:chance-alignments\]). Therefore, the defined morphological types should primarily be considered in a statistical way, and for individual objects they must be treated with caution. Column 2 of Table \[tab:morph-types\] lists how many objects fall in each morphological type for the whole cluster sample. Note that the low number of OC1 clusters could be partially due to the observational difficulty in identifying an exposed cluster physically associated with molecular gas in their surroundings, as remarked before. Column 3 gives the number of clusters with available distances, and the remaining columns will be described in Section \[sec:representative-sample\].
With this morphological classification, it is easy to determine (again, statistically) which clusters are associated with ATLASGAL emission: simply as those with types EC1,EC2,OC0 or OC1. These clusters are counted for every catalog in the last two columns of Table \[tab:catalogs\], as absolute and after-merging numbers of objects ($N_{\rm cl}$ and $N_{\rm cl}^*$, respectively). As expected, optical clusters are rarely associated with ATLASGAL emission (only $\sim 15\%$ of them, most of which are of type OC0 or OC1), since otherwise they would be barely visible at optical wavelengths due to dust extinction. On the other hand, the majority of the NIR and MIR clusters are physically related with submm dust radiation ($\sim 79\%$ and 74% of them, respectively). Although this is also expected because infrared emission is much less affected by dust extinction than visible light, these high percentages might partially be a consequence of the detection method of the infrared cluster catalogs, which in most cases tried to intentionally highlight the EC population. For example, the 2MASS by-eye searches by @Dutra2003-2mass and @Bica2003-2mass were done towards known radio/optical nebulae, and our new GLIMPSE cluster candidates were detected after applying a red-color criterion (see Section \[sec:newglimpse\]). In these particular catalogs, almost the totality of objects are associated with ATLASGAL emission.
Chance alignments {#sec:chance-alignments}
-----------------
We computed the probability of chance alignments of our stellar clusters with ATLASGAL clumps, and the different known objects looked for spatial correlation in our catalog (see Section \[sec:known-objects\]), in order to test the validity of the assumption of physical relation, when this is only based on the position of the objects on the sky. For a given sample of objects, this probability was estimated semi-analytically by assuming that the objects within $|b| \le 1\degr$ (where most sources are located for all samples used) and the longitude range originally covered, are uniformly distributed over that area, and that their angular sizes are distributed according to the observed sizes. We first calculated the probability of overlap of each cluster with one or more objects from this hypothetical sample, and then we averaged these probabilities over two different sets of clusters: morphological types EC1 and EC2 together (hereafter EC-); and types OC0, OC1 and OC2 together (hereafter OC-).
For ATLASGAL clumps, we adopted a total number of 6451 objects within $330\degr \le \ell \le 21\degr$ and $|b| \le 1\degr$, from the compact source catalog by @Contreras2013, which, together with their estimated effective radii, gives an average chance alignment probability of 8.8% for clusters with types EC-, and 32% for clusters with types OC-. Considering that the submm and infrared morphologies of deeply ECs (type EC1) usually support the real physical relation with molecular gas (e.g., matching peaks of submm emission and stellar density), and that partially ECs (type EC2) are generally associated with more than one ATLASGAL clump, in practice the fraction of chance alignments of EC- clusters with ATLASGAL compact sources is likely below 5%, which is low enough to not affect the statistics of this work. Due to their larger angular sizes, clusters of types OC- are more prone to be aligned with ATLASGAL clumps by chance, and therefore our additional requirements to assume that an exposed cluster is associated with ATLASGAL emission are justified (morphological criteria or matching distances for types OC0 and OC1).
For the known objects considered in our catalog, we assume that there are 4936 IR bubbles in the range $|\ell| \le 60\degr$ and $|b| \le 1\degr$ [@Simpson2012][^8], $17,364$ IRDCs within $10\degr \le |\ell| \le 60\degr$ and $|b| \le 1\degr$ [from the catalogs by @Simon2006; @PerettoFuller2009], and 944 regions in the range $343\degr \le \ell \le 60\degr$ and $|b| \le 1\degr$ [from the recently discovered and previously known regions listed in @Anderson2011]. In this case, to compute the chance alignment probability of each cluster with the objects of a given sample, we also required that the objects were larger than half the size of the cluster and that the distance between the object’s position and the cluster center were less than the sum of both radii divided by two, so that the alignment really mimics a physical relation misidentified by eye. The averaged probabilities are quite similar for clusters with types EC- and OC-, and they are all low: $\sim 2\%$ for IR bubbles, $\sim 3.5\%$ for IRDCs, and $\sim 0.3\%$ for regions.
Observational classification of OCs and ECs {#sec:classification-oc-ec}
-------------------------------------------
We can also use the morphological evolutionary sequence established in Section \[sec:evolutionary-sequence\] to observationally define in our sample the concepts of EC and OC. Since any stellar agglomerate that appears deeply or partially embedded in ATLASGAL emission would satisfy our physical definition of EC presented in Section \[sec:cluster-definition\], we simply use as observational definition the embedded morphological types: EC = EC1 $\lor$ EC2. We consider the remaining morphological types as OCs, but excluding those objects that have not been confirmed by follow-up studies, since we expect for them a high contamination rate by spurious candidates (see Section \[sec:spurious\]): OC = (OC0 $\lor$ OC1 $\lor$ OC2) $\land$ (`ref_Conf` not empty), where `ref_Conf` is the column in the catalog indicating the reference for cluster confirmation (see Section \[sec:physical-parameters\]).
However, this observational definition of OC does not necessarily mean that the cluster is bound by its own gravity, and therefore, is not fully equivalent to the concept of *physical OC* defined in Section \[sec:cluster-definition\]. To investigate under which conditions both definitions agree, we can apply the empirical criterion proposed by @GielesPortegies2011 which distinguishes between physical OCs and associations by comparing the age of the object with its crossing time, $t_{\rm cross}$, computed as if it were in virial equilibrium. In useful physical units, Equation (1) of @GielesPortegies2011 becomes[^9] $$\label{eq:tcross-units-GP11}
t_{\rm cross} = 9.33 \left(\frac{100\, M_{\sun}}{M}\right)^{1/2}
\left(\frac{R_{\rm eff}}{\rm pc}\right)^{3/2} \, {\rm Myr},$$ where $M$ and $R_{\rm eff}$ are, respectively, the mass and the observed 2D projected half-light radius of the cluster. Unfortunately, mass estimates and accurate structural parameters are usually not directly available in the OC catalogs; in particular, there are no mass data in the @Dias2002 catalog, and the given sizes come from individual studies compiled there and are mostly derived from visual inspection. We therefore used the masses and radii determined by @Piskunov2007, who fitted a three-parameter King’s profile [@King1962] to the observed stellar surface density distribution of 236 objects taken from an homogeneous sample of 650 optical clusters in the solar neighborhood [@Kharchenko2005-known; @Kharchenko2005-new], which is a subset of the current version of the @Dias2002 catalog. @Piskunov2007 estimated the masses from the tidal radii, and the effective radius $R_{\rm eff}$ entering in Equation (\[eq:tcross-units-GP11\]) can be derived from both the core and tidal radius [we used Equation (B1) of @Wolf2010]. Because only 14 of the clusters analyzed by @Piskunov2007 are within the ATLASGAL sky coverage, in order to improve the statistics we applied the @GielesPortegies2011 criterion to the 236 studied objects, under the assumption that they are all OCs as observationally defined by us. This supposition is quite acceptable since they are optically-detected clusters and indeed within the ATLASGAL range almost all of them (13 out of 14) are classified as OCs.
We computed the crossing times using Equation (\[eq:tcross-units-GP11\]), and in Figure \[fig:clusters-vs-associations\] they are plotted versus the corresponding ages available from the @Kharchenko2005-known [@Kharchenko2005-new] catalogs. The dashed line is the identity $t_{\rm cross} =$ Age, which divides the physical OCs ($t_{\rm cross} \leq$ Age) from associations ($t_{\rm cross} >$ Age). It can be seen in the plot that, because the resulting crossing times are relatively short ($\log(t_{\rm cross}/{\rm yr}) \lesssim 7.6$), the majority of the objects studied by @Piskunov2007 are physical OCs for ages in excess of 10 Myr. In fact, for $\log({\rm Age}/{\rm yr}) > 7.2$, which is the threshold above which the age distribution can uniquely be explained through classical cluster disruption mechanisms (see Section \[sec:age-distribution-fit\]), only 2.6% of the objects are formally associations. We thus conclude that our observational definition of OC agrees with the physical one provided by @GielesPortegies2011 [what we call a *physical OC*] for ages greater than $\sim 16$ Myr, which corresponds to the 74% of our OC sample within the ATLASGAL range. Younger OCs can be either associations, as a result of early dissolution, or already physical OCs.
Spatial distribution {#sec:spatial-distribution}
--------------------
![Crossing time vs. age for an all-sky sample of 236 clusters [@Piskunov2006] taken from an homogeneous catalog of 650 optical clusters in the solar neighborhood [@Kharchenko2005-known; @Kharchenko2005-new]. The dashed line is the identity $t_{\rm cross} =$ Age, which divides the physical OCs ($t_{\rm cross} \leq$ Age) from associations ($t_{\rm cross} >$ Age) according to the criterion proposed by @GielesPortegies2011.[]{data-label="fig:clusters-vs-associations"}](figures/clusters-vs-associations.eps){width="48.00000%"}
![Galactic locations of (a) OCs and (b) ECs within the ATLASGAL range, superimposed over an artist’s conception of the Milky Way (R. Hurt from the *Spitzer* Science Center, in consultation with R. Benjamin), which was based on data obtained from the literature at radio, infrared, and visible wavelengths, and attempts to synthesize many of the key elements of the Galactic structure. The coordinate system is centered at the Sun position, indicated by the ‘$\sun$’ symbol, and we have scaled the image such that $R_0 = 8.23$ kpc [@Genzel2010]. The two diagonal lines represent the ATLASGAL range in Galactic longitude ($|\ell| \le 60\degr$). In panel (a), we indicate the names of the spiral arms.[]{data-label="fig:galactic-distribution"}](figures/galactic-distribution.eps){width="50.00000%"}
In this Section, for the clusters in our sample with available distance estimates we study their spatial distribution in the Galaxy, and with respect to the Sun. Figure \[fig:galactic-distribution\] shows the Galactic distribution of the clusters separated in the (a) OC and (b) EC categories defined in the previous Section, on top of an artist’s conception of the Milky Way viewed from the north Galactic pole (R. Hurt from the *Spitzer* Science Center, in consultation with R. Benjamin). The image was constructed based on multiwavelength data obtained from the literature, and we have scaled it to $R_0 = 8.23$ kpc [@Genzel2010 see Section \[sec:kin-distance\]]. It is clear from the image that ECs probe deeper the inner Galaxy than the OC sample, which is concentrated within a few kpc from the Sun ($\lesssim 2$ kpc). This, of course is an observational effect mainly produced by the difficulty in detecting exposed clusters against the Galactic background, compared to ECs (see Section \[sec:completeness\]), and enhanced by the fact that some genuine OCs have no distance estimates and therefore cannot be included in the spatial distribution analysis (e.g., there are 123 clusters of type OC2 without available distance, half of which might be real). ECs are spread over larger distances from the Sun ($\lesssim 6$ kpc) and, although few of them can be detected beyond the Galactic center, a paucity of ECs is hinted within the Galactic bar, augmented by some apparent crowding close to both ends of the bar. The Galactic distribution of ECs is consistent with the spiral structure delineated on the background image; however, the large distance uncertainties ($\sim 0.5$ kpc on average, see Section \[sec:distance-and-ages\]), and the limited distance coverage, prevent the ECs from clearly defining the spiral arms by their own.
To really quantify how deep our OC and EC samples reach into the inner Galaxy, and to estimate the completeness fraction at a given distance, we need to study the observed heliocentric distance distribution of the clusters, and compare it to what is expected from making some basic assumptions. In the following, we denote by $D$ the distance of the cluster from the Sun, projected on the Galactic plane[^10], and by $z$ the height of the cluster above the Galactic plane. For simplicity, we also define $Z \equiv z - z_0$, where $z_0$ is the displacement of the Sun above the plane; this is actually what we obtain directly[^11] from the cluster distance $d$ and its Galactic latitude $b$, $Z = d \sin b$. The observed $Z$- and $D$-distributions are shown, respectively, in Figures \[fig:Z-distribution\] and \[fig:D-distribution\], for our cluster sample separated in OC and EC categories. In the construction of the histograms, we used fixed bins of $\Delta Z = 10$ pc and $\Delta D = 0.4$ kpc, but since the distance uncertainties are quite nonuniform, we have fractionally spread the ranges determined by the central values and their uncertainties over the covered bins. In other words, for a cluster with distance and uncertainty $D \pm \sigma_D$, we considered all the bins overlapping with the range $[D-\sigma_D,D+\sigma_D]$ and in each bin we added the fraction (with respect to the total width of the range, $2\sigma_D$) comprised by the corresponding overlap. The total OC and EC distance distributions were obtained by repeating this procedure for all the clusters. The $Z$-distributions were constructed using the same method, and the fitted curves plotted in Figures \[fig:Z-distribution\] and \[fig:D-distribution\] are explained in the following.
### Assumed model for the spatial distribution
In general, we can assume that the spatial number-density of OCs or ECs in the Galaxy is described by a combination of two independent exponential-decay laws for the cylindrical coordinates $z$ and $R$, centered in the Galactic center: $\rho(R,z) = \rho_0 \,\varphi_R(R) \,\varphi_z(z)$, with $\varphi_R(R) = e^{-R/R_{\rm D}}$ and $\varphi_z(z) = e^{-|z|/z_{\rm h}}$. This is a common functional form used to characterize the Galactic distribution of stars [see Section 1.1.2 of @BinneyTremaine2008], and has already been applied in previous OC studies [@Bonatto2006; @Piskunov2006]. One might want to consider the imprint of spiral arm structure in the azimuthal distribution of ECs, since they are still embedded in molecular clouds, but here we are interested in the distance and height longitude-averaged distributions, for which azimuthal substructure is less important. Furthermore, as noted above, our EC distances are not accurate enough to constrain the location of the spiral arms. If we transform the density $\rho(R,z)$ to a coordinate system centered at the Sun, and assume that we are observing the *totality* of the clusters in the Galaxy within the ATLASGAL range ($|b| \le b_1$ and $|\ell| \le \ell_1$, with $b_1 \equiv 1.5\degr$ and $\ell_1 \equiv 60\degr$), the resulting density (not averaged in longitude $\ell$ yet) can be written as $$\label{eq:rho(D,l,Z)}
\rho_{\rm tot}(D,\ell,Z) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\rho_0 \, \varphi(D,\ell) \, \varphi_z(Z + Z_0) & \textrm{if}~~|Z| \le D \tan b_1 \\
0 & \textrm{else~,}
\end{array} \right.$$ where $$\label{eq:phi(D,l)}
\varphi(D,\ell) \equiv \varphi_R\left(\sqrt{R_0^2 + D^2 - 2 R_0 D \cos \ell}\right)~.$$ Now we can derive an analytical expression for the $D$-distribution of an ideally complete sample: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_D^{\rm tot}(D) & \equiv & \int_{-\infty}^{\,\infty} \int_{-\ell_1}^{\,\ell_1} \rho_{\rm tot}(D,\ell,Z)\, D\,\rd \ell\,\rd Z\label{eq:Phi(D)-definition}\\
& = & \Sigma_0\, f_{b_1}(D)\, D \int_{-\ell_1}^{\,\ell_1} \varphi(D,\ell) \,\rd \ell~,
\label{eq:Phi(D)-general}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Sigma_0 \equiv 2 z_{\rm h} \rho_0$ is the surface number-density on the Galactic disk for $R=0$, and we have defined the function $f_{b_1}(D)$ as $$\label{eq:fb1(D)}
f_{b_1}(D) \equiv \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
e^{-z_0/z_{\rm h}}\, \sinh(D \tan b_1/ z_{\rm h}) & \textrm{if}~~D \le z_0 / \tan b_1 \\
1 - \cosh(z_0 / z_{\rm h})\, e^{-D \tan b_1 / z_{\rm h}} & \textrm{else~,}
\end{array} \right.$$ which arises from the fact that the limited latitude coverage restricts the integration in $Z$ at each distance.
![Histogram of heights from the Galactic plane, as measured from the Sun ($Z = z -z_0$), for (a) OCs and (b) ECs, using a bin width of $\Delta Z = 10$ pc and Poisson uncertainties. The overplotted solid curve in each panel represents: (a) the fitted $Z$-distribution $\Phi_Z(Z)$ from Equation (\[eq:Phi(Z)\]) with best-fit parameters $z_0 = 14.7 \pm 3.7$ pc and $z_{\rm h} = 42.5 \pm 9.9$ pc; (b) the predicted $Z$-distribution from Equation (\[eq:Phi(Z)\]), using the parameters fitted for the OC sample. In panel (b), the darker shaded region is the $Z$-histogram for ECs with distances $D < 4$ kpc, whereas the dashed curve indicates the corresponding distribution as predicted from Equation (\[eq:Phi(Z)\]) and the same parameters $z_0$ and $z_{\rm h}$.[]{data-label="fig:Z-distribution"}](figures/Z-distributions.eps){width="48.00000%"}
![Histogram of heliocentric distances, $D$, for (a) OCs and (b) ECs, using a bin width of $\Delta D = 0.4$ kpc and Poisson uncertainties. In each panel, the solid curve represents the fitted $D$-distribution $\Phi_D(D)$ from Equation (\[eq:Phi(D)-observed\]), with the completeness distance $D_{\rm c}$ as free parameter (see Equation (\[eq:fc(D)\])); the dashed curve shows the fit with fixed $D_{\rm c} = 0$ (see text for details). The best-fit parameters are given in Table \[tab:parameters-ZD\].[]{data-label="fig:D-distribution"}](figures/D-distributions.eps){width="48.00000%"}
### Completeness fraction
In practice, however, as already mentioned before and discussed in Section \[sec:completeness\], we are unable to detect the totality of the clusters within the ATLASGAL range, due to the difficulty in star cluster identification towards the inner Galaxy. Indeed, the $D$-distributions that we really observe for OCs and ECs (see Figure \[fig:D-distribution\]) do not increase with distance up to the Galactic center ($D = R_0$), as we would expect from Equation (\[eq:Phi(D)-general\]); instead, they reach a maximum at a nearby distance and then decay considerably, especially for optical clusters. The observed $D$-distributions are dominated by the high incompleteness at increasingly larger distances from the Sun, and therefore, are insensitive to large scale structure on the Galactic disk such as the scale length $R_D$. Attempts to include $R_D$ in the parametric fit to the distance distributions described below resulted in heavily degenerated output parameters and practically no constraint on their values. We then eliminated the dependence of the model on $R_D$ by making the rough approximation that the underlying radial distribution of clusters is uniform, i.e., $\varphi_R(R) = 1$. This is supported by the fact that, due to the incompleteness, most clusters in our sample are within a few kpc from the Sun, where the variations in $\varphi_R(R)$ can be considered small relative to the completeness decay. The constants $\rho_0$ and $\Sigma_0$ must now be interpreted as Solar neighborhood values, and from Equation (\[eq:Phi(D)-general\]) the complete $D$-distribution becomes $$\label{eq:Phi(D)-complete}
\Phi_D^{\rm tot}(D) = 2 \ell_1 \,\Sigma_0 \,f_{b_1}(D) \,D~.$$ On the other hand, defining a fractional factor $f_{\rm c}(D)$ that quantifies the completeness of the cluster sample as a function of distance[^12], we can express the observed $D$-distribution $\Phi_D(D)$ as $$\label{eq:Phi(D)-observed}
\Phi_D(D) = 2 \ell_1 \,\Sigma_0 \,f_{\rm c}(D) \,f_{b_1}(D) \,D~.$$
In order to assign a particular parametric shape to the completeness fraction, we chose an ansatz for $f_{\rm c}(D)$ based on previous statistical works of OCs in the whole sky. @Bonatto2006 studied the WEBDA database[^13] at that time and found, by completeness simulations, that their analyzed OC sample is highly incomplete in the inner Galaxy, even within what they called the “restricted zone”, defined as an annulus segment with Galactocentric distances $R$ in the range $[R_0 -1.3~{\rm kpc},R_0 +1.3~{\rm kpc}]$. The completeness fraction they determined decays almost immediately from $R = R_0$ to $R < R_0$ (see their Fig. 11; note that $R_0 = 8.0$ kpc in that work). However, @Piskunov2006 claim that the @Kharchenko2005-known [@Kharchenko2005-new] OC catalogs constitute a complete sample up to about 0.85 kpc from the Sun. This is nicely illustrated in their Fig. 1, where a flat distribution of surface number-density of clusters is exhibited up to that distance, after which the distribution starts to decrease considerably. If the completeness fraction of their sample in the inner Galaxy were similar to that obtained by @Bonatto2006, the surface density distribution would be a decreasing function immediately from $D=0$ kpc rather than from $D=0.85$ kpc[^14]. We think that this discrepancy is mainly caused by two effects: 1) the cluster sample studied by @Bonatto2006 (654 objects with known distances) is less complete than, e.g., the current version of the @Dias2002 catalog used in this work (1309 clusters with available distances), which is equivalent to the @Kharchenko2005-known [@Kharchenko2005-new] sample within 0.85 kpc; and 2) the “restricted zone” considered by @Bonatto2006 covers a larger area than the circle defined by the completeness limit of @Piskunov2006 (radius of 0.85 kpc centered at the Sun), and thus includes regions where the OC sample is indeed incomplete. In fact, we performed a quick test on the current @Dias2002 catalog by constructing the Galactocentric radii distribution of clusters within 1 kpc from the Sun, and we obtained a shape that is not incompatible with a exponential law in the whole range, as opposed to the distribution derived by @Bonatto2006 [their Fig. 9].
Based on the above discussion, the completeness fraction for our OC sample is likely $\sim 1$ up to a close distance from the Sun, $D_{\rm c}$, and then starts to decay significantly. We assume that the decay is exponential: $$\label{eq:fc(D)}
f_{\rm c}(D) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1 & \textrm{if}~~D \le D_{\rm c}\\
e^{-(D-D_{\rm c})/s_0} & \textrm{else~.}
\end{array} \right.$$ This parametrization allows us to investigate the possibility that the sample is always incomplete, as for @Bonatto2006, by just imposing $D_{\rm c} = 0$. We employ the same functional form for the completeness fraction of ECs, but of course varying the parameters $D_{\rm c}$ and $s_0$.
### Fit for the height distribution {#sec:height-distribution}
Before proceeding to fit Equation (\[eq:Phi(D)-observed\]) to the observed $D$-distributions, we first need some estimates for $z_{\rm h}$ and $z_0$ which are used to compute the factor $f_{b_1}(D)$. We obtain those estimates from the $Z$-distribution, which can be analytically written as $$\label{eq:Phi(Z)}
\Phi_Z(Z) = e^{-|Z + z_0|/z_{\rm h}} \int_{|Z|/\tan b_1}^{\infty} \,\frac{\Phi_D(D)}{2 z_{\rm h}\,f_{b_1}(D)} \,\rd D~.$$ The advantage in writing this equation explicitly in terms of $\Phi_D(D)$ is that we can directly use the observed $D$-distribution instead of its analytical expression (and compute the integral numerically), so that it is possible to fit the $Z$-distribution with only two free parameters, $z_0$ and $z_{\rm h}$, and independently of the fit for the distance distribution. All the fits were performed using the Levenberg-Marquardt least-squares minimization package `mpfit` [@Markwardt2009], implemented in IDL, and we have assumed Poisson uncertainties. The best fit of Equation (\[eq:Phi(Z)\]) to the observed $Z$-distribution of OCs is shown in Figure \[fig:Z-distribution\](a) as a solid curve, and the corresponding fitted parameters are $z_0 = 14.7 \pm 3.7$ pc and $z_{\rm h} = 42.5 \pm 9.9$ pc. These values are in excellent agreement with the ones derived by @Bonatto2006, if we consider their scale height $z_{\rm h}$ within the Solar circle (which is the case for almost the totality of our OC sample).
The observed $Z$-distribution of ECs (Figure \[fig:Z-distribution\](b)) is much more irregular than that of OCs, and therefore a proper fit is not possible. This is likely due to the fact that ECs are spread over a larger area than OCs, and therefore, present lower statistics in the Solar neighborhood and larger average errors in $Z$ ($Z \propto D$). In addition, ECs are usually grouped in complexes, as we will see in Section \[sec:statistics\] and can already be noted in Figure \[fig:galactic-distribution\](b), where some particular locations appear crowded with many close objects, enhancing the non-uniformity of their spatial distribution. However, if we adopt the same parameters $z_0$ and $z_{\rm h}$ derived from the OC sample and compute the predicted distribution from Equation (\[eq:Phi(Z)\]) (naturally, using now the observed $\Phi_D(D)$ of ECs), the resulting curve is roughly consistent with the observed $Z$-distribution, as shown in Figure \[fig:Z-distribution\](b) (solid line). The most systematic discrepancy can be identified for $Z < -40$ pc, where there is a significant deficit of observed clusters with respect to the predicted distribution, probably due to the difficulty in detecting ECs below the Galactic disk for large distances. Indeed, Figure \[fig:Z-distribution\](b) also shows the observed $Z$-distribution for ECs with $D < 4$ kpc (darker inner histogram) and the corresponding prediction (dashed curve), and we can see that in this case the deficit of observed clusters below the Galactic plane is only marginal. Another explanation might be the fact that we have assumed that the $b=0$ plane is parallel to the Galactic disk, while in reality the combined effect of the offset of the Sun above the “true” Galactic plane, and of the Galactic center below the $b=0$ plane, slightly tilts the $b=0$ plane towards the south of the Galaxy (see Goodman et al., in preparation), so that clusters at large distances from the Sun and below the Galactic plane would appear at more negative values in the true $Z$-distribution. This could help to populate the bins in the range of the deficit of observed clusters, and would also explain why the deficit is less important for the distribution of clusters with $D < 4$ kpc.
### Fit for the distance distribution
Using now values for $z_0$ and $z_{\rm h}$ obtained from the OC sample, which are also consistent with the EC height distribution, to compute the factor $f_{b_1}(D)$ defined in Equation (\[eq:fb1(D)\]), we fitted the analytical distribution $\Phi_D(D)$ from Equation (\[eq:Phi(D)-observed\]) to the observed $D$-distributions of OCs and ECs, with free parameters $\Sigma_0$, $D_{\rm c}$, $s_0$. The last two parameters are implicit in the completeness factor $f_{\rm c}(D)$ defined in Equation (\[eq:fc(D)\]). The best fits are overplotted as solid curves on the corresponding histograms of Figure \[fig:D-distribution\], and the fitted parameters are given in Table \[tab:parameters-ZD\]. As can be already noted in the plots and confirmed by the reduced $\chi^2$ values (0.90 for OCs, and 1.48 for ECs), the assumed form of the completeness fraction (Equation (\[eq:fc(D)\])) is a good representation of the overall detectability of star clusters in the inner Galaxy. The few outliers in the observed distribution with respect to the fitted analytical function for OCs with distances $D \gtrsim 6$ kpc mainly correspond to exposed clusters recently discovered at infrared wavelengths. A similar tendency is hinted for ECs with $D \gtrsim 11$ kpc, although in this case these outliers are also consistent with the irregular nature of the distribution in general, which slightly deviates (at one-sigma level) from the fitted curve at other distance bins. However, some problems with the resolution of the KDA, resulting in ECs incorrectly assigned to the far distance, cannot be ruled out.
It is remarkable that, despite the lower statistics caused by restricting to the ATLASGAL range, the fitted completeness limit of our OC sample, $D_{\rm c} = 1.01 \pm 0.16$ kpc, is consistent with that derived by @Piskunov2006 for their all-sky sample in the Solar neighborhood[^15]. For ECs, both the completeness limit $D_{\rm c}$ and the completeness scale length $s_0$ are larger than the corresponding values of the OC distribution (see Table \[tab:parameters-ZD\]), quantitatively confirming that, from an observational point of view, the EC sample traces larger distances from the Sun than the ones traced by our OC sample.
Parameter OC EC
-------------------------- -------------- -------------
$z_0$ (pc) 14.7 (3.7)
$z_{\rm h}$ (pc) 42.5 (9.9)
$\Sigma_0$ (kpc$^{-2}$) 82.9 (12.9) 19.5 (3.1)
$s_0$ (kpc) 0.72 (0.05) 1.81 (0.10)
$D_{\rm c}$ (kpc) 1.01 (0.16) 1.84 (0.35)
$\Sigma_0'$ (kpc$^{-2}$) 209.1 (33.3) 40.3 (5.0)
$s_0'$ (kpc) 0.82 (0.04) 1.99 (0.09)
: Best-fit parameters from the $Z$- and $D$-distributions of OCs and ECs.[]{data-label="tab:parameters-ZD"}
The fitted completeness limits for OCs and ECs are significantly above zero, practically discarding the possibility that the cluster samples are always incomplete in the inner Galaxy, as suggested by @Bonatto2006 for OCs. To further test this option, we performed an alternative fit of Equation (\[eq:Phi(D)-observed\]) to the observed $D$-distributions, now fixing $D_{\rm c} = 0$. For each distribution in Figure \[fig:D-distribution\], the resulting best fit is shown as a dashed line, and we immediately notice that this alternative fit is poorer than the one with $D_{\rm c}$ as free parameter, specially for OCs. Indeed, we applied a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to all the fitted distribution functions in a distance range free of far-distance outliers ($D \le 6$ kpc for OCs, $D \le 9$ kpc for ECs), and we found that the $D_{\rm c} = 0$ fit can be rejected with a significance level of 5% for OCs, and 6.5% for ECs. We thus conclude that the OC and EC samples in the inner Galaxy are roughly complete up to a distance of $\sim 1$ kpc and $\sim 1.8$ kpc, respectively, as derived from the free-$D_{\rm c}$ fits.
Discussion on the completeness {#sec:completeness}
------------------------------
In general, the existence of a stellar cluster is observationally established by an excess surface density of stars over the background, so that its detectability depends on its richness, its angular size, the number of resolved individual members and their apparent brightness (which is directly related to the distance), the surface density of field stars, and the amount of extinction on the line of sight [@LadaLada2003]. Consequently, it is particularly difficult to identify a star cluster in the inner Galactic plane, where both the stellar background and the extinction are relatively high, or a very distant cluster, for which its members appear faint and could be confused as a few single stars due to limited angular resolution of the observations. In fact, we have shown in the previous Section that the current samples of OCs and ECs in the inner Galaxy are complete up to only a close distance from the Sun, and then the completeness heavily decreases as distance increases.
We have also seen that incompleteness affects the OC sample more severely than the ECs, i.e., the latter have a higher completeness limit and a less drastic decay in the completeness fraction. At first glance, this might seem contradictory since ECs are, by definition, embedded in molecular clouds and thus subject to a high degree of in situ dust extinction. However, at infrared wavelengths, ECs become easier to detect than exposed clusters because it is easier to distinguish them from the field population. Since ECs are usually associated with illuminated interstellar material, they can be identified by eye towards the locations of known nebulae or star-forming regions [e.g., @Dutra2003-2mass; @Bica2003-2mass; @Borissova2011], even if the clusters are partially resolved or highly contaminated by extended emission. In other words, despite bright nebular emission can prevent young stars from being found by point source detection algorithms and therefore hide the host EC from automated searches, at the same time it can help to identify such a cluster when searched by eye against a high stellar background. For clusters with fainter or less irregular extended emission, automated searches can also take advantage of some distinctive characteristic of ECs (like the red-color criterion of our GLIMPSE search, see Section \[sec:newglimpse\]) to separate them from the background, which is in general not feasible for an evolved OC because its member stars present similar observational properties than the field population.
It is interesting to compare our distance distribution of ECs (Figure \[fig:D-distribution\](b)) with that of individual *Spitzer*-detected YSOs [@Robitaille2008], as simulated by @RobitailleWhitney2010 using a population synthesis model. They show that the synthetic YSOs that would have been detected by *Spitzer* and included in the @Robitaille2008 catalog correspond to massive objects with a mass distribution that peaks at $\sim 8 M_{\sun}$. The corresponding distance distribution of this model is presented in Fig. 1 of @Beuther2012 for the $10\degr \le \ell \le 20\degr$ range. The plot reveals a high number of far YSOs up to distances of $\sim 14$ kpc, showing that, despite the high extinction, individual (massive) YSOs can be detected deep into the Galactic plane, as opposed to ECs. We therefore think that the low detectability of a far EC is mainly due to the faint apparent brightness of its low-mass population and confusion of its members, so that the whole cluster might be misidentified as an individual massive young star. At near-infrared wavelengths, however, extinction could still play an important role in hiding a far EC.
Definition of a representative sample {#sec:representative-sample}
-------------------------------------
We can quantify how many OCs and ECs we are missing within a certain distance from the Sun, using the analytical expressions for the observed distance distribution, $\Phi_D(D)$ (Equation (\[eq:Phi(D)-observed\])), and for the distance distribution that would be observed if we detected the totality of the clusters in the inner Galaxy, $\Phi_D^{\rm tot}(D)$ (Equation (\[eq:Phi(D)-complete\])), and using the fitted parameters given in Table \[tab:parameters-ZD\]. We define the cumulative completeness fraction, $F_{\rm c}(D)$, as the ratio of the number of observed clusters with distances $\le D$ to the number that would represent a complete sample within $D$: $$\label{eq:cumulative-completeness}
F_{\rm c}(D) \equiv \frac{N_{\rm cl}(\le D)}{N_{\rm cl}^{\rm tot}(\le D)} =
\frac{\displaystyle \int_0^D \Phi_D(D')\,\rd D'}
{\displaystyle \int_0^D \Phi_D^{\rm tot}(D')\,\rd D'}~.$$
Now we can define a *representative* cluster sample as all objects with distances $D \le D_{\rm rep}$ for which the fraction $F_{\rm c}(D_{\rm rep})$ is above a certain threshold in both the OC and EC samples (this naturally places the restriction on the OC sample alone, since it is more incomplete). We chose a threshold of 0.25, for which the distance has to be $D \le 3.15$ kpc. For simplicity, we just adopt $D_{\rm rep} = 3.0$ kpc, where $F_{\rm c}(D_{\rm rep}) = 0.28$ and $F_{\rm c}(D_{\rm rep}) = 0.79$ for the OC and EC samples, respectively. Note that although the selection of the threshold is somewhat arbitrary, if we keep in mind the above fractions, we only need a certain distance limit $D_{\rm rep}$ where the samples are not too incomplete and at the same time have a reasonable absolute number of objects to perform a statistical analysis.
In Column 4 of Table \[tab:morph-types\], we list the number of clusters with $D \le 3.0$ kpc for each morphological type; the total number of ECs in the representative sample is 98. To count the number of OCs, according to our definition we need that the clusters are also confirmed (`ref_Conf` not empty). The number of confirmed clusters with $D \le 3.0$ kpc is given in Column 5 for each morphological type, from which we obtain a total number of 146 OCs in the representative sample. With the fractions $F_{\rm c}(D_{\rm rep})$ computed before, it is also possible to estimate the number of clusters $N_{\rm cl}^{\rm tot}(\le D_{\rm rep})$ that we would observe within 3 kpc, if we had complete samples of OCs and ECs. The corresponding estimates are listed in Column 6, and were simply derived as $N_{\rm cl}(\le D_{\rm rep})/0.79$ for EC types, and $N_{\rm cl}^{\rm conf}(\le D_{\rm rep})/0.28$ for OC types. Note that the large number of OC2 clusters in this ideally complete sample is due to the fact that they cover a wide age range. The age distribution of our sample is analyzed in the next Section.
Ages {#sec:age-distribution}
----
We would expect that the ages of the stellar clusters increase along the morphological evolutionary sequence defined in Section \[sec:evolutionary-sequence\]. By dividing the cluster sample in such morphological types, we indeed obtained an increasing tendency in the corresponding ages distributions. However, we were unable to estimate an average age or age ranges for each individual type, given the low number of clusters with available ages that fall within each category, except for OC2. In the whole sample, for types EC1, EC2, OC0 and OC1 there are, respectively, only 9, 16, 15 and 9 objects with age estimates, whereas for OC2 clusters there are 160. Note that for types OC0 and OC1, the total number of objects is also low (see Table \[tab:morph-types\]), so that the main reason for the small number of age estimates is the low absolute statistics. On the other hand, for the much more numerous EC1 and EC2 morphological types (and possibly also part of the OC0 type), the lack of age estimates may simply be caused by the difficulties involved in obtaining these values.
It is still possible, however, to derive an upper limit for the ages of the ECs (EC1 and EC2 together), and also to study the age distribution of the whole OC population (OC0, OC1 and OC2 together), as described below.
### Upper limit age of ECs {#sec:age-embedded}
The EC ages compiled from the literature were estimated using a variety of methods, including: comparison with theoretical isochrones on a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram constructed after spectroscopic classification in the near-infrared [e.g., @Furness2010], use of the relation between the circumstellar disk fraction in the cluster and its age [following @Haisch2001], and comparison with synthetic clusters constructed by Monte Carlo simulations [@SteadHoare2011], among others. We remark that from the 25 ECs with available age estimates, there are two objects that seem to be artificial outliers, with too old ages to be embedded, namely $7.5 \pm 2.6$ Myr and $25 \pm 7.5$ Myr [respectively, clusters VVV CL100 and VVV CL059 from @Borissova2011][^16]. These two objects are precisely the only ECs in our sample whose age was determined with the distance via isochrone fitting and the high uncertainty of this method for very young clusters is indeed acknowledged by the authors [@Borissova2011]. In a few other cases where isochrone fitting was used to derive the age of an EC, an independent measure of the distance was used as input in order to reduce the uncertainty [e.g., @Ojha2010].
Excluding these two outliers from our sample, we found that 90% (21 out of 23) of the ECs with available age estimates are younger than 3 Myr. Furthermore, given the high errors in this age range, even the remaining two clusters are consistent with being younger than 3 Myr, within the uncertainties: age of $3.3 \pm 2.1$ Myr for $[$BDS2003$]$ 139 [@SteadHoare2011], and $4.2 \pm 1.5$ Myr for $[$DBS2003$]$ 118 [@Roman2007]^\[fn:age-errors\]^. We therefore adopt an upper limit of 3 Myr for the embedded phase, which represents a better constraint than the 5 Myr limit often quoted in the literature [from @Leisawitz1989]. Since practically all available EC ages in our sample are $\lesssim 3$ Myr, the same result is obtained if we consider the representative sample ($D \leq D_{\rm rep} = 3$ kpc), despite the low statistics (10 out of 11 ECs are formally younger than 3 Myr, after removing one outlier).
### Age distribution of OCs {#sec:age-distribution-fit}
![Age distribution of OCs within the representative sample ($D \leq 3$ kpc), using a logarithmic bin width of $\Delta \log({\rm Age}/{\rm yr}) = 0.25$ and Poisson uncertainties. The solid curve corresponds to the fitted age distribution from Equation (\[eq:age-distribution\]), following @LamersGieles2006, with best-fit parameters ${\rm CFR} = 0.93 \pm 0.09$ Myr$^{-1}$ and $M_{\rm max} = (4.46 \pm 0.85)\times 10^4~M_{\sun}$.[]{data-label="fig:age-distribution"}](figures/age-distribution-oc.eps){width="48.00000%"}
The much higher number of OCs with available age estimates allowed us to study their age distribution, which is shown in Figure \[fig:age-distribution\] for the representative sample (a total of 143 OCs). Assuming a constant cluster formation rate (CFR), the decreasing number of OCs as time evolves is due to the effect of different disruption processes. @LamersGieles2006 provide a theoretical parameterization of the survival time of initially bound OCs in the solar neighborhood, taking into account four main mechanisms: stellar evolution, tidal stripping by the Galactic gravitational field, shocking by spiral arms, and encounters with giant molecular clouds. They show that the observed age distribution $\Phi_a(a)$ for a constant CFR and a power-law cluster initial mass function with a slope of $-2$ can be written as $$\label{eq:age-distribution}
\Phi_a(a) = C \left[\left(\frac{M_{\rm lim}(a)}{M_{\sun}}\right)^{-1} -
\left(\frac{M_{\rm max}}{M_{\sun}}\right)^{-1} \right]~,$$ where $a$ is the age, $C$ is a constant, $M_{\rm lim}(a)$ is the initial mass of a cluster that, at an age $a$, reaches a mass equal to the detection limit (assumed to be 100 $M_{\sun}$), and $M_{\rm max}$ is the maximum initial mass of clusters that are formed. It can be shown that the cluster formation rate within the initial mass range $[100\,M_{\sun},M_{\rm max}]$ is related with the factor $C$ by $$\label{eq:cfr}
{\rm CFR} = C \left[\frac{1}{100} -
\left(\frac{M_{\rm max}}{M_{\sun}}\right)^{-1} \right]~.$$
We fitted $\Phi_a(a)$ from Equation (\[eq:age-distribution\]) to the observed age distribution of OCs in the representative sample, with free parameters $C$ and $M_{\rm max}$; the input function $M_{\rm lim}(a)$ was obtained by digitizing the dashed curve in Fig. 2 of @LamersGieles2006. We plot the resulting best fit as a solid curve in Figure \[fig:age-distribution\], corresponding to the parameters ${\rm CFR} = 0.93 \pm 0.09$ Myr$^{-1}$ and $M_{\rm max} = (4.46 \pm 0.85)\times 10^4~M_{\sun}$. It is clear from the figure that there is an excess of observed young OCs with respect to the fitted theoretical distribution, whereas for older ages the fit is a pretty good representation of the data. The observed excess of young OCs could be the result of two effects. First, young OCs dominate at larger distances because they contain more luminous stars, so that within an incomplete sample the proportion of young OCs is relatively higher than that of older clusters [@Piskunov2006]. Second, since the parameterization of @LamersGieles2006 considers the dissolution of initially bound OCs due to classical mechanisms, the observed over-population of young clusters might consists of associations, i.e., clusters which are already unbound due to disruption processes that are not accounted for by @LamersGieles2006. These associations will quickly dissolve into the field and, therefore, will not be able to populate the older age bins of the distribution in the future.
While the age-dependent incompleteness is likely playing a role within our $D_{\rm rep} = 3$ kpc limit, it is interesting to investigate whether or not there is also a contribution from the presence of associations, for which we need to restrict the sample to smaller distances, where the incompleteness is not important. We found that the excess of observed young OCs still holds if we perform the fit for samples restricted to successively smaller distances, down to $D \leq 1.4$ kpc; nevertheless, the low statistics in the Solar neighborhood within the ATLASGAL range prevents us to perform this test on an even more restricted subsample of our catalog. We therefore fitted the model to all-sky samples of OCs, namely, the @Dias2002 catalog and the @Kharchenko2005-known [@Kharchenko2005-new] sample, restricted to a certain limit in projected distance, $D$. For clusters with $D \leq 0.6$ kpc, in both samples, we recovered the results from @LamersGieles2006[^17], whose observed age distribution practically does not show the excess of young OCs with respect to the fitted curve (see their Fig. 3). If we restrict the samples to $D \leq 1.4$ kpc, however, the age distribution for the @Dias2002 catalog presents a statistically significant over-population of young OCs, whereas for the @Kharchenko2005-known [@Kharchenko2005-new] sample the excess is only marginal.
Given that the @Kharchenko2005-known [@Kharchenko2005-new] sample is a subset of the @Dias2002 catalog, this behavior means that the young excess in the sample with $D \leq 1.4$ kpc cannot *purely* be due to the age-dependent incompleteness, since otherwise we would obtain a more noticeable effect in the less complete sample. Then, there must necessarily be a contribution from presence of associations. The excess is less significant for the Kharchenko et al. catalog and not noticeable for clusters in both samples with $D \leq 0.6$ kpc probably because there is an observational limitation in detecting associations at very close distances, due to their larger sizes. In summary, we think that the excess of young clusters in our representative OC sample ($D \leq 3.0$ kpc) with respect to the theoretical description of @LamersGieles2006 is caused by a combination of age-dependent incompleteness and presence of associations.
The age distribution shown in Figure \[fig:age-distribution\] was constructed using a bin width large enough to ensure good statistics over the whole age range, but we can refine the grid to constrain better a certain feature, as long as the presentation remains statistically significant. By constructing the age distribution with smaller bin widths and doing the fitting again, we found that the transition after which the theoretical description fits well the data occurs at an age of $\log(a/{\rm yr}) \simeq 7.2$, i.e., $\sim 16$ Myr. Consistently, we have seen in Section \[sec:classification-oc-ec\] that the $\sim 16$ Myr limit is roughly the age before which an observed OC might be either an association or a physical OC, whereas observed OCs older than that are practically always bound and therefore are disrupted through “classical” mechanisms over a longer timescale.
### Young cluster dissolution
Similarly to the estimation of the cumulative completeness fraction (see Section \[sec:representative-sample\]), we can use the analytical expressions for the distance distributions from Section \[sec:spatial-distribution\] to transform the absolute CFR in the representative sample to an incompleteness-corrected cluster formation rate per unit area, $\dot{\Sigma}$, representative of the inner Galaxy close to the Sun. It can be easily shown that the conversion is $$\label{eq:cfr/area}
\dot{\Sigma} = \frac{{\rm CFR(D \leq D_{\rm rep})}}{\ell_1 D_{\rm eff}^2(D_{\rm rep})}~,$$ where $$\label{eq:Deff}
D_{\rm eff}^2(D) \equiv 2 \int_0^D f_{\rm c}(D') \,f_{b_1}(D') \,D'\,\rd D'~.$$ For the OC sample, $D_{\rm eff}(D_{\rm rep}) = 1.28$ kpc, which implies that the fitted cluster formation rate per unit area is $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm fit} = 0.54 \pm 0.05$ Myr$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-2}$. This value can now be compared with the analogous parameter in the @LamersGieles2006 fit for a complete all-sky sample within 0.6 kpc from the Sun, $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm LG06} = 0.63$ Myr$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-2}$. Together with the maximum mass of $M_{\rm max} = 3 \times 10^4~M_{\sun}$ they obtain, we can see that both fits are consistent within the uncertainties, assuming that their errors are similar to ours (theirs are not provided). On the other hand, from the observed number of OCs in our representative sample with ages $\log(a/{\rm yr}) < 7.2$, we derive $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm obs} = 1.18 \pm 0.22$ Myr$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-2}$ (using Poisson errors), which sets an upper limit of $\sim 0.5$ to the fraction of observed young OCs that are actually associations. The observed cluster formation rate corrected by age-dependent incompleteness is some value between $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm fit}$ and $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm obs}$ that can be parametrized as $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm obs}^{\rm corr} = \dot{\Sigma}_{\rm obs} - f_{\rm adi}(\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm obs} - \dot{\Sigma}_{\rm fit})$, where $f_{\rm adi}$ is a factor in the range $[0,1]$ ($f_{\rm adi} = 0$ for no age-dependent incompleteness, and $f_{\rm adi} = 1$ for no intrinsic young excess).
To obtain a realistic estimate of the fraction of young clusters that will dissolve or merge with other(s) agglomerate(s), and therefore will not become physical OCs by their own, we also need an equivalent estimate for the formation rate of ECs. For that, we can simply take the local surface density $\Sigma_0$ obtained from fitting the distance distribution of ECs (Table \[tab:parameters-ZD\]), and divide it by their upper limit age of 3 Myr, resulting in $\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm EC} = 6.50 \pm 1.03$ Myr$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-2}$. This EC formation rate, however, is not directly comparable to that of OCs, since within 3 kpc from the Sun we are likely detecting ECs with masses below the detection limit of 100 $M_{\sun}$ adopted by @LamersGieles2006 for OCs, as shown, e.g., by @LadaLada2003, whose EC catalog includes objects with masses down to 20 $M_{\sun}$, with a large number of clusters with masses in the range $[50,100]~M_{\sun}$. Fortunately, we found that the uncertainty in the fraction of ECs with masses above 100 $M_{\sun}$, $f_{>100\,M_{\sun}}$, is not dominant and does not prevent us to compute a good estimate of the young dissolution fraction.
If we assume that $f_{>100\,M_{\sun}}$ is in the range $[0.1,1]$, we obtain that the fraction of ECs and young exposed clusters, $f_{\rm diss}$, that will not become physical OCs is $$\label{eq:fdiss}
f_{\rm diss} = 1 - \frac{\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm fit}}{\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm obs} - f_{\rm adi}(\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm obs} - \dot{\Sigma}_{\rm fit}) + f_{>100\,M_{\sun}}\dot{\Sigma}_{\rm EC}} = 88 \pm 8 \%~,$$ where the uncertainty has been numerically computed assuming Gaussian random variables, except for $f_{>100\,M_{\sun}}$ and $f_{\rm adi}$ which were drawn from uniform probability distributions in the corresponding domains ($[0,1]$ range for $f_{\rm adi}$, see above). The value is in excellent agreement with that obtained by @LadaLada2003. However, the explanation proposed by these authors, that this high fraction is produced by the dissolution of ECs after fast gas expulsion, has been modified (or extended) considerably in recent years. As we have reviewed in the Introduction, depending on the physical conditions of each individual system and its environment, several other phenomena can contribute to the high observed number of ECs relative to physical OCs, namely: dissolving associations from birth, merging of young subclusters, and young cluster dispersion due to tidal shocks from environment or due to fast relaxation for small-$N$ systems.
Correlations {#sec:statistics}
------------
------ ------------- ----------- --------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ---------
Type PAH or Bub. Trigg. Edge IRDC UC Complex
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
EC1 59 (8) 0 (0.8) 3 (1.5) 52 (13) 62 (9) 18 (4) 52 (8)
EC2 87 (9) 8.2 (2.1) 0 (0.5) 11 (5) 69 (8) 5.6 (1.7) 63 (7)
OC0 50 (12) 12 (5) 0 (1.8) 0 (5.9) 55 (12) 0 (1.8) 52 (12)
OC1 50 (18) 9.1 (6.7) 0 (4.5) 0 (16.7) 59 (21) 0 (4.5) 45 (17)
OC2 1.4 (0.7) 0 (0.3) 0 (0.3) 0 (0.7) 0.7 (0.5) 0 (0.3) 1 (0.6)
------ ------------- ----------- --------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ---------
In this Section, we look for correlations between the morphological types defined in Section \[sec:evolutionary-sequence\] and other information compiled in our cluster catalog, such as the MIR morphology and association with known objects. The percentages of clusters that satisfy the studied criteria within each morphological type are presented in Table \[tab:statistics\]. Column 2 gives the percentage of clusters that appear to be exciting PAH emission through UV radiation from their stars, as traced by bright diffuse 8 emission (12 for WISE) or the presence of IR bubbles (MIR morphology `bub-cen`, `bub-cen-trig`, or `pah`, see Section \[sec:atlasgal-and-mir\]). Column 3 lists the fraction of clusters that seem to be triggering further star formation at the edge of the associated IR bubble (MIR morphology `bub-cen-trig` alone), whereas Column 4 indicates the fraction of clusters that are located at the edge of an IR bubble (MIR morphology `bub-cen-edge`). Columns 5, 6 and 7 give, respectively, the percentage of objects that are associated with IRDCs, regions of any type, and UC regions alone. Finally, Column 8 lists the fraction of clusters that are part of a complex of several clusters (see Section \[sec:complexes\]). In this table we present the statistics calculated for the whole cluster sample, because we obtained the same results for the representative sample, within the uncertainties (assumed to be Poisson errors). The only exception is the association with infrared dark clouds, for which we give the fractions within the representative sample. This is expected since an IRDC can only be identified at a relatively near distance because, to be detectable, it has to manifest itself as a dark extinction feature in front of the diffuse Galactic background. We also computed the statistics restricted to clusters with GLIMPSE data available, in order to minimize possible systematic errors arising from the lower resolution and sensitivity of the WISE images (see Section \[sec:MIR-morphology\]), but since only 7% of the clusters have no GLIMPSE data, we obtained identical results than those presented in Table \[tab:statistics\].
We note from the table that the presence of stellar feedback as traced by PAH emission and regions is very important in the first four stages of the evolutionary sequence. When excluding UC regions, we found that both indicators of feedback are roughly equivalent, i.e., the same clusters present both tracers. That a few clusters have PAH emission but no region is probably due to the incompleteness of the current sample of regions. Alternately, in some cases we might be dealing with lower mass clusters whose UV radiation is strong enough to excite the PAH molecules, but not to produce a detectable region of ionized gas [@Allen2007]. On the other hand, the few regions without PAH emission are probably more evolved, or UC regions not identified as such. However, it is remarkable that although the identification of an ultra compact region was only based on the literature, such objects are much more frequently associated with the first morphological type, which presumably covers the youngest clusters. The almost null correlation of OC2 clusters with indicators of stellar feedback is consistent with the fact that these clusters are mostly classical OCs and already gas-free.
Concerning triggered star formation, we see that only EC2, OC0, and OC1 clusters are able to produce it, in roughly 10% of the cases. EC1 clusters are not able because they are too embedded and have not yet started to sweep up the surrounding material; in turn, their formation might be triggered itself by another cluster or massive star, but in only a very small fraction (see Column 4). We warn, however, that our diagnoses of triggered star formation are purely based on morphology, so that its real existence in these cases is definitely not conclusive.
Infrared dark clouds are mostly associated with the first morphological type, confirming that they trace the earliest phases of star cluster formation. Interestingly, we found that the presence of IRDCs and PAH emission are almost mutually exclusive: within the representative sample, both tracers combined practically account for the totality of EC1 clusters, with almost null intersection. In other words, IRDCs and PAH emission trace, respectively, an earlier and later stage within the deeply embedded phase (type EC1). A simple interpretation for this behavior is that at some point IRDCs are “illuminated” by the radiation of the recently formed ECs, before their actual disruption, so that they become undetectable as extinction features in the mid-infrared but still prominent in the submm dust continuum emission traced by ATLASGAL.
Although we have not identified the totality of complexes of physically related clusters in our sample, Table \[tab:statistics\] shows a clear tendency for ECs to be grouped in complexes. In contrast, OCs are much more isolated (the type OC2 dominates the OC population). Only those OCs that are still associated with some molecular gas (types OC0, OC1) present a similar degree of grouping with other clusters as ECs. This is consistent with the fact that star formation occurs in giant molecular cloud complexes with a hierarchical structure, in which star-forming regions with a relatively higher stellar density would be observationally identified as ECs. Many of them will dissolve, while others, if close enough, will undergo a merging process as a result of dynamical evolution, all in a timescale shorter than $\sim 15$ Myr (see Section \[sec:age-distribution\]). The final outcome, after the parent molecular cloud is destroyed, might therefore be very few or even an unique physical OC, which will appear relatively in isolation.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We have statistically studied all ECs and OCs known so far in the inner Galactic plane and their correlation with dense molecular gas, taking particular advantage of the improved cluster sample over the past decade and the ATLASGAL submm continuum survey, which traces cold dust and dense molecular gas. The main results and conclusions presented in this paper are summarized as follows.
1. We compiled a merged full-sky list of 3904 ECs and OCs in the Galaxy, collected from several optical and infrared cluster catalogs in the literature, dealing properly with cross-identifications.
2. As part of the above compilation, we performed our own search for ECs on the mid-infrared GLIMPSE survey, complementing the catalog of 92 exposed and less-embedded clusters detected by @Mercer2005 on the same data. Our method basically consisted on visual inspection of three-color images around positions previously selected as potential YSO overdensities, which correspond to enhancements on a stellar density map of the GLIMPSE point source catalog filtered by a red color criterion. With this technique, we found 75 new clusters.
3. The sample of 695 ECs and OCs within the ATLASGAL Galactic range ($|\ell| \le 60\degr$ and $|b| \le 1.5\degr$) was studied in more detail, particularly regarding the correlation with submm emission. We constructed an extensive catalog (available in electronic form at the CDS) with all the relevant information on these objects, including: the characteristics of the submm and mid-infrared emission; correlation with IRDCs, IR bubbles, and regions; distances (kinematic and/or stellar) and ages; and membership in big molecular complexes.
4. Based on the morphology of the submm emission and, for exposed clusters, on the agreement of the clump kinematic distances and cluster stellar distances, we defined an evolutionary sequence with decreasing correlation with ATLASGAL emission: deeply embedded clusters (EC1), partially embedded clusters (EC2), emerging exposed clusters (OC0), totally exposed clusters still physically associated with molecular gas in their surrounding neighborhood (OC1), and all the remaining exposed clusters, with no correlation with ATLASGAL emission (OC2).
5. The morphological evolutionary sequence correlates well with other observational indicators of evolution. In particular, we found that IR bubbles/PAH emission and regions are both equivalently important in the first four stages of the evolutionary sequence, suggesting that ionization is one of the main feedback mechanisms in our cluster sample. IRDCs are significant mostly in the first type (EC1), tracing a very early phase prior to the stage in which the EC starts to “illuminate” the host molecular clump while still embedded (EC1 clusters with PAH emission). The presence of big complexes containing several clusters is, again, relevant in the first four morphological types, which is consistent with the fact that star formation occurs in giant molecular clouds, and that older OCs (OC2) are just the bound survivors of a very complex process of merging and dissolution of young agglomerates.
6. We observationally defined an EC as any cluster with morphological types EC1 or EC2; OCs were defined as all the remaining types, OC0, OC1, and OC2, but were required to be confirmed by follow-up studies, in order to minimize the contamination by spurious candidates.
7. We found that our observational definition of OC agrees with the physical one (a bound exposed cluster, referred to in this work as a *physical OC*) for ages greater than $\sim 16$ Myr. In our sample, some OCs younger than this limit can actually be associations.
8. By fitting the observed heliocentric distance distribution for OCs and ECs within the ATLASGAL range, we found that our OC and EC samples are roughly complete up to a distance of $\sim 1$ kpc and $\sim 1.8$ kpc, respectively. Beyond these limits, the completeness of the OC and EC samples decay exponentially with scale lengths of $\sim 0.7$ kpc and $\sim 1.8$ kpc, respectively.
9. We argued that ECs probe deeper the inner Galactic plane than OCs because, at infrared wavelengths, ECs can be more easily distinguished from the field population than OCs. On the other hand, a very distant EC is hardly detected due to the combined effect of extinction, the faint apparent brightness of its low-mass population and confusion of its members.
10. From a subsample of 23 ECs with available age estimates, we derived an upper limit of 3 Myr for the duration of the embedded phase.
11. We studied the OC age distribution within 3 kpc from the Sun, which was used to fit the theoretical parametrization of @LamersGieles2006 of different disruption mechanisms for bound OCs. We found an excess of observed young OCs with respect to the fit, thought to be a combined effect of age dependent incompleteness and presence of associations for ages $\lesssim 16$ Myr.
12. We derived formation rates of 0.54, 1.18, and 6.50 Myr$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-2}$ for bound OCs, all observed young OCs, and ECs, respectively, which translates into a EC dissolution fraction of $88 \pm 8\%$. This high fraction is thought to be produced by a combination of the following effects: dissolving associations from birth; merging of young subclusters; and young cluster dispersion due to fast gas expulsion, tidal shocks from environment, or fast relaxation for small-$N$ systems.
The new generation of all-sky near-infrared surveys, such as the UKIDSS Galactic Plane Survey [@Lucas2008] and VISTA Variables in the Vía Láctea [VVV, @Minniti2010], will constitute valuable tools to discover new OCs and ECs in the Galactic plane and to start filling in the highly incomplete parts of the plane beyond 1 or 2 kpc from the Sun (for OCs and ECs, respectively). In the future, we plan to update our cluster database for the inner Galaxy to include the new discoveries. Furthermore, the improved sensitivity and resolution of these surveys relative to 2MASS will allow studies of the stellar population of ECs which appear too crowded and/or faint in the 2MASS data. Very importantly, this will increase the number of young clusters with available estimates of their physical properties, such as ages and masses. In particular, stellar masses can be combined with estimates of gas masses (e.g., from ATLASGAL) to derive star formation efficiencies and investigate possible trends with the age and the presence of feedback, placing important constraints on star formation theories.
We thank the referee for making useful suggestions that improved the clarity of the paper, and Thomas Robitaille for reading the manuscript and providing helpful comments. We acknowledge the useful discussions with Pavel Kroupa, Maria Messineo (about the GLIMPSE search for ECs), and Marion Wienen (about kinematic distances). We also benefited from the email discussions with D. Froebrich (about its catalog of clusters), A. Moisés (about NIR spectrophotometric distances), and M. Gieles (about Equation (\[eq:tcross-units-GP11\])).
This research is based on: data from the ATLASGAL project, which is a collaboration between the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPIfR and MPIA), the European Southern Observatory and the Universidad de Chile; observations made with the *Spitzer Space Telescope*, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA; data products from the 2MASS, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation; and data products from the WISE, which is a joint project of the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
This work has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, the NASA’s Astrophysics Data System, and the VizieR database of astronomical catalogs [@Ochsenbein2000]. This paper has made use of information from the Red MSX Source survey database at [www.ast.leeds.ac.uk/RMS](www.ast.leeds.ac.uk/RMS) which was constructed with support from the Science and Technology Facilities Council of the UK.
E.F.E.M was supported for part of this research through a stipend from the International Max Planck Research School (IMPRS) for Astronomy and Astrophysics at the Universities of Bonn and Cologne. This was work partially carried out in the Max Planck Research Group *Star formation throughout the Milky Way Galaxy* at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy (MPIA).
Cluster lists in the literature {#sec:catalogs-long}
===============================
In this appendix, we describe the diverse catalogs and references used for our cluster compilation, separated in three categories according to the wavelength at which the clusters are detected: optical, NIR and MIR clusters. Furthermore, we present a brief discussion of the contamination by false cluster candidates. Again, as for Table \[tab:catalogs\], the number of clusters quoted within the text represent values after removing these spurious objects and some globular clusters (listed in Table \[tab:spurious\]), unless explicitly mentioned.
Optical clusters {#sec:optical}
----------------
@Dias2002 provide the most complete catalog of optically visible OCs and candidates, containing revised data compiled from old catalogs and from isolated papers recently published. The list is regularly updated on a dedicated webpage[^18], with additional clusters seen in the optical and revised fundamental parameters from new references. We used the version 3.1 (from November, 2010), which contains 2117 objects, of which 99.7% have estimated angular diameters, and 59.4% have simultaneous reddening, distance and age determinations. Kinematic information is also given for a fraction of clusters, 22.9% of the list have both radial velocity and proper motion data. It should be noted that this catalog aims at collecting not only the OCs first *detected* in the optical, but also most of (ideally, all) the clusters which were detected in the infrared and are *visible* in the optical. For example, 293 objects from the 998 2MASS-detected clusters of @Froebrich2007 were included in the last version of the catalog, based on by-eye inspection of the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS) images.
We also included in our compilation the list of new galactic OC candidates by @Kronberger2006, who did a visual inspection of DSS and 2MASS images towards selected regions, and a subsequent analysis of the 2MASS color-magnitude diagrams of the candidates. The clusters were divided in different lists, some of them with fundamental parameters determined, and are all included in the @Dias2002 [ver. 3.1] catalog, except most of the stellar fields classified as *suspected* OC candidates (their Table 2e), which adds 130 objects to the optical cluster sample.
NIR clusters
------------
Stellar clusters detected by NIR imaging, mainly from surveys of individual star-forming regions, are compiled from the literature by @Porras2003, @LadaLada2003, and @Bica2003-lit. The first two catalogs are exclusively limited to nearby regions (distances less than 1 kpc and $\simeq 2$ kpc, respectively); @Bica2003-lit did not use that restriction, but their list is only representative for nearby distances too ($\lesssim 2$ kpc). It is not surprising that the three compilations overlap considerably, as is shown in Table \[tab:catalogs\]. All together, these catalogs contribute 297 additional objects with respect to the optical cluster sample.
However, most of the NIR clusters correspond to recent discoveries using the 2MASS survey. More than 300 new clusters were found by visual inspection of a huge number of 2MASS $J$, $H$, and specially $K_s$ images [@DutraBica2000; @DutraBica2001; @Bica2003-2mass; @Dutra2003-2mass]. In the pioneer work of @DutraBica2000, 58 star clusters and candidates were originally detected by doing a systematic visual search on a field of $5\degr \times 5\degr$ centered close to the Galactic Center, and towards the directions of regions and dark clouds for $|\ell| \le 4\degr$; though most of them were observed later at higher angular resolution, and 36 turned out to be spurious detections mainly due to the high contamination from field stars in this area (see Section \[sec:spurious\]). Additional 42 objects were discovered by @DutraBica2001, who searched for ECs around the central positions of optical and radio nebulae in the Cygnus X region and other specific regions of the sky [they are included in the literature compilation by @Bica2003-lit]. They extended the method for the whole Milky Way [@Dutra2003-2mass; @Bica2003-2mass southern and equatorial/northern Galaxy, respectively], inspecting a sample of 4450 nebulae collected from the literature, and they found a total of 337 new clusters.
In addition to the visual inspection technique, a large number of 2MASS star clusters have been discovered by automated searches, which are based on the selection of enhancements on stellar surface density maps constructed with the point source catalog. The early works of @Ivanov2002 and @Borissova2003 led to 14 detections (the ones not present in any of the catalogs mentioned above are counted in the “Not cataloged (NIR)” row of Table \[tab:catalogs\]); similarly, @Kumar2006 found 54 ECs of which 20 are new detections, focusing the search around the positions of massive protostellar candidates. More recently, @Froebrich2007 searched for 2MASS clusters along the entire Galactic Plane with $|b| \le 20\degr$, automatically looking for star density enhancements, and manually selecting all remaining objects possessing the same visual appearance in the star density maps as known star clusters. They identified a total of 1788 star cluster candidates, 1021 of which resulted to be new discoveries and were presented as a catalog; an estimate of the contamination suggested that about half of these new candidates are real star clusters. A considerable number of objects from the @Froebrich2007 list have been analyzed in more detail by a variety of authors, and they were compiled by @Froebrich2008. For these objects and the ones recently studied by @Froebrich2010 (comprising a total of 68 clusters), we use the refined coordinates and diameters instead of the original ones. The follow-up studies compiled by @Froebrich2008 also unveil 22 spurious clusters and one globular cluster (see Table \[tab:spurious\]). A similar automatic 2MASS search done by @Glushkova2010 in the $|b| < 24\degr$ range, which includes the verification of the obtained star density enhancements by the analysis of color-magnitude diagrams and radial density distributions, produced a list of $\sim 100$ new clusters [most of them included in the last version of the catalog by @Dias2002], providing physical parameters for a total of 168 new and previously discovered objects.
Expectations for the near future are that the new generation of all-sky NIR surveys, such as the United Kingdom Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS) and VISTA Variables in the Vía Láctea (VVV), will give rise to the discovery of many more stellar clusters, thanks to their improved limiting magnitude and angular resolution compared to 2MASS. A cluster search using these data has already been performed by @Borissova2011, who found 96 previously unknown stellar clusters by visually inspecting multiwavelength NIR images of the VVV survey in the covered disk area ($295\degr \le \ell \le 350\degr$ and $|b| \le 2\degr$), towards directions of star formation signposts (masers, radio, and infrared sources). The objects listed in their catalog were required to present distinguishable sequences on the color-color and color-magnitude diagrams, after applying a field-star decontamination algorithm, in order to minimize the presence of false detections. Automated cluster searches in the UKIDSS and VVV surveys are being done by the corresponding teams.[^19]
In our star cluster compilation, we also included recent NIR studies towards specific star-forming regions, or individual star clusters, which are not listed in the previous catalogs. In their NIR survey of 26 high-mass star-forming regions, @Faustini2009 identified the presence of 23 clusters, 16 of which are new discoveries. Additional individual new objects are counted as “Not cataloged clusters (NIR)” in Table \[tab:catalogs\].
MIR clusters
------------
As a result of the high sensitivity of the GLIMPSE mid-infrared survey, @Mercer2005 managed to find 92 new star clusters (2 of which are globular clusters) using an automated algorithm applied to the GLIMPSE point source catalog and archive, and a visual inspection of the image mosaics to search for ECs (the GLIMPSE Galactic range at that time was $10\degr \le |\ell| \le 65\degr$ and $|b| \le 1\degr$, excluding the inner part of the GLIMPSE II survey). The automatic detection method consisted of the construction of a renormalized star density map, which accounts for the varying background, the estimation of the clusters’ spatial parameters by fitting 2D Gaussians to the point sources with an expectation-maximization algorithm, and finally the removal of false detections by using a Bayesian criterion. This technique yielded 91 cluster candidates, 59 of which were new discoveries. Most of the clusters were detected applying a bright magnitude cut at 3.6 before the construction of the stellar density map. Additional 33 new ECs were identified by the visual inspection, which were missed by the automated method.
However, simple by-eye examination of some GLIMPSE color images led us to conclude that there are still some ECs missing in the @Mercer2005 list. Because of this (and also to cover the GLIMPSE II area) we performed a new semi-automatic search in the whole GLIMPSE data, focused in the ECs, which resulted in increasing the number of MIR clusters to a total of 164 objects[^20]. The search is described in Section \[sec:newglimpse\].
Spurious cluster candidates {#sec:spurious}
---------------------------
The majority of the new IR star cluster catalogs compiled here are based on algorithmic or by-eye detections of stellar density enhancements on images of IR Galactic surveys, and do not provide information whether the identified objects are really composed of physically related stars or are instead produced by chance alignments on the line of sight. Due to the patchy interstellar extinction, an apparent stellar overdensity can simply correspond to a low extinction region with high extinction surroundings. In addition, bright spatially extended emission might be incorrectly classified as unresolved star clusters embedded in nebulae. Confirmation of a real cluster can be achieved through deeper, high-resolution IR photometry or through spectroscopic observations of the candidate stellar members [e.g., @Dutra2003-ntt; @Borissova2005; @Borissova2006; @Messineo2009; @Hanson2010; @Davies2011-Mc81], which in some cases enables the estimation of physical parameters. Though an important number of such studies have been carried out during the past decade, they still cover a small fraction of the total sample of cluster candidates to be confirmed, mainly because these objects represent relatively new discoveries and the observations needed for a more detailed analysis are very time-consuming.
Nevertheless, we can roughly estimate the contamination by spurious detections in our sample of cluster candidates in a statistical way. For example, by comparison of the basic characteristics (Galactic distribution, detection method and morphology) of the cluster candidates with those of known clusters rediscovered by their method, @Froebrich2007 found that about 50% of their catalog entries correspond to false clusters. Detailed follow-up studies of unbiased subsets of objects from this catalog, only restricted to certain areas, have determined similar contamination fractions [@Froebrich2008 and references therein]. Another example is the @DutraBica2000 catalog, where 52 (out of 58) candidates have been observed using higher resolution NIR imaging [@Dutra2003-ntt; @Borissova2005], resulting in 36 previously unresolved alignments of a few bright stars (probably in most cases unrelated) which resemble compact clusters at the 2MASS resolution. This would imply a $\sim 70\%$ contamination by spurious detections, but we note that, since this catalog is based on a systematic search for sources projected close to the Galactic center, it is particularly affected by a higher number of background/foreground stars and more intervening dust, which all help to mimic (or hide) star clusters.
The subsequent 2MASS by-eye searches performed by this team [@DutraBica2001; @Dutra2003-2mass; @Bica2003-2mass] cover the whole Galactic plane and, furthermore, they are focused on radio/optical nebulae which generally correspond to regions, increasing the chance to find real stellar clusters. Typical spurious clusters associated with radio/optical nebulae represent one or a couple of bright stars plus extended emission [e.g., @Borissova2005]. We caution that, however, as the number of stars in these embedded multiple systems is larger, under the assumption that the stars are physically related, the consideration of a particular candidate as spurious or possible cluster is more dependent on how we define an EC. Under the definition used throughout this work (see Section \[sec:cluster-definition\]), since we do not impose any constraint on the number of members, we expect a minimal contamination by false detections for clusters associated with molecular gas[^21]. For exposed clusters, on the contrary, the probability that a cluster candidate consists of only unrelated stars on the same line of sight is much higher. Based on the above discussion, we estimate an overall spurious contamination rate of $\sim 50\%$ for exposed clusters that have not been confirmed by follow-up studies.
In Table \[tab:spurious\] we list the spurious candidates within the compiled cluster catalogs that were not included in our final sample. This table comprises the false detections found by @Dutra2003-ntt and @Borissova2005, and the candidates from the @Froebrich2007 catalog listed as “not a cluster” by the literature compilation of follow-up studies by @Froebrich2008. The other objects are a few globular clusters and false clusters or duplications found in this work, primarily from the literature revision of the cluster sample in the ATLASGAL range (see Appendix \[sec:huge-table-details\]).
[lclll]{}
\
Name & Flag & Catalog & Ref. & Comments\
\
Name & Flag & Catalog & Ref. & Comments\
$[$DB2000$]$ 2 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 3 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 4 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 7 & S & 01,03 & 2 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 8 & S & 03 & 1,2 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 9 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 13 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 14 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 15 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 16 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 19 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 20 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 21 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 22 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 23 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 24 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 29 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 30 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 33 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 34 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 36 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 37 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 38 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 39 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 40 & S & 01,03 & 2 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 41 & S & 03 & 2 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 43 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 44 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 46 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 47 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 48 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 53 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 54 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 56 & S & 03 & 2 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 57 & S & 03 & 1 &\
$[$DB2000$]$ 58 & S & 01,03 & 2 &\
NGC 6334 VI & S & 04 & 3 &\
$[$DBS2003$]$ 83 & S & 05 & 2 &\
$[$DBS2003$]$ 84 & S & 05 & 2 &\
$[$DBS2003$]$ 95 & D & 05 & 4 &\
$[$DBS2003$]$ 170 & S & 05 & 2 &\
$[$DBS2003$]$ 172 & S & 05 & 5 &\
$[$BDS2003$]$ 101 & S & 06 & 2 &\
$[$BDS2003$]$ 103 & GC & 06 & 2 &\
$[$BDS2003$]$ 105 & S & 06 & 2 &\
$[$BDS2003$]$ 150 & D & 06 & 4 &\
$[$MCM2005b$]$ 3 & GC & 09 & 6,7 &\
$[$MCM2005b$]$ 5 & GC & 09 & 8 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 2 & S & 11 & 9 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 23 & S & 01,11 & 9 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 41 & S & 11 & 10 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 91 & S & 11 & 10 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 94 & S & 01,11 & 9 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 114 & S & 11 & 10 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 128 & S & 11 & 10 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 744 & S & 01,11 & 11 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 776 & S & 11 & 11 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 801 & S & 11 & 11 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 841 & S & 11 & 11 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 894 & S & 01,11 & 11 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 927 & S & 01,11 & 11 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 956 & S & 01,11 & 11 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 1527 & S & 11 & 9 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 1635 & S & 11 & 10 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 1647 & S & 11 & 10 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 1659 & S & 11 & 9 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 1685 & S & 11 & 10 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 1695 & S & 11 & 10 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 1754 & S & 11 & 10,9 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 1767 & S & 01,11 & 9 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 1735 & GC & 11 & 12,9 &\
Ruprecht 166 & S & 01 & 13 &\
Lynga 3 & S & 01 & 14 &\
NGC 6334 & S & 01 & 4 &\
NGC 6357 & D & 01 & 4 &\
SAI 24 & D & 01 & 4 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 101 & D & 01 & 4 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 124 & S & 01 & 4 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 178 & D & 01 & 4 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 198 & D & 01 & 4 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 869 & D & 01 & 4 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 923 & D & 01 & 4 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 974 & D & 01 & 4 &\
$[$FSR2007$]$ 1471 & D & 01 & 4 &\
Construction of the cluster catalog {#sec:huge-table-details}
===================================
Here, we report in detail the construction of our cluster catalog within the ATLASGAL Galactic range ($|\ell| \le 60\degr$ and $|b| \le 1.5\degr$), including explanations for all the assumptions and procedures made when compiling the used information, as well as descriptions for all the columns provided in the catalog. The catalog and a list of cited references are electronically available at the CDS, and an excerpt is given in Appendix \[sec:catalog-excerpt\].
Designations, position and angular size {#sec:basic-information}
---------------------------------------
The basic information for each cluster is directly obtained from the original cluster catalogs compiled (see Section \[sec:catalogs-summary\]). The column `ID` is a record number from 1 to 695 with the clusters sorted by Galactic longitude. The cluster designation, based on the original catalog, is listed in the column `Name`, which was chosen, in general, to be consistent with the SIMBAD database identifier. Other common names, or designations from other catalog(s) (for clusters originally present in more than one catalog), are given in the column `OName`. In the column `Cat`, we provide the original cluster catalog(s) from which each object was extracted, using the reference ID defined in Table \[tab:catalogs\].
The position of each object is based on the equatorial coordinates listed in the original catalog(s). For multiple catalogs, we averaged the listed positions and angular sizes to obtain the final values given here, ignoring in some cases certain references that were considered less accurate or redundant (which are listed between parentheses in the column `Cat`). The galactic coordinates are given in `GLON` and `GLAT`, whereas the equatorial coordinates (J2000.0) are listed in `RAJ2000` and `DECJ2000`. The column `Diam` is the angular diameter in arcseconds.
ATLASGAL emission {#sec:clumpfind}
-----------------
From the ATLASGAL survey images, we extracted submaps centered at the cluster locations and with a field of view of $\max\{30\arcmin, 2*\verb|Diam|\}$ to search for submm dust continuum emission tracing molecular gas likely associated with the clusters, and to then characterize its morphology. The first computation needed to determine the presence of real emission in those fields is a proper estimation of the local rms noise level, $\sigma$, for which we used an iterative sigma-clipping procedure[^22] with a threshold of $2\sigma$ and a convergence criterion of 1% (iteration stops when the non-sky pixels are a fraction lower than 1% of the total of sky pixels of the previous iteration). With these chosen parameters, the computed values of $\sigma$ agree well with quick estimates of the noise over emission-free regions identified by eye in some test fields. The average noise level is $\sigma = 45$ mJy/beam, and 95% of the total of fields have $\sigma$ in the range $[30,60]$ mJy/beam.
Using the computed rms noise level of each field, we identified clumps of emission by applying the decomposition algorithm *Clumpfind* [@Williams1994] in its IDL implementation for 2D data, `clfind2d`. This routine requires only two input parameters: 1) the intensity threshold, which determines the minimum emission to be included in the decomposition; and 2) the stepsize which sets the contrast needed between two contiguous features to be identified as different clumps. We chose threshold = stepsize = $3\sigma$, after visualizing the decomposition on some test fields and requiring that the obtained clumps were roughly similar to those that would be identified by the human eye. We slightly modified the IDL code of `clfind2d` to improve the clump decomposition and to avoid false detections. Originally, the code developed by @Williams1994 deals with blended emission by splitting it into its corresponding clumps using a simple friends-of-friends method, but instead the current implementation breaks up the emission by assigning the blended pixels to the clump with the nearest peak, which produces some disconnected clumps, i.e., pixels of the same clump not connected by a continuous path. We thus changed the peak distance criterion by the *minimum distance to a clump* to assign blended emission to the existing clumps, which noticeably minimizes the effect of disconnected clumps and resembles the friends-of-friends method. A second modification to the code was to require that the clumps have angular sizes larger than the beam in both image directions, in order to reject “snake”-shaped clumps marginally above the threshold which correspond to minor image artifacts rather than real astronomical emission.
The employed algorithm assigns into clumps all the emission above the given threshold and with an extent larger than the beam. We computed the angular distance from the cluster center of the nearest detected ATLASGAL emission pixel to have a quick first impression of the presence of molecular gas. Such values are listed in the column `Clump_sep`, normalized to the cluster angular radius (when no emission is detected in the whole ATLASGAL submap, a lower limit is given).
We also performed a careful visual inspection of every ATLASGAL submap, using an IDL script to overplot the positions of all star clusters of our sample within the field, and the submm clumps detected before, as well as any interesting object, such as the positions of measured molecular line velocities (see Section \[sec:line-velocities\]). In another window, the script displays a smaller field of view ($\sim 10\arcmin$) with the cluster itself seen by whole set of IR images (2MASS and GLIMPSE, including three-color images) overlaid with ATLASGAL contours, in order to morphologically compare the IR and the submm emissions. The column `Clump_flag` is a two-digit flag which indicates whether or not the cluster appears physically related to the nearest submm clump detected by *Clumpfind*, as seen by the inspection of these images. The first digit of `Clump_flag` can take the values: 0, when the nearest ATLASGAL clump does not seem to be associated with the cluster; 1, when it does seem to be clearly associated, specially for the cases of star clusters deeply embedded within centrally condensed ATLASGAL clumps; and 2, when the physical connection is less clear but still likely, in most cases when the clump appears to belong to the same star-forming region than the stellar cluster, connected by some diffuse MIR emission. The second digit of `Clump_flag` provides information about the line velocity available for each object and will be described in Section \[sec:line-velocities\].
The column `Morph` is a text flag composed of two parts separated by a period. The first part gives further information about the morphology of the detected ATLASGAL emission throughout the immediate star cluster area, including the cases: `emb`, `p-emb`, `surr`, `few`, `few*`, `exp`, and `exp*`, which are explained in Section \[sec:atlasgal-and-mir\]. The second part indicates the MIR morphology and will be described in the next Section.
MIR morphology and association with known objects {#sec:MIR-morphology}
-------------------------------------------------
The mid-infrared morphology of a stellar cluster can also provide some clues about its evolutionary stage and presence of feedback, in particular the intensity and distribution of the 8.0 emission. We indicate in the second part of the column `Morph` (after the period) details about the 8.0 morphology of each cluster, after visually inspecting GLIMPSE three-color images made with the 3.6 (blue), 4.5 (green) and 8.0 (red) bands, as part of the process described in the previous Section. This flag includes the cases: `bub-cen`, `bub-cen-trig`, `bub-edge`, and `pah`, which are explained in Section \[sec:atlasgal-and-mir\].
All IR bubbles associated with star clusters and recognized in this work are identified in the table column `Bub`. We give the bubble names from the catalogs by @Churchwell2006 [@Churchwell2007] when the objects are listed there, otherwise an identifier based on the cluster `ID` is provided. We also list in this column IR bubbles that are located in the neighborhood of the clusters but that do not appear clearly associated with them or do not represent any of the scenarios defined above (e.g., bubble in the same star-forming region but not directly interacting with the cluster). Similarly, on the GLIMPSE three-color images and on the 8.0 images we identified the presence of an infrared dark cloud in which the cluster appears to be embedded (see Fig. \[fig:EC-examples\], *top*). These objects are listed in the column `IRDC` using a name based on the cluster `ID` when the IRDC has not been cataloged so far, or the designations from the catalogs by @Simon2006 and @PerettoFuller2009 if it was identified there before. Unlike the IR bubbles, since we do not provide information of the IRDCs within the `Morph` flag, we only list in the column `IRDC` those objects that exhibit possible physical connection with the cluster. Many of the IRDCs reported by @PerettoFuller2009 are only small dark fluctuations over a bright background and do not constitute cluster-forming clumps.
We note that, since the ATLASGAL Galactic range is wider than the GLIMPSE coverage, 7% of the cluster sample have no GLIMPSE data available, and this is indicated in the column `no_GL` ($\verb|no_GL| = 1$ when there is no GLIMPSE data, otherwise $\verb|no_GL| = 0$). In those cases, we used WISE three-color images made with the 3.4 (blue), 4.6 (green) and 12 (red) filters, to identify all the features described above. Prominent PAH bands are covered by the 12 filter; indeed, by comparing both sets of 3-color images for clusters with GLIMPSE data available, we found that bright PAH 8.0 emission illuminated by the clusters is unambiguously detected at 12 . Similarly, most of the extended IRDCs identified at 8.0 can also be seen at 12 . However, because of saturation and the relatively low resolution, more detailed structures such as the presence of IR bubbles, smaller IRDCs, or possible triggered star formation are much harder to identify than in the GLIMPSE images.
In addition, we searched in the literature for the presence of regions associated with the clusters, and they are listed in the column `HII_reg` with designations compatible with SIMBAD or common names used in the literature for large molecular complexes (see the references for complexes, `ref_Complex`, explained in Section \[sec:complexes\]). Particular designations used here which do not exist in SIMBAD and do not belong to complexes are those starting with: “HRDS”, indicating the regions discovered recently by @Anderson2011 using radio recombination line (RRL) observations; and “RMS”, which represent possible regions corresponding to radio continuum sources found by the RMS survey (see Section \[sec:line-velocities\] for a description of the on-line search we performed in such database; the objects listed here were taken from the “Radio Catalogue Search Results” section of the webpage of each individual RMS source investigated). It is worth noting that, for the regions primarily found using SIMBAD, we carefully checked their nature in the literature by requiring the presence of radio continuum emission or RRLs, since some sources are misclassified as regions in SIMBAD. Two important consulted references of RRL observations were @CaswellHaynes1987 (sources with prefix \[CH87\]) and @Lockman1989 (sources with prefix \[L89b\]). We also specified two flags at the end of some names to indicate two particular situations: the flag “(UC)”, when the source is classified as an ultra compact region in the literature; and the flag “(bub)”, when the region appears associated with the listed IR bubble, but not directly with the star cluster. However, we note that classification as an UC region may not be accurate, considering that detailed interferometric and large-scale observations are needed to really unveil the spatial distribution and evolutionary status of a particular region.
Kinematic distance {#sec:kin-distance}
------------------
As stated in Section \[sec:distance-and-ages\], many of the ATLASGAL clumps at the locations or in the vicinity of the stellar clusters have measurements of molecular line LSR velocities. By assuming a Galactic rotation model, we can transform these velocities in kinematic distance estimates for the clumps and, therefore, for the corresponding clusters when they were assumed to be physically associated.
### Line velocities {#sec:line-velocities}
We used four main references of line velocities, which were systematically searched on the ATLASGAL submaps (positions overlaid there), in the following priority order: 1) follow-up NH$_3\,(1,1)$ observations towards bright ATLASGAL sources [@Wienen2012 for northern sources; and Wienen et al., in preparation, for southern ones]; 2) similar targets observed in the N$_2$H$^+\,(1-0)$ line (Wyrowski et al., in preparation); 3) the CS$\,(2-1)$ Galactic survey by @Bronfman1996 towards *IRAS* sources with colors typical of compact regions; and 4) velocities of massive YSO candidates from the Red MSX Source (RMS) survey [@Urquhart2008] available on-line[^23], corresponding mainly to targeted observations in the $(1-0)$ and $(2-1)$ transitions of $^{13}$CO, or literature velocities compiled there. The priority sequence was primarily based on the number of ATLASGAL clumps available in each of the lists, in order to make the velocity assignments more uniform; the RMS survey was put at the end because the $^{13}$CO traces less dense gas than the other three molecules, which are unambiguously linked to the ATLASGAL emission. We note that, however, when the same clump is found in more than one list, the velocity differences are negligible compared to the error assumed for the computation of the kinematic distance (7 , see below). The adopted LSR velocity is listed in the column `Vlsr` (in ) of the catalog. We give the corresponding reference in the column `ref_Vlsr`, and the source name in `name_Vlsr` (SIMBAD compatible or the one used in the original paper). If no velocity was available from any of the four main lists mentioned before, additional velocity references were found by doing a coordinate query in SIMBAD.
In some cases, we did not find any velocity for the closest detected ATLASGAL clump, but we did for another possibly associated clump or for the region. This information is indicated in the second digit of the flag `Clump_flag`, which can take the values: 0, when no velocity is available; 1, when the listed velocity is from the nearest ATLASGAL clump or from a clump directly adjacent to it; 2, when the clump with the velocity is not the nearest but is within the cluster area (used in cases of optical clusters with large angular size); 3, when the velocity is from an ATLASGAL clump which is apparently associated with the cluster as seen in the images, but is independent of the nearest one; and 4, when we list the RRL velocity of the related region. Considering the value of `Clump_flag` as an unique integer number, i.e., combining the first digit which gives information about the closest ATLASGAL clump (see Section \[sec:clumpfind\]) with the second digit explained here, the kinematic distance computed from `Vlsr` can be assigned to the star cluster if $\verb|Clump_flag| \geq 03$.
### Rotation curve {#sec:rotation-curve}
Once all the available LSR velocities had been collected, kinematic distances were calculated using a Galactic rotation curve. The widely employed rotation curve fitted by @BrandBlitz1993 was based on a sample of regions and reflection nebulae with known stellar distances, and their associated molecular clouds, which have the velocity information. Most of these sources are located in the outer Galaxy, out to a Galactocentric radius $R$ of about 17 kpc. They added to the sample the tangent point velocities available at that time to cover the inner Galaxy, (i.e., for $R < R_0$, where $R_0 \sim 8$ kpc is the distance from the Sun of the Galactic center). However, since they used a global functional form to simultaneously fit the inner and the outer Galaxy, this curve does not properly match the data for $R < R_0$, as is shown, e.g., in Figures 6 and 7 of @Levine2008. These authors constructed an updated rotation curve for the inner Galaxy using recent high-resolution tangent point data. The linear function fitted by them to $R \leq 8$ kpc resulted to be steeper than the @BrandBlitz1993 curve in that range, and better reproduces the increase of the rotation velocity with increasing $R$. Given that most of our studied sources are within the solar circle ($R < R_0$), we decided to adopt the @Levine2008[^24] rotation curve for $R/R_0 \leq 0.78$, which is the point where it intersects the @BrandBlitz1993 curve. For $R/R_0 > 0.78$, we adopted the @BrandBlitz1993 curve to cover large Galactocentric radii. We used this intersection point instead of the whole range available in @Levine2008 to ensure continuity of the overall rotation curve assumed.
It is worth mentioning that the fourth quadrant part of the same data used by @Levine2008 were previously analyzed by @McClureDickey2007 who fitted their own rotation curve. As already suspected by @Levine2008, the systematic shift of $\sim 7$ between the two curves (see their Figure 7) is due to the differences in determining the terminal velocities from the data. We note that the erfc fitting method [used by @McClureDickey2007] is conceptually equivalent to consider the half-power point of the tangent velocity profile. Fitting instead the theoretical function derived by @Celnik1979, which is a better approximation of the tangent velocity profile, it is found that the half-power point is shifted by $\sim 0.7\sigma_v$ from the real terminal velocity (where $\sigma_v$ is the typical velocity dispersion; see the proof in that paper). We thus favor the rotation curve by @Levine2008, since they fitted @Celnik1979 profiles to derive the tangent point velocities.
We did not use the more recent rotation curve by @Reid2009 mainly because it is based on maser parallax distances of only 18 star-forming regions, which cover just the first and second quadrant, so that the obtained rotation curve is not fully representative of our Galactic range and, as the authors acknowledge, cannot conclusively be distinguished from a flat curve (which is their assumed form at the end). In addition, their recommended fit assumes that the massive star-forming gas orbits slower the Galaxy than expected for circular rotation, which has been questioned by some subsequent studies [@Baba2009; @McMillanBinney2010].
### Derivation of the kinematic distances {#sec:derivation-kdistance}
Both rotation curves used here [@BrandBlitz1993; @Levine2008] were originally constructed assuming the standard IAU values for the Galactocentric radius and the orbital velocity of the Sun, $R_0 = 8.5$ kpc and $\Theta_0 = 220$ , respectively. Nevertheless, it can be easily shown that the solution for $x = R/R_0$ derived by applying these curves and a particular LSR velocity is practically independent of the choice of $(R_0, \Theta_0)$ [fully independent for the case of a linear rotation curve constructed from tangent point velocities, as for @Levine2008], and that any scaling of the curve parameters to match updated values of $(R_0, \Theta_0)$ is equivalent to adopt the original parameters in all the parts of the equations. The only thing we need afterwards is an accurate value for $R_0$, to transform from the dimensionless solution $x$ to the physical Galactocentric radius $R$. Moreover, it can be also shown that the solution does not depend on the exact definition of the LSR, provided that the rotation curves and the input data use the same solar motion (generally standard in radiotelescopes), and that any possible correction is only important in the direction of the Galactic rotation, $V_{\sun}$ (which is also true; see Table 5 of @Reid2009, and @Schonrich2010), so that if applied it would be canceled out in the equations.
We then applied the original rotation curves and the velocities `Vlsr` with no correction, to solve for $x = R/R_0$. To finally obtain $R$, we adopted $R_0 = 8.23$ ($\pm 0.20$) kpc from @Genzel2010, who computed the weighted mean of all recent *direct* estimations of the Galactic center distance from the Sun. We exclude from the kinematic distance estimation those sources with $R < 2.4$ kpc (only 2% of the cases), which is the point were the approaching and receding parts of the rotation curve constructed by @MarascoFraternali2011 [using coarser resolution data, but covering smaller $R$] start to show significant differences likely due to non-circular motions in the region of the Galactic bar. The @Levine2008 curve covers radii $R \geq 3$ kpc, which means that we implicitly extrapolated it to $R = 2.4$ kpc when we solved the equation for $x$.
There is a simple geometrical relation between the obtained Galactocentric radius $R$ and the kinematic distance, but within the solar circle (in our sample, 99% of all kinematic distance estimations) an unique value of $R$ results in two possible distances equally spaced on either side of the tangent point, which are referred to as the near and far distances. This is known as the kinematic distance ambiguity (KDA) problem. Fortunately, as discussed in Section \[sec:KDA-resolution\], there exist a number of methods that have been applied in the literature for an important fraction of the sample to solve the KDA, which allowed us to assign an unique kinematic distance in the 92% of the cases. We list the 424 derived kinematic distances in the table column `KDist` (in kpc); when the KDA is not solved, both near and far distances are given separated by ‘/’. Uncertainties in these distances, provided in the column `e_KDist`, have been determined by shifting the LSR velocities by $\pm 7$ to account for random motions, following @Reid2009, who suggest this value as the typical virial velocity dispersion of a massive star-forming region. We acknowledge, however, that the error in the kinematic distance can be larger due to randomly oriented peculiar motions of up to 20 or 30 with respect to Galactic rotation, as shown, e.g., by the hydrodynamical simulations by @Baba2009. Similarly, such large systematic velocities have been found from maser parallax observations, leading to up to a factor 2 wrong kinematic distances [e.g., @Xu2006; @Kurayama2011]. However, in some such cases it has been found also that the star-forming region does follow circular rotation [e.g., @Sato2010-W51]. With the assumed velocity dispersion of $\sigma_v = 7$ , there are some critical cases where we can only assign an upper limit for the near distance ($|\verb|Vlsr|| < \sigma_v$), or a lower limit for the far distance (`Vlsr` within $\sigma_v$ from the forbidden velocity), and that are properly indicated in the table column `KDist`.
### Resolution of the kinematic distance ambiguity {#sec:KDA-resolution}
The solutions for the distance ambiguity found in the literature are given in the table column `KDA`, which informs whether the source with available velocity (listed in `name_Vlsr`) is located on the near (`KDA` = `N`) or far side (`KDA` = `F`), or just at the tangent point (`KDA` = `T`). A companion question mark indicates a doubtful assignation, e.g., from low-quality flags in the original reference, but this happens for only 2% of the solutions. The most common methods for resolution of the distance ambiguity are (examples of references are given below): 1) radio recombination lines in conjunction with absorption toward regions, called the Emission/Absorption method ( E/A); and 2) self-absorption ( SA) and molecular line emission towards molecular clouds and massive YSOs. We considered any source with `Vlsr` within $\sigma_v = 7$ of the terminal velocity as consistent with being at the tangent point, and in general we assigned a `KDA` = `T`. However, for some of these sources, there still exist reliable[^25] KDA solutions that can further constrain the kinematic distance to a either the near (for which `KDA` = `NT`) or the far distance (`KDA` = `FT`).
The following references for resolved KDAs were checked systematically (positions overplotted on the ATLASGAL submaps) : @CaswellHaynes1987 [presence/absence of optical counterparts + E/A for a few sources], @Faundez2004 [application of a spiral arms model of the IV quadrant], @AndersonBania2009 [ E/A + SA], @Roman-Duval2009 [ SA], and the RMS survey [@Urquhart2008]. For the RMS survey, which is an ongoing project, we took the KDA solutions from an on-line search we performed for every possibly associated source on “The RMS Database Server”[^26]; these solutions arise from dedicated application of absorption methods [@Urquhart2011; @Urquhart2012], from the literature, or from grouping of sources close in the phase space where there is at least one with resolved KDA. Additional KDA solutions were found through the SIMBAD coordinate query of each source, or from the reference from which the final cluster distance was adopted (e.g., a more accurate method such as maser parallax, see Section \[sec:complexes\]). All used references are listed as integer numbers in the column table `ref_KDA`. An ‘`*`’ following the number means that the source in the corresponding reference with resolved KDA is not located at the same position of the source from which we took the velocity, but is nearby in the phase space (close position and similar velocity) indicating that is likely connected. A reference between parentheses means that it contradicts the KDA solution adopted in this work (see below). Non-numeric flags in the column `ref_KDA` indicate complementary criteria used here to solve the distance ambiguity:
- `C`: we adopt the KDA solution for the whole associated complex (see Section \[sec:complexes\]), or from a particular source in the complex.
- `D`: source associated with an IRDC, favoring the near distance [see the arguments given by @Jackson2008]
- `O`: out of the solar circle, i.e., no ambiguity in the kinematic distance.
- `S`: adopted KDA solution consistent with the stellar distance (see Section \[sec:physical-parameters\])
- `z`: near distance adopted, since if located at the far distance the source would be too high above the Galactic plane. We adopted a height value of $|z| = 200$ pc to exclude the far distance, following @Blitz1991.
If the assumption of two or more references or criteria delivered contradictory solutions for the KDA, in general we adopted the more recent, or the one using a more accurate method. Although this decision is somehow arbitrary, there are some reasonable guidelines that can be applied, e.g., we favor the consistency with stellar distance or with the complex (flags S and C), and we adopted the solution from the E/A method when conflicting with the SA method, since the first has been found to be more robust [@AndersonBania2009]. In any case, the KDA solutions from different references usually agree; discrepant ones are only the 12% of the total of resolutions and should not affect the statistical results of this work.
Stellar distance and age {#sec:physical-parameters}
------------------------
A direct estimation of the distance to a cluster, i.e., from the member stars, is particularly useful when the accuracy is better than that of the kinematic distance from the gas (e.g., when a large sample of stars is used), or when the cluster is fully exposed and there is no nebula that can be associated to it. Using data from the original cluster catalogs and new references found in SIMBAD for each object, we compiled values for the stellar distance (in kpc; table column `SDist`) and its uncertainty (column `e_SDist`), as well as the age and its error (in Myr; columns `Age` and `e_Age`, respectively) computed by studies of the cluster stellar population. The corresponding references of the adopted parameters are listed in the columns `ref_SDist` and `ref_Age`. For the optical clusters in the @Dias2002 [see Section \[sec:optical\]] catalog, we generally used the original parameters given there, unless new estimates based on a better method (or data) provided a real improvement in accuracy. A more rigorous approach for multiple references of the same cluster would be similar to that taken in @PaunzenNetopil2006, and is beyond the scope of this work. However, these authors concluded that their literature-averaged parameters have the same statistical significance as the data from the @Dias2002 catalog, so that for the purposes of our work a correct estimation of the uncertainties (see below) is much more important than careful averaging. Out of the 216 clusters from the @Dias2002 catalog present in our sample, 131 objects come with determinations of both age and distance (+4 clusters with only the distance). We adopted these parameters for most of clusters (110 with original values, and 21 with new ones), and added parameters for 25 more. To keep track of all these changes, the original references used in the @Dias2002 catalog are listed in the column `ref_Dias`.
The uncertainties in the cluster fundamental parameters are often ignored or underestimated in the literature; in particular, they are not provided in the @Dias2002 catalog. We therefore collected all available errors from the corresponding references and, to prevent underestimation, we imposed uniform *minimum* uncertainties in the derived parameters. We also assumed these values as errors when they were not given in the literature. For the stellar distance, the minimum uncertainty was carefully chosen depending on the method used to calculate it, in order to correctly compare it with the kinematic distance (e.g., to decide which of both distances is finally adopted, see Section \[sec:complexes\]). All most common methods for cluster distance determination use stellar photometry, so that the corresponding uncertainty is dominated by the errors from the absolute magnitude calibration and from the extinction estimation [e.g., @Pinheiro2010]. For the extinction, in addition to the statistical error intrinsic to the method, there is a systematic error produced by possible variations in the extinction law [e.g., @Fritz2011; @Moises2011], which is often not considered in the literature and might be particularly relevant in the NIR regime. In the optical, we can consider that the typical extinction law assumed ($R_V \simeq 3.1$, appropriate for diffuse local gas) is not subject to important variations, since the observed stars are relatively close to the Sun and not heavily embedded in the associated molecular clouds (if any), otherwise they would not be visible at these wavelengths. In the NIR, the extinction law can be described by a power law, $A_\lambda \propto \lambda^{-\beta}$, and the variations can be accounted for with different values for the exponent $\beta$. Using the typical spread in $\beta$ obtained by @Fritz2011 in their compilation, we found that the corresponding uncertainty in the $K$-band extinction is $\sigma(A_K) \simeq 0.2 \,A_K$.
In the following, we list the main methods for stellar distance determinations of the used references, and the corresponding minimum uncertainties adopted in this work:
- Optical main-sequence (MS) or isochrone fitting [e.g., @Kharchenko2005-known; @Loktin2001]: In this case, we follow @PhelpsJanes1994 who estimated an uncertainty in distance modulus of $\sigma(m-M) \sim 0.32$, from a detailed analysis of the typical error in fitting a template main sequence to the optical color-magnitude diagram. This is equivalent to an error of $\sim 15\%$ in distance. Due to the fact that, from the point of view of the distance uncertainty, fitting a MS is analogous to fitting an isochrone, we also adopted a minimum error of $\sim 15\%$ for the isochrone method. Furthermore, this is consistent with the spread in distance modulus found by @GrocholskiSarajedini2003 [see their Table 2] in their comparison of different isochrone models.
- NIR isochrone fitting [e.g., @Tadross2008; @Glushkova2010]: We adopted the same minimum distance error as for optical isochrone fitting, 15%. Extinction law variations might be present, but since the type of clusters for which isochrone fitting is possible are not severely extinguished (they are generally not young), the corresponding uncertainty in $A_K$ due to these variations is also low (recall $\sigma(A_K) \simeq 0.2 \,A_K$).
- Optical spectrophotometric distance [e.g., @Herbst1975]: Here, we assumed an absolute magnitude calibration uncertainty of $\sigma(M_V) \simeq 0.5$, consistent with the typical spread of massive OB star calibration scales [e.g., @Martins2005], and an error in spectral type determination of 1 subtype, equivalent to $\pm 0.3$ magnitudes in $M_V$ for the @Martins2005 calibration. Adding both contributions in quadrature gives an overall uncertainty of $\sim 0.58$ magnitudes in distance modulus, or $\sim 27\%$ in distance.
- NIR spectrophotometric distance [e.g., @Moises2011]: For calibration and spectral type errors, we adopted the same overall uncertainty of $\sim 0.58$ magnitudes in distance modulus as for the optical method (absolute magnitudes are usually converted from the optical to the NIR using tabulated intrinsic colors with little error). We added in quadrature an uncertainty to account for possible extinction law variations: assuming a typical extinction of $A_K \simeq 1.5$, $\sigma(A_K) \simeq 0.2 \,A_K \simeq 0.3$. The final error in distance modulus is $\sim 0.66$ magnitudes, equivalent to $\sim 30\%$ in distance.
- Average of spectrophotometric distances from many stars [e.g., @Moises2011; @Pinheiro2010]: Redefining the errors here would mean a complete re-computation of the average distance, since the minimum errors should be imposed in every individual star. Fortunately, in general the uncertainty of the average is dominated by the variance of the sample rather than by the individual errors. We thus kept the original quoted uncertainty in this case.
- Kinematic distance from average stellar radial velocity [e.g., @Davies2008]: For consistency with gas kinematic distances, here we recomputed the stellar kinematic distance using the cluster LSR velocity, a velocity dispersion of 7 (in all cases higher than the quoted error in the cluster velocity) and the rotation curve as described in Section \[sec:kin-distance\]. This special case is indicated with the flag ‘(K)’ after the reference number in the column `ref_SDist`.
- 10$^{\rm th}$ brightest star method [@Dutra2003-ntt; @Borissova2005]: We do not use the stellar distances derived by applying this technique, because they are very uncertain. The errors can easily reach a factor 10 or more in distance [@Borissova2005], which thus places no constraints on the cluster location at Galactic scales.
For the cluster ages, we simply adopted uniform minimum errors based on the corresponding age range, following @BonattoBica2011: 35% for $\verb|Age| < 20$ Myr, 30% for 20 Myr $\leq \verb|Age| < 100$ Myr, 20% for 100 Myr $\leq \verb|Age| < 2$ Gyr, and 50% for $\verb|Age| \geq 2$ Gyr. The most common method for age determination is isochrone fitting [e.g., @Loktin2001]. For a few clusters with stars studied spectroscopically, the age can be estimated using the evolutionary types of the identified stars and knowledge about their typical ages and lifetimes [e.g., @Messineo2009]. For a total of 209 clusters age estimates can be found in the literature (30% of our sample).
For some clusters of our sample for which no fundamental parameters are available, there are still some studies in the literature that present what can be considered as *confirmations* of the star cluster nature of the objects, i.e., the possibility of an erroneous identification as a cluster can be practically discarded. These references are given in the column `ref_Conf` of the catalog, and usually report higher resolution or/and sensitivity imaging NIR observations in which the star cluster is unequivocally revealed [e.g., @Dutra2003-ntt; @Borissova2005; @Kumar2004]. They also comprise detailed studies towards star-forming regions which are too young to really constrain the cluster physical parameters by isochrone fitting, but where it is still possible to recognize YSO candidates within the cluster as color excess sources in color-color and color-magnitude diagrams [e.g., @RomanAbraham2006]. The objects with both determined age and stellar distance can also be considered as confirmed stellar clusters, because the derivation of parameters usually requires the identification of the cluster sequence or stellar spectroscopy. We thus listed again the references for age and distance in the column `ref_Conf`, including in some cases additional references presenting further cluster analysis.
Complexes, subclusters, and adopted distance {#sec:complexes}
--------------------------------------------
Young star clusters are normally not found in isolation but within bigger complexes of gas, stars and other clusters, as a result of the fact that star formation occurs in giant molecular clouds with a hierarchical structure. If a group of stellar clusters in our sample was found to form a physically associated complex according to their positions and radial velocities, we identified it in the column `Complex` of the catalog. When the complex was identified in the literature, we here list its name [e.g., the giant molecular cloud W51; @Kang2010]. References for complex identification and analysis are provided in the column `ref_Complex`. Small complexes of clusters not previously established in the literature but whose morphology in the IR images (field of view of $\sim 10\arcmin$) suggests that they belong to the same star-forming region are indicated by `Complex` = MC-$i$, where $i$ is a record number. Bigger complexes of stellar clusters not found in the literature and visually identified within the ATLASGAL fields (of $\sim 30\arcmin$) through the proximity of their members in the phase-space are marked by `Complex` = KC-$j$, where $j$ is another record number. We warn that, however, since the complexes were recognized as part of the visual inspection of the maps, or were found in the literature, not all possible physical groupings of star clusters are provided here. For that, a subsequent statistical analysis is needed, which will be presented in a forthcoming paper. We also identified in the IR images a few cases where there is a pair of star clusters even closer, usually sharing part of their population, which can be considered as subclusters of an unique merging (or merged) entity. Those subclusters are indicated in the table column `SubCl` with an identical record number.
For all the clusters of our sample, the final adopted distances with their corresponding errors are listed in the table columns `Dist` and `e_Dist` (in kpc), respectively, and were chosen to be the available distance estimate with the lowest uncertainty, corresponding in some cases to a determination from the literature which was more accurate than `SDist` and `KDist`. Clusters within a particular complex were assumed to be all located at the same distance. The origin of the adopted distance is properly indicated in the column `ref_Dist`, and can be one of the following:
- `K`: kinematic distance adopted, $\verb|Dist|=\verb|KDist|$.
- `S`: stellar distance adopted, $\verb|Dist|=\verb|SDist|$.
- `Ref:`$n$: adopted distance from literature reference with identification number $n$.
- `KC`: complex distance computed kinematically from an average position and velocity, using the values compiled here for all the clusters within the complex with available (and not repeated) `Vlsr`, and the rotation curve used in Section \[sec:kin-distance\].
- `SC`: complex distance computed by averaging the stellar distances (`SDist`) of the member clusters.
- `C(Ref:`$n$`)`: distance for the whole complex adopted from literature reference with identification number $n$.
- `CV(Ref:`$n$`)`: complex distance computed kinematically from an average position and velocity given by the reference with identification number $n$, and the rotation curve used in this work.
- `C(ID:`$m$`)`: adopted for the whole complex the distance given for the cluster with $\verb|ID|=m$ (used when a particular cluster within a complex has a very accurate distance estimation).
Additional comments {#sec:comments}
-------------------
Specific comments about the stellar cluster itself, or its compiled fundamental parameters (stellar distance and age) are provided in column `Comments1`. We give additional remarks about the ATLASGAL emission, the associated complex or other objects, or about the finally adopted distance in column `Comments2`. For comments, the quoted literature is indicated by the code `Ref:`$n$, where $n$ is the identification number of the used reference.
Excerpt of the cluster catalog {#sec:catalog-excerpt}
==============================
This appendix gives an excerpt of the cluster catalog whose construction is explained in Appendix \[sec:huge-table-details\]. The totality of the catalog, together with a list of cited references, is electronically available at the CDS. Here, we present all the catalog columns (except columns `Comments1` and `Comments2` which are sometimes too wide for the paper version) for 50 (out of 695) stellar clusters. Only for presentation, here the columns are distributed in five tables (Tables \[tab:big-catalog1\] to \[tab:big-catalog5\]), but the on-line version of the catalog is a single table. The names of the columns are the same as defined in Appendix \[sec:huge-table-details\], and they are briefly described in the following (the corresponding Sections of the paper in which they are explained in more detail are given in parentheses):
- `ID` : identification number (Section \[sec:basic-information\])
- `Name` : main name (Section \[sec:basic-information\])
- `OName` : other designation (Section \[sec:basic-information\])
- `Cat` : catalogs from which each cluster was extracted (Section \[sec:basic-information\])
- `GLON` : Galactic longitude (Section \[sec:basic-information\])
- `GLAT` : Galactic latitude (Section \[sec:basic-information\])
- `RAJ2000` : right ascension (Section \[sec:basic-information\])
- `DEC2000` : declination (Section \[sec:basic-information\])
- `Diam` : angular size (Section \[sec:basic-information\])
- `Dist` : adopted distance (Section \[sec:complexes\])
- `e_Dist` : distance error (Section \[sec:complexes\])
- `ref_Dist` : distance reference (Section \[sec:complexes\])
- `Age` : age (Section \[sec:physical-parameters\])
- `e_Age` : age error (Section \[sec:physical-parameters\])
- `ref_Age` : age reference (Section \[sec:physical-parameters\])
- `Morph_type` : morphological type (Section \[sec:evolutionary-sequence\])
- `Morph` : morphological flag (Section \[sec:atlasgal-and-mir\])
- `Clump_sep` : projected distance to the nearest ATLASGAL emission pixel (Section \[sec:clumpfind\])
- `Clump_flag` : gives information about the correlation with ATLASGAL and line velocity available (Sections \[sec:clumpfind\] and \[sec:line-velocities\])
- `name_Vlsr` : source name for line velocity (Section \[sec:line-velocities\])
- `Vlsr` : gas line velocity (Section \[sec:line-velocities\])
- `ref_Vlsr` : reference for line velocity (Section \[sec:line-velocities\])
- `KDist` : kinematic distance (Section \[sec:derivation-kdistance\])
- `e_KDist` : error in the kinematic distance (Section \[sec:derivation-kdistance\])
- `KDA` : solution of the kinematic distance ambiguity (Section \[sec:KDA-resolution\])
- `ref_KDA` : reference for the KDA solution (Section \[sec:KDA-resolution\])
- `SDist` : stellar distance (Section \[sec:physical-parameters\])
- `e_SDist` : error in the stellar distance (Section \[sec:physical-parameters\])
- `ref_Sdist` : reference for the stellar distance (Section \[sec:physical-parameters\])
- `ref_Dias` : reference for stellar parameters adopted in the @Dias2002 catalog (Section \[sec:physical-parameters\])
- `ref_Conf` : reference for cluster confirmation (as real cluster) or further studies (Section \[sec:physical-parameters\])
- `HII_reg` : associated region (Section \[sec:MIR-morphology\])
- `Bub` : associated infrared bubble (Section \[sec:MIR-morphology\])
- `IRDC` : associated infrared dark cloud (Section \[sec:MIR-morphology\])
- `no_GL` : indicates when there is no GLIMPSE data available (Section \[sec:MIR-morphology\])
- `SubCl` : groups subclusters (Section \[sec:complexes\])
- `Complex` : groups spatially associated clusters (Section \[sec:complexes\])
- `ref_Complex` : reference for complex identification (Section \[sec:complexes\])
[rlllrrcc]{} `ID` & `Name` & `OName` & `Cat` & `GLON` & `GLAT` & `RAJ2000` & `DEC2000`\
& & & & ($\degr$) & ($\degr$) & ( $^{\rm h}$: $^{\rm m}$: $^{\rm s}$) & ( $\degr$: $'$: $''$)\
[rrcclccccl]{} `ID` & `Diam` & `Dist` & `e_Dist` & `ref_Dist` & `Age` & `e_Age` & `ref_Age` & `Morph_type` & `Morph`\
& ($''$) & (kpc) & (kpc) & & (Myr) & (Myr) & & &\
[rrclccccc]{} `ID` & `Clump_sep` & `Clump_flag` & `name_Vlsr` & `Vlsr` & `ref_Vlsr` & `KDist` & `e_KDist` & `KDA`\
& (`Diam`/2) & & & () & & (kpc) & (kpc) &\
[rlcccccl]{} `ID` & `ref_KDA` & `SDist` & `e_SDist` & `ref_Sdist` & `ref_Dias` & `ref_Conf` & `HII_reg`\
& & (kpc) & (kpc) & & & &\
[rllcclc]{} `ID` & `Bub` & `IRDC` & `no_GL` & `SubCl` & `Complex` & `ref_Complex`\
\
[^1]: The full catalog of 695 stellar clusters within the ATLASGAL Galactic range is only available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to `cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5)` or via <http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/>
[^2]: In combination with distance information for cases of ambiguous physical relation.
[^3]: Throughout this paper, we will refer as angular resolution to the full width at half-maximum of the point-spread function (or telescope beam).
[^4]: <http://www.alienearths.org/glimpse/glimpse.php>
[^5]: Referring to the fact that the clusters were finally selected on the GLIMPSE three-color images
[^6]: <http://hea-www.harvard.edu/RD/ds9/>
[^7]: This situation is conceptually different from the one indicated by the flag E8 for G3CC objects (see Section \[sec:newglimpse\]), where any extended 8.0 emission in the vicinity of the cluster is flagged. Here, the emission has to be located throughout most of the cluster area and appear as produced by the whole cluster.
[^8]: This is a recent catalog of IR bubbles which is much more complete than the @Churchwell2006 [@Churchwell2007] catalogs, but was not used in this work because it was published after our cluster catalog was constructed. In any case, we searched for IR bubbles by eye at every cluster position to describe the MIR morphology (see Section \[sec:atlasgal-and-mir\]).
[^9]: Before converting to physical units, we corrected a mistake in the original equation by @GielesPortegies2011: the transformation from virial radius to projected half-light radius is just $16/(3\pi)$ for a Plummer model, so that the constant in their equation is $[32/(3\pi)]^{3/2} = 6.26$ instead of 10.
[^10]: In practice, we did not distinguish between the distance $d$ and the projected distance $D = d \cos b$. Since the maximum latitude within the ATLASGAL range is $|b| = 1.5\degr$, the difference is less than 0.03%, far below the distance uncertainties.
[^11]: In this paper, for simplicity we have assumed that the $b=0$ plane is parallel to the “true” Galactic plane, although in reality this is not the case (Goodman et al., in preparation). While this has a negligible effect on the distance distribution and the completeness, it may distort the derived height distribution when considering clusters at large distances from the Sun (see Section \[sec:height-distribution\]).
[^12]: Ideally, one should consider a completeness fraction dependent on Galactic longitude also, $f_{\rm c}(D,\ell)$, as we expect lower cluster detectability for low $|\ell|$, where the stellar background is higher. However, since we made the approximation $\varphi(D,\ell) = 1$, the integration in longitude would only affect the term $f_{\rm c}(D,\ell)$, and therefore the factor $f_{\rm c}(D)$ we used can be thought as a longitude-averaged completeness fraction.
[^13]: WEBDA is an on-line OC database originally developed by @Mermilliod1996, and available on <http://www.univie.ac.at/webda/>; the clusters of this database are included in the @Dias2002 catalog.
[^14]: We checked by numerical integration of $\Sigma(D) \propto \int_0^{2\pi} \varphi(D,\ell) \rd \ell$ that the raising of the surface density distribution in the inner Galaxy due to an exponential Galactic disk is practically imperceptible for $D < 1$ kpc, and therefore, a flat distribution cannot be the combined result of incompleteness and exponential disk structure.
[^15]: Very recently, a significant effort in obtaining distances and other parameters of most of the known OCs and ECs has been published by @Kharchenko2013, who claim an overall completeness limit of 1.8 kpc. Since ECs are not dominant within a complete sample, the new limit represents an intrinsic improvement in the OC completeness.
[^16]: Note that the quoted uncertainties are from our catalog, which might be larger than the values given in the original paper because we adopted minimum errors for the age estimates (see Section \[sec:distance-and-ages\])\[fn:age-errors\].
[^17]: This is totally expected for the Kharchenko et al. sample, since @LamersGieles2006 used basically the same clusters. The only difference is that they did not include the objects newly detected by @Kharchenko2005-new. On the other hand, the fact that for the @Dias2002 sample we obtain the same result implies that there are no systematic effects arising from differences between both samples, in particular regarding the age estimates.
[^18]: <http://www.astro.iag.usp.br/~wilton/>
[^19]: According to unpublished data, there seem to be more than 300 new clusters detected so far by the UKIDSS team. An independent automated search on UKIDSS, leading to the discovery of 167 additional clusters and multiple star forming regions, has already been published by @Solin2012, after the last update of our cluster compilation was done.
[^20]: Including 3 additional GLIMPSE clusters from the literature counted as ‘Not cataloged clusters (MIR)’’ in Table \[tab:catalogs\]
[^21]: For consistency with earlier studies, however, we anyway excluded from our sample a few EC candidates that have been considered spurious in the literature.
[^22]: We use the routine `meanclip` from the IDL Astronomy User’s Library.
[^23]: <http://www.ast.leeds.ac.uk/cgi-bin/RMS/RMS_SUMMARY_PAGE.cgi>
[^24]: @Levine2008 provide a rotation curve as a function of both Galactocentric radius, $R$, and height off the Galactic plane, $z$. Here we $z$-averaged their rotation curve, so that it only depends on $R$.
[^25]: Considering that the source is near the tangent point and some method/solution combinations are not longer valid. Examples of reliable solutions are: an associated stellar distance, a far solution from the E/A method, or a near solution from the SA method.
[^26]: <http://www.ast.leeds.ac.uk/cgi-bin/RMS/RMS_DATABASE.cgi>; we did the search on August, 2011.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a finite element variational integrator for compressible flows. The numerical scheme is derived by discretizing, in a structure preserving way, the Lie group formulation of fluid dynamics on diffeomorphism groups and the associated variational principles. Given a triangulation on the fluid domain, the discrete group of diffeomorphisms is defined as a certain subgroup of the group of linear isomorphisms of a finite element space of functions. In this setting, discrete vector fields correspond to a certain subspace of the Lie algebra of this group. This subspace is shown to be isomorphic to a Raviart-Thomas finite element space. The resulting finite element discretization corresponds to a weak form of the compressible fluid equation that doesn’t seem to have been used in the finite element literature. It extends previous work done on incompressible flows and at the lowest order on compressible flows. We illustrate the conservation properties of the scheme with some numerical simulations.'
author:
- 'Evan S. Gawlik[^1] and François Gay-Balmaz[^2]'
title: A Variational Finite Element Discretization of Compressible Flow
---
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 65P10, 76M60, 37K05, 37K65.
Introduction
============
Numerical schemes that respect conservation laws and other geometric structures are of paramount importance in computational fluid dynamics, especially for problems relying on long time simulation. This is the case for geophysical fluid dynamics in the context of meteorological or climate prediction.
Schemes that preserve the geometric structures underlying the equations they discretize are known as geometric integrators [@HaLuWa2006]. One efficient way to derive geometric integrators is to exploit the variational formulation of the continuous equations and to mimic this formulation at the spatial and/or temporal discrete level. For instance, in classical mechanics, a time discretization of the Lagrangian variational formulation permits the derivation of numerical schemes, called variational integrators, that are symplectic, exhibit good energy behavior, and inherit a discrete version of Noether’s theorem which guarantees the exact preservation of momenta arising from symmetries, see [@MaWe2001].
Geometric variational integrators for fluid dynamics were first derived in [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010] for the Euler equations of a perfect fluid. These integrators exploit the viewpoint of [@Ar1966] that fluid motions correspond to geodesics on the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms of the fluid domain. The spatially discretized Euler equations emerge from an application of this principle on a finite dimensional approximation of the diffeomorphism group. The approach has been extended to various equations of incompressible fluid dynamics with advected quantities [@GaMuPaMaDe2011], rotating and stratified fluids for atmospheric and oceanic dynamics [@DeGaGBZe2014], reduced-order models of fluid flow [@LiMaHoToDe2015], anelastic and pseudo-incompressible fluids on 2D irregular simplicial meshes [@BaGB2019b], compressible fluids [@BaGB2019], and compressible fluids on spheres [@BrBaBiGBML2019]. In all of the aforementioned references, the schemes that result are low-order finite difference schemes.
It was suggested in [@LiMaHoToDe2015] that the variational discretization initiated in [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010] can be generalized by letting the discrete diffeomorphism group act on finite element spaces. Such an approach was developed in [@NaCo2018] in the context of the ideal fluid and thus allowed for a higher order version of the method as well as an error estimate. For certain parameter choices, this high order method coincides with an $H(\operatorname{div})$-conforming finite element method studied in [@Guzman2016].
In the present paper we develop a finite element variational discretization of compressible fluid dynamics by exploiting the recent progresses made in [@BaGB2019] and [@NaCo2018], based on the variational method initiated in [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010]. Roughly speaking, our approach is the following. Given a triangulation on the fluid domain $\Omega$, we consider the space $V_h^r\subset L^2(\Omega)$ of polynomials of degree $\leq r$ on each simplex and define the group of discrete diffeomorphisms as a certain subgroup $G_h^r$ of the general linear group $GL(V_h^r)$. The action of $G_h^r$ on $V_h^r$ is understood as a discrete version of the action by pull back on functions in $L^2(\Omega)$. As a consequence, the action of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}^r_h$ on $V_h^r$ is understood as as discrete version of the derivation along vector fields. In a similar way with [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010] and [@BaGB2019], this interpretation naturally leads one to consider a specific subspace of $\mathfrak{g}_h^r$ consisting of Lie algebra elements that actually represent discrete vector fields. We show that this subspace is isomorphic to a Raviart-Thomas finite element space. We also define a Lie algebra-to-vector fields map, that allows a systematic definition of the semidiscrete Lagrangian for any given continuous Lagrangian. The developed setting allows us to derive the finite element scheme by applying a discrete version of the Lie group variational formulation of compressible fluids. In particular the discretization corresponds to a weak form of the compressible fluid equation that doesn’t seem to have been used in the finite element literature. An incompressible version of this expression of the weak form has been used in [@GaGB2019] for the incompressible fluid with variable density. The setting that we develop applies in general to 2D and 3D fluid models that can be written in Euler-Poincaré form. For instance it applies to the rotating shallow water equations.
The plan of the paper is the following. In Section \[sec\_review\], we review the variational Lie group formulation of both incompressible and compressible fluids, by recalling the Hamilton principle on diffeomorphism groups corresponding to the Lagrangian description, and the induced Euler-Poincaré variational principle corresponding to the Eulerian formulation. We also briefly indicate how this formulation has been previously used to derive variational integrators. In Section \[Sec\_distributional\_derivative\] we consider the distributional derivative, deduce from it a discrete derivative acting on finite element spaces, and study its properties. In particular we show that these discrete derivatives are isomorphic to a Raviart-Thomas finite element space. In the lower order setting, the space of discrete derivatives recovers the spaces used in previous works, both for the incompressible [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010] and compressible [@BaGB2019] cases. In Section \[sec\_Lie\_to\_vector\], we define a map that associates to any Lie algebra element of the discrete diffeomorphism group a vector field on the fluid domain. We call such a map a Lie algebra-to-vector fields map. It is needed to define in a general way the semidiscrete Lagrangian associated to a given continuous Lagrangian. We study its properties, which are used later to write down the numerical scheme. In Section \[sec\_FEVA\], we derive the numerical scheme by using the Euler-Poincaré equations on the discrete diffeomorphism group associated to the chosen finite element space. As we will explain in detail, in a similar way with the approach initiated in [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010], a nonholonomic version of the Euler-Poincaré principle is used to constrain the dynamics to the space of discrete derivatives. We show that such a space must be a subspace of a Brezzi-Douglas-Marini finite element space. Finally, we illustrate the behavior of the resulting scheme in Section \[sec\_examples\].
Review of variational discretizations in fluid dynamics {#sec_review}
=======================================================
We begin by reviewing the variational formulation of ideal and compressible fluid flows and their variational discretization.
Incompressible flow {#subsec_incomp}
-------------------
#### The Continuous Setting.
As we mentioned in the introduction, solutions to the Euler equations of ideal fluid flow in a bounded domain $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ with smooth boundary can be formally regarded as curves $\varphi : [0,T] \rightarrow \operatorname{Diff}_{\mathrm{vol}}(\Omega)$ that are critical for the Hamilton principle $$\label{action}
\delta \int_0^TL(\varphi, \partial_t\varphi){\rm d}t=0$$ with respect to variations $\delta \varphi$ vanishing at the endpoints. Here $\operatorname{Diff}_{\rm vol}(\Omega)$ is the group of volume preserving diffeomorphisms of $\Omega$ and $\varphi(t) : \Omega \rightarrow \Omega$ is the map sending the position $X$ of a fluid particle at time $0$ to its position $x=\varphi(t,X)$ at time $t$. The Lagrangian in is given by the kinetic energy $$L(\varphi,\partial_t \varphi) = \int_\Omega \frac{1}{2}|\partial_t \varphi|^2 \, {\rm d}X,$$ and is invariant under the right action of $\operatorname{Diff}_{\mathrm{vol}}(\Omega)$ on itself via composition, namely, $$L(\varphi \circ \psi,\partial_t (\varphi \circ \psi)) = L(\varphi,\partial_t \varphi), \quad \forall \psi \in \operatorname{Diff}_{\mathrm{vol}}(\Omega).$$ This symmetry is often referred to as the particle relabelling symmetry.
As a consequence of this symmetry, the variational principle can be recast on the Lie algebra of $\operatorname{Diff}_{\mathrm{vol}}(\Omega)$, which is the space $\mathfrak{X}_{\operatorname{div}}(\Omega)$ of divergence-free vector fields on $\Omega$ with vanishing normal component on $\partial\Omega$. Namely, one seeks a curve $u : [0,T] \rightarrow \mathfrak{X}_{\operatorname{div}}(\Omega)$ satisfying the critical condition $$\label{variationalu}
\delta \int_0^T \ell(u) \, {\rm d}t = 0,$$ subject to variations $\delta u$ of the form $$\delta u = \partial_t v + \pounds_u v,\quad \text{with } v : [0,T] \rightarrow \mathfrak{X}_{\operatorname{div}}(\Omega) \text{ and } v(0)=v(T)=0,$$ where $$\ell(u) = \int_{\Omega} \frac{1}{2}|u|^2 \, {\rm d}x,$$ and $\mathcal{L}_uv= [u,v]=u \cdot \nabla v - v\cdot \nabla u$ is the Lie derivative of the vector field $v$ along the vector field $u$. This principle is obtained from the Hamilton principle by using the relation $\partial_t\varphi= u \circ\varphi$ between the Lagrangian and Eulerian velocities and by computing the constrained variations of $u$ induced by the free variations of $\varphi$. The conditions for criticality in read $$\label{Euler_equations}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t u + u \cdot \nabla u &= -\nabla p, \\
\operatorname{div}u &= 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $p$ is a Lagrange multiplier enforcing the incompressibility constraint. The process just described for the Euler equations is valid in general for invariant Euler-Lagrange systems on arbitrary Lie groups and is known as Euler-Poincaré reduction. It plays an important role in this paper as it is used also at the discrete level to derive the numerical scheme. We refer to Appendix \[Appendix\_A\] for more details on the Euler-Poincaré principle and its application to incompressible flows.
#### The Semidiscrete Setting.
The variational principle recalled above has been used to derive structure-preserving discretizations of the incompressible Euler equations [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010], and various generalizations of it have been used to do the same for other equations in incompressible fluid dynamics [@GaMuPaMaDe2011; @DeGaGBZe2014]. In these discretizations, the group $\operatorname{Diff}_{\mathrm{vol}}(\Omega)$ is approximated by a subgroup $\mathring{G}_h$ of the general linear group $GL(V_h)$ over a finite-dimensional vector space $V_h$, and extremizers of a time-discretized action functional are sought within $\mathring{G}_h$. More precisely, extremizers are sought within a subspace of the Lie algebra $\mathring{\mathfrak{g}}_h$ of $\mathring{G}_h$ after reducing by a symmetry and imposing nonholonomic constraints. This construction typically leads to schemes with good long-term conservation properties.
The use of a subgroup of the general linear group to approximate $\operatorname{Diff}_{\mathrm{vol}}(\Omega)$ is inspired by the fact that $\operatorname{Diff}_{\mathrm{vol}}(\Omega)$ acts linearly on the Lebesgue space $L^2(\Omega)$ from the right via the pullback, $$f \cdot \varphi = f \circ \varphi, \quad f \in L^2(\Omega), \, \varphi \in \operatorname{Diff}_{\mathrm{vol}}(\Omega).$$ This action satisfies $$\label{const}
f \cdot \varphi = f, \quad \text{ if $f$ is constant},$$ and it preserves the $L^2$-inner product $\langle f,g \rangle = \int_\Omega fg \, {\rm d}x$ thanks to volume-preservation: $$\label{inner}
\langle f \cdot \varphi, g \cdot \varphi \rangle = \langle f, g \rangle, \quad \forall f,g \in L^2(\Omega).$$ In the discrete setting, this action is approximated by the (right) action of $GL(V_h)$ on $V_h$, $$\label{Gh_action}
f \cdot q = q^{-1} f, \quad f \in V_h, \, q \in GL(V_h).\footnote{Note that the representation of the group diffeomorphism by pull-back on functions is naturally a \textit{right} action ($f\mapsto f\circ \varphi$), whereas the group $GL(V_h)$ acts by matrix multiplication on the \textit{left} ($f\mapsto q f$). This explain the use of the inverse $q^{-1}$ on right hand side of \eqref{Gh_action}.}$$ By imposing discretized versions of the properties and , the group $\mathring{G}_h$ is taken equal to $$\label{Gh}
\mathring{G}_h = \{ q \in GL(V_h) \mid q \textbf{1} = \textbf{1}, \, \langle qf , qg \rangle = \langle f,g \rangle, \; \forall \, f,g \in V_h \},$$ where $\textbf{1} \in V_h$ denotes a discrete representative of the constant function 1.
While the elements of $\mathring{G}_h$ are understood as discrete versions of volume preserving diffeomorphisms, elements in the Lie algebra $$\label{gh}
\mathring{\mathfrak{g}}_h =\{A\in L(V_h, V_h)\mid A\mathbf{1}=0, \, \langle A f , g \rangle + \langle f,A g \rangle, \; \forall \, f,g \in V_h\}$$ of $\mathring{G}_h$ are understood as discrete volume preserving vector fields[^3]. The linear (right) action of the Lie algebra element $A\in \mathring{\mathfrak{g}}_h$ on a discrete function $f\in V_h$, induced by the action of $G_h$, is given by $$\label{representation}
f\cdot A = - Af\;\footnote{Note the minus sign due to \eqref{Gh_action}, which is consistent with the fact that $f\mapsto f\cdot A$ is a \textit{right} representation while $f\mapsto AF$ is a \textit{left} representation.}$$ It is understood as the discrete derivative of $f$ in the direction $A$.
In early incarnations of this theory, $V_h$ is taken equal to $\mathbb{R}^N$, where $N$ is the number of elements in a triangulation of $\Omega$, and $\textbf{1} \in \mathbb{R}^N$ is the vector of all ones. In this case, we have $\langle F,G \rangle = F^\mathsf{T} \Theta G$, where $\Theta \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ is a diagonal matrix whose $i^{th}$ diagonal entry is the volume of the $i^{th}$ element of the triangulation. Hence $\mathring{G}_h$ is simply the group of $\Theta$-orthogonal matrices with rows summing to 1.
In more recent treatments, a finite element formulation has been adopted [@NaCo2018]. Namely, $V_h$ is taken equal to a finite-dimensional subspace of $L^2(\Omega)$, with the inner product inherited from $L^2(\Omega)$, and $\mathbf{1}$ is simply the constant function $1$. This is the setting that we will develop to the compressible case in the present paper.
Compressible flows
------------------
#### The Continuous Setting.
The Lie group variational formulation recalled above generalizes to compressible flows as follows. For simplicity we consider here only the barotropic fluid, in which the internal energy is a function of the mass density only. The variational treatment of the general (or baroclinic) compressible fluid is similar, see Appendix \[Appendix\_A\]. Consider the group $\operatorname{Diff}(\Omega)$ of all, not necessarily volume preserving, diffeomorphisms of $\Omega$ and the Lagrangian $$\label{L_compressible}
L(\varphi,\partial_t \varphi, \varrho_0) = \int_\Omega \Big[\frac{1}{2}\varrho_0 |\partial_t \varphi|^2 - \varrho_0e(\varrho_0/ J\varphi)\Big]\, {\rm d}X.$$ Here $\varrho_0$ is the mass density of the fluid in the reference configuration, $J\varphi$ is the Jacobian of the diffeomorphism $\varphi$, and $e$ is the specific internal energy of the fluid. The equations of evolution are found as before from the Hamilton principle $$\label{action_compressible}
\delta\int_0^TL(\varphi, \partial_t\varphi, \varrho_0) {\rm d}t=0,$$ subject to arbitrary variations $\delta\varphi$ vanishing at the endpoints and where $\varrho_0$ is held fixed.
The main difference with the case of incompressible fluids recalled earlier is that the Lagrangian $L$ is not invariant under the configuration Lie group $\operatorname{Diff}(\Omega)$ but only under the subgroup $\operatorname{Diff}(\Omega)_{\varrho_0}\subset \operatorname{Diff}(\Omega)$ of diffeomorphisms that preserve $\varrho_0$, i.e., $\operatorname{Diff}(\Omega)_{\varrho_0}=\{\varphi \in \operatorname{Diff}(\Omega) \mid (\varrho_0\circ \varphi)J\varphi= \varrho_0\}$, namely we have $$\label{symmetry_compressible}
L(\varphi \circ \psi,\partial_t (\varphi \circ \psi), \varrho_0) = L(\varphi,\partial_t \varphi, \varrho_0), \quad \forall \psi \in \operatorname{Diff}(\Omega)_{\varrho_0},$$ as it is easily seen from .
As a consequence of the symmetry , one can associate to $L$ the Lagrangian $\ell(u,\rho)$ in Eulerian form, as follows $$\label{Lagr_to_Euler}
L(\varphi,\partial_t \varphi, \varrho_0)= \ell(u,\rho),\quad \text{with}\;\;u = \partial_t\varphi\circ\varphi^{-1},\quad \rho= (\varrho_0\circ\varphi^{-1}) J \varphi^{-1}$$ and $$\label{Lagra_comp}
\ell(u,\rho)= \int_\Omega \Big[\frac{1}{2}\rho|u|^2 - \rho e(\rho) \Big] {\rm d}x.$$ From the relations , the Hamilton principle induces the variational principle $$\label{variationalu_rho}
\delta \int_0^T \ell(u,\rho) \, {\rm d}t = 0,$$ with respect to variations $\delta u$ and $\delta\rho$ of the form $$\delta u = \partial_t v + \pounds_u v,\quad \delta \rho = - \operatorname{div}(\rho v), \quad \text{with } v : [0,T] \rightarrow \mathfrak{X}(\Omega) \text{ and } v(0)=v(T)=0.$$ Here $\mathfrak{X}(\Omega)$ denotes the Lie algebra of $\operatorname{Diff}(\Omega)$, which consists of vector fields on $\Omega$, with vanishing normal component on $\partial\Omega$. The conditions for criticality in yield the balance of fluid momentum $$\label{Euler}
\rho(\partial_t u + u \cdot \nabla u) = -\nabla p, \quad \text{with}\quad p = \rho^2\frac{\partial e}{\partial \rho}$$ while the relation $\rho= (\varrho_0\circ\varphi^{-1}) J \varphi^{-1}$ yields the continuity equation $$\partial_t\rho+\operatorname{div}(\rho u) = 0.$$ As in the case of incompressible flow, the process just described for the group $\operatorname{Diff}(\Omega)$ is a special instance of the process of Euler-Poincaré reduction. We refer to Appendix \[Appendix\_A\] for more details and to §\[sec\_comp\] for the rotating fluid in a gravitational field.
#### The Semidiscrete Setting.
A low-order semidiscrete variational setting has been described in [@BaGB2019] that extends the work of [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010; @GaMuPaMaDe2011; @DeGaGBZe2014] to the compressible case, with a particular focus on the rotating shallow water equations. It is based on the compressible version of the discrete diffeomorphism group , namely $$\label{Gh_comp}
G_h = \{ q \in GL(V_h) \mid q \textbf{1} = \textbf{1} \},$$ whose Lie algebra is $$\label{gh_comp}
\mathfrak{g}_h = \{A\in L(V_h, V_h)\mid A\mathbf{1}=0\}.$$ A nonholonomic constraint is imposed in [@BaGB2019] to distinguish elements of $\mathfrak{g}_h$ that actually represent discrete versions of vector fields. In this paper, we will see how this idea generalizes to the higher order setting. The representation of $\mathfrak{g}_h$ on $V_h$ is given as before by $f\mapsto f\cdot A= - Af$ and is understood as a discrete version of the derivative in the direction $A$.
Notice that we denote by $\mathring{G}_h$ and $G_h$ the subgroups of $GL(V_h)$ when the finite element space $V_h$ is left unspecified, similarly for the corresponding Lie algebras $\mathring{\mathfrak{g}}_h$ and $\mathfrak{g}_h$. When it is chosen as the space $V_h^r$ of polynomials of degree $\leq r$ on each simplex, we use the notations $\mathring{G}_h^r$, $G_h^r$ for the groups and $\mathring{\mathfrak{g}}_h^r$, $\mathfrak{g}_h^r$ for the Lie algebras.
The distributional directional derivative and its properties {#Sec_distributional_derivative}
============================================================
As we have recalled above, when using a subgroup of $GL(V_h)$ to discretize the diffeomorphism group, its Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}_h$ contains the subspace of discrete vector fields. More precisely, as linear maps in $\mathfrak{g}_h\subset L(V_h,V_h)$, these discrete vector fields act as discrete derivations on $V_h$. Once a vector space $V_h$ is selected, it is thus natural to choose these discrete vector fields as distributional directional derivatives. In this section we recall this definition, study its properties and show that these derivations are isomorphic to a Raviart-Thomas finite element space.
Let $\Omega$ be as before the domain of the fluid, assumed to be bounded with smooth boundary. We consider the Hilbert spaces $$\begin{aligned}
H(\operatorname{div},\Omega)&= \{ u \in L^2(\Omega)^n \mid \operatorname{div}u \in L^2(\Omega)\}\\
H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega)&= \{ u \in H(\operatorname{div},\Omega) \mid\left.u \cdot n\right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0\}\\
\mathring{H}(\operatorname{div},\Omega)&= \{u \in H(\operatorname{div},\Omega) \mid \operatorname{div}u = 0, \, \left.u \cdot n\right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0 \}.\end{aligned}$$
Definition and properties
-------------------------
Let $\mathcal{T}_h$ be a triangulation of $\Omega$ having maximum element diameter $h$. We assume that $\mathcal{T}_h$ belongs to a shape-regular, quasi-uniform family of triangulations of $\Omega$ parametrized by $h$. That is, there exist positive constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ independent of $h$ such that $$\max_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} \frac{h_K}{\rho_K} \le C_1, \text{ and } \max_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} \frac{h}{h_K} \le C_2,$$ where $h_K$ and $\rho_K$ denote the diameter and inradius of a simplex $K$. For $r \ge 0$ an integer, we consider the subspace of $L^2(\Omega)$ $$\label{Vh}
V_h^r = \{ f \in L^2(\Omega) \mid \left.f\right|_K \in P_r(K),\; \forall K \in \mathcal{T}_h \},$$ where $P_r(K)$ denotes the space of polynomials of degree $\le r$ on a simplex $K$.
Given $u\in H(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)$, the ***distributional derivative in the direction $u$*** is the linear map $\nabla_u^{\rm dist} : L^2(\Omega) \rightarrow C^\infty_0(\Omega)'$ defined by $$\label{def_nabla_dist}
\int_\Omega (\nabla_u^{\rm dist} f ) g \,{\rm d}x = -\int_\Omega f \operatorname{div}(gu) \, {\rm d}x, \quad \forall g \in C^\infty_0(\Omega).$$
When a triangulation $\mathcal{T}_h$ is fixed, $f\in V_h^r$, and $u\in H_0(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)^n$, $p>2$, the distributional directional derivative can be rewritten as $$\label{rewriting_nabla_dist}
\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega ( \nabla_u^{\rm dist} f ) g \, {\rm d}x&= \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} \int_K (\nabla_u f) g \, {\rm d}x - \sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_h}\int_{\partial K} (u\cdot n) fg {\rm d}s\\
&= \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} \int_K (\nabla_u f) g \, {\rm d}x - \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0} \int_e u \cdot \llbracket f \rrbracket g \,{\rm d}s,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $g\in C^\infty_0(\Omega)$. Here, $\nabla _uf= u \cdot\nabla f$ denotes the derivative of $f$ along $u$, $\mathcal{E}_h^0$ denotes the set of interior $(n-1)$-simplices in $\mathcal{T}_h$ (edges in two dimensions), and $\llbracket f \rrbracket$ is defined by $$\llbracket f \rrbracket := f_1 n_1 + f_2 n_2, \quad \text{on}\quad e = K_1 \cap K_2 \in \mathcal{E}_h^0,$$ with $f_i := \left.f\right|_{K_i}$, $n_1$ the normal vector to $e$ pointing from $K_1$ to $K_2$, and similarly for $n_2$.
Note that there are some subtleties that arise when looking at traces on subsets of the boundary if the trace is a distribution, which explains why we need to take $u\in H_0(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)^n$, for some $p>2$ when passing to the second line in . The trace of a vector field $u\in H(\operatorname{div},K)$ on $\partial K$ satisfies $u \cdot n \in H^{-1/2}(\partial K) = H^{1/2}_0(\partial K)' = H^{1/2}(\partial K)'$, but the trace of $u$ on $e \subset \partial K$ satisfies $u \cdot n \in H^{1/2}_{00}(e)'$, where $H^{1/2}_{00}(e)$ defined by $$H^{1/2}_{00}(e)=\{ g \in H^{1/2}(e) \mid \text{ the zero-extension of $g$ to $\partial K$ belongs to $H^{1/2}(\partial K)$} \} \subsetneq H^{1/2}_0(e),$$ see, e.g., [@Ba2012]. So for $u\in H(\operatorname{div},\Omega)$ and smooth $g$, $\int_{\partial K} (u \cdot n) g \,{\rm d}s$ is always well-defined, but $\int_e (u \cdot n) g \,{\rm d}s$ need not be; some extra regularity for $u$ is required to make it well-defined.
Given $A\in L(V_h^r, V_h^r)$ and $u\in H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)^n$, $p>2$, we say that ***$A$ approximates $-u$ in $V^r_h$***[^4] if whenever $f \in L^2(\Omega)$ and $f_h \in V_h^r$ is a sequence satisfying $\|f - f_h \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \rightarrow 0$, we have $$\label{discreteLiedef}
\langle A f_h - \nabla_u^{\rm dist} f, g \rangle \rightarrow 0, \quad \forall g \in C^\infty_0(\Omega).$$ In other words, we require that $A$ is a consistent approximation of $\nabla_u^{\rm dist}$ in $V^r_h$.
Note that the above definition abuses notation slightly; we are really dealing with a sequence of $A$’s parametrized by $h$.
\[A\_u\_approximation\] Given $u\in H_0(\operatorname{div}, \Omega) \cap L^p(\Omega)^n$ and $r\geq 0$ an integer, a consistent approximation of $\nabla_u^{\rm dist}$ in $V_h^r$ is obtained by setting $A=A_u\in L(V_h^r, V_h^r)$ defined by $$\label{consistentapprox}
\langle A_u f, g \rangle := \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} \int_K (\nabla_u f) g \, {\rm d}x - \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0} \int_e u \cdot \llbracket f \rrbracket \{g\} \, {\rm d}s, \quad \forall f,g \in V_h^r,$$ where $\{g\} := \frac{1}{2}(g_1 + g_2)$ on $e=K_1\cap K_2$.
Moreover, if $r\geq 1$, $p=\infty$, and $A\in L(V_h^r, V_h^r)$ is any other operator that approximates $u$ in $V^r_h$, then $A$ must be close to $A_u$ in the following sense: if $f \in L^2(\Omega)$, $g \in C^\infty_0(\Omega)$, and if $f_h,g_h \in V_h^r$ satisfy $\|f_h-f\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \rightarrow 0$ and $h^{-1}\|g-g_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \left(\sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} |g-g_h|_{H^1(K)}^2\right)^{1/2} \rightarrow 0$, then $$\langle (A-A_u) f_h, g_h \rangle \rightarrow 0,$$ provided that $\|Af_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le C(u,f) h^{-1}$ for some constant $C(u,f)$.
As we will see in §\[sec:loworder\], for $r=0$, the definition of $A_u$ in recovers the one used in [@BaGB2019]. There, a different definition of “$A$ approximates $-u$” than was considered for the particular case $r=0$. When this definition is used, analogous statements of both parts of Proposition \[A\_u\_approximation\] hold for $r=0$, under an additional assumption of the family of meshes [@BaGB2019 Lemma 2.2].
The operator $A_u$ is a consistent approximation of $\nabla_u^{\rm dist}$, since for all $g\in C^\infty_0(\Omega)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A_u f_h -\nabla_u^{\rm dist} f, g \rangle
&= \langle \nabla_u^{\rm dist} (f_h - f), g \rangle \\
&= -\int_{\Omega} (f_h-f)\operatorname{div}(gu){\rm d}x \\
&\le \|f_h - f\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \|u \cdot \nabla g + g \operatorname{div}u \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \;\rightarrow \; 0.\end{aligned}$$ For the second part, we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A f_h, g_h \rangle - \langle A_u f_h, g_h \rangle &= \langle A f_h - A_u f_h, g \rangle + \langle A f_h, g_h-g \rangle - \langle A_u f_h, g_h-g \rangle \\
&= \langle A f_h - \nabla_u^{\rm dist} f_h, g \rangle + \langle A f_h, g_h - g \rangle - \langle A_u f_h, g_h-g \rangle \\
&= \langle A f_h - \nabla_u^{\rm dist} f, g \rangle + \langle \nabla_u^{\rm dist} (f-f_h), g \rangle + \langle A f_h, g_h - g \rangle - \langle A_u f_h, g_h-g \rangle \\
&\le |\langle A f_h -\nabla_u^{\rm dist} f, g \rangle| + \|f-f_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \|\operatorname{div}(ug)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\\&\quad + \|Af_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \|g_h-g\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + | \langle A_u f_h, g_h-g \rangle|.\end{aligned}$$ By assumption, the first three terms above tend to zero as $h \rightarrow 0$. The last term satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A_u f_h, g_h - g \rangle
&= \langle A_u f_h, g_h \rangle - \langle \nabla_u^{\rm dist} f_h, g \rangle \\
&= \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} \int_K (\nabla_u f_h) (g_h-g) \, {\rm d}x - \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0} \int_e u \cdot \llbracket f_h \rrbracket \{g_h-g\} \, {\rm d}s\end{aligned}$$ since $\{g\} = g$ on each $e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0$. To analyze these integrals, we make use of the inverse estimate [@ErGu2004] $$\|f_h\|_{H^1(K)} \le C h_K^{-1} \|f_h\|_{L^2(K)}, \quad \forall f_h \in V_h^r, \, \forall K \in \mathcal{T}_h,$$ and the trace inequality [@Ar1982] $$\|f\|_{L^2(\partial K)} \le C\left( h_K^{-1/2} \|f\|_{L^2(K)} + h_K^{1/2} |f|_{H^1(K)} \right), \quad \forall f \in H^1(K), \, \forall K \in \mathcal{T}_h.$$ Using the inverse estimate, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \int_K (\nabla_u f_h) (g_h-g) \, {\rm d}x \right|
&\le \|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} |f_h|_{H^1(K)} \|g_h-g\|_{L^2(K)} \\
&\le Ch_K^{-1} \|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \|f_h\|_{L^2(K)} \|g_h-g\|_{L^2(K)}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the trace inequality and the inverse estimate, we see also that $$\begin{aligned}
&\left| \int_e u \cdot \llbracket f_h \rrbracket \{g_h-g\} \, {\rm d}s \right| \\
& \le \frac{1}{2} \|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \left( \|f_{h1}\|_{L^2(e)} + \|f_{h2}\|_{L^2(e)} \right) \left( \|g_{h1}-g_1\|_{L^2(e)} + \|g_{h2}-g_2\|_{L^2(e)} \right) \\
&\le C \|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \left( h_{K_1}^{-1/2} \|f_h\|_{L^2(K_1)} + h_{K_2}^{-1/2} \|f_h\|_{L^2(K_2)} \right) \\
&\quad \times \left( h_{K_1}^{-1/2} \|g_h-g\|_{L^2(K_1)} + h_{K_1}^{1/2} |g_h-g|_{H^1(K_1)} + h_{K_2}^{-1/2} \|g_h-g\|_{L^2(K_2)} + h_{K_2}^{1/2} |g_h-g|_{H^1(K_2)} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $K_1,K_2 \in \mathcal{T}_h$ are such that $e = K_1 \cap K_2$, $f_{hi} = \left. f_h \right|_{K_i}$, $g_{hi} = \left. g_h \right|_{K_i}$, and $g_i = \left. g \right|_{K_i}$. Summing over all $K \in \mathcal{T}_h$ and all $e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0$, and using the quasi-uniformity of $\mathcal{T}_h$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
|\langle A_u f_h, g_h - g \rangle|
&\le C \|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \|f_h\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \Big( h^{-1} \|g_h-g\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \Big(\sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} |g-g_h|_{H^1(K)}^2\Big)^{1/2} \Big) \rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$
Note that formula for $A_u$ is obtained from formula , valid for $f\in V^r_h$ and $g\in C^\infty_0(\Omega)$, by rewriting it for the case where $g\in V^r_h$ and choosing to replace $g\rightarrow \{g\}$ in the second term in .
\[A\_u\_properties\] For all $u\in H_0(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)$, $p>2$, we have $$\label{first_statement}
A_u \mathbf{1}=0\quad\text{and}\quad \langle A_u f, g \rangle + \langle f, A_ug \rangle + \langle f, (\operatorname{div}u)g \rangle = 0, \quad \forall f,g \in V_h^r.$$ Hence, if $u\in \mathring{H}(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)$, then $$\label{second_statement}
A_u \mathbf{1}=0\quad\text{and}\quad \langle A_u f,g \rangle + \langle f, A_u g \rangle = 0, \quad\forall f,g \in V_h^r.$$
The first property $A_u\mathbf{1}=0$ follows trivially from the expression since $\nabla_u 1=0$ and $\llbracket 1 \rrbracket=0$. We now prove the second equality. Using , we compute $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle A_u f, g \rangle + \langle f, A_ug \rangle\\
&=\sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} \int_K \left((\nabla_u f) g + ( \nabla_ug) f \right)\, {\rm d}x - \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0} \int_e u \cdot \llbracket f \rrbracket \{g\} \, {\rm d}s - \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0} \int_e u \cdot \llbracket g \rrbracket \{f\} \, {\rm d}s\\
&=\sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} \int_K \left(\operatorname{div}(fg u) - fg \operatorname{div} u \right)\, {\rm d}x - \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0} \int_e u \cdot\left( \llbracket g \rrbracket \{f\}+\llbracket f \rrbracket \{g\}\right) \, {\rm d}s \\
&=- \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} \int_K fg \operatorname{div} u \, {\rm d}x + \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} \sum_{e\in K} \int_e f_e^Kg_e^K u \cdot n ^K_e \,{\rm d}s\\
&\qquad -\sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0} \int_e u \cdot \Big(( \sum_{K\ni e} g_e^K n_e^K) \frac{1}{2}\sum_{K\ni e} f_e^K + ( \sum_{K\ni e} f_e^K n_e^K) \frac{1}{2}\sum_{K\ni e} g_e^K\Big) \,{\rm d}s\\
&=- \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} \int_K fg \operatorname{div} u \, {\rm d}x \\
&\qquad +\sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0} \int_e u \cdot \Big( \sum_{K\ni e} f_e^K g_e^K n_e^K- ( \sum_{K\ni e} g_e^K n_e^K) \frac{1}{2}\sum_{K\ni e} f_e^K - ( \sum_{K\ni e} f_e^K n_e^K) \frac{1}{2}\sum_{K\ni e} g_e^K\Big) \,{\rm d}s,\end{aligned}$$ where the sum $\sum_{K\ni e}$ is just the sum over the two simplices neighboring $e$. We have denoted by $n^K_e$ the unit normal vector to $e$ pointing outside $K$ and by $f^K_e, g^K_e$ the values of $f|_K$ and $g|_K$ on the hyperface $e$. Now for each $e\in \mathcal{E}^0_h$ and denoting simply by $1$ and $2$ the simplices $K_1,K_2$ with $K_1\cap K_2=e$, the last term in parenthesis can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
&f_e^1g_e^1n_e^1+ f_e^2g_e^2n_e^2- (g_e^1n_e^1+g_e^2n_e^2) \frac{1}{2}(f_e^1+f_e^2) - (f_e^1n_e^1+f_e^2n_e^2) \frac{1}{2}(g_e^1+g_e^2)\\
&= 0 + \frac{1}{2}\left(g_e^1 n_e^1 f_e^2 + g_e^2n_e^2f_e^1+ f_e^1n_e^1g_e^2+ f_e^2n_e^2g_e^1 \right)=0,\end{aligned}$$ since $n_e^2=-n_e^1$.
From the previous result, we get a well-defined linear map $$\label{map_A}
\mathsf{A}: H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)^n\rightarrow \mathfrak{g}_h^r\subset L(V_h^r, V_h^r),\quad u\mapsto \mathsf{A}(u)=A_u,\quad p>2,$$ with values in the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}_h^r=\{A\in L(V_h^r,V_h^r) \mid A\mathbf{1}=0\}$ of $G_h$. In the divergence free case, it restricts to $$\mathsf{A}: \mathring{H}(\operatorname{div},\Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)^n\rightarrow \mathring{\mathfrak{g}}_h^r\subset L(V_h^r, V_h^r),$$ with $\mathring{\mathfrak{g}}_h^r=\{A\in L(V_h^r,V_h^r) \mid A\mathbf{1}=0,\; \langle A f,g \rangle + \langle f, A g \rangle = 0,\;\forall f,g\in V^r_h\}$ the Lie algebra of $\mathring{G}_h$; see .
Relation with Raviart-Thomas finite element spaces
--------------------------------------------------
For $r\geq0$ an integer, we define the subspace $S_h^r \subset \mathfrak{g}_h^r \subset L(V_h^r,V_h^r)$ as $$S_h^r:=\operatorname{Im}\mathsf{A}= \{ A_u \in L(V_h^r,V_h^r) \mid u \in H_0(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)\}.$$
\[important\_prop\] Let $r\geq0$ be an integer. The space $S_h^r\subset \mathfrak{g}^r_h$ is isomorphic to the Raviart-Thomas space of order $2r$ $$RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h) = \left\{ u \in H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega) \mid \left.u\right|_K \in (P_{2r}(K))^n + x P_{2r}(K), \, \forall K \in \mathcal{T}_h \right\}.$$ An isomorphism is given by $u\in RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)\mapsto A_u \in S_h^r$.
Its inverse is given by $$\label{inverse_isomorphism}
A \in S^r_h \mapsto u= \sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_h} \sum_{\alpha} \boldsymbol{\phi}_K^\alpha \sum_j \langle A f^{\alpha,j}_K, g^{\alpha,j}_K\rangle + \sum_{e\in \mathcal{E}_h^0} \sum_{\beta} \boldsymbol{\phi}_e^\beta \sum_j \langle A f^{\beta,j}_e, g^{\beta,j}_e\rangle \in RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h).$$ In this formula:
- $(f^{\alpha,j}_K, g^{\alpha,j}_K), (f^{\beta,j}_e, g^{\beta,j}_e)\in V_h^r\times V_h^r$ are such that the images of $\sum_j (f^{\alpha,j}_K, g^{\alpha,j}_K) \in V_h^r \otimes V_h^r$ and $\sum_j (f^{\beta,j}_e, g^{\beta,j}_e) \in V_h^r \otimes V_h^r$ under the map $$\label{surjective_map}
V_h^r\otimes V_h^r\rightarrow RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)^*, \quad f\otimes g \longmapsto \sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_h} (\nabla f \, g)|_K + \sum_{e \in \mathcal{T}_h} \llbracket f\rrbracket_e \{g\}_e$$ are $(\mathbf{p}^\alpha_K, 0)$ and $(0, p^\beta_e)$, respectively, which is a basis of the dual space $RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)^*$ adapted to the decomposition $$RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)^*=\sum_K P_{2r-1}(K)^n \oplus \sum_{e\in K} P_{2r}(e);$$
- $\boldsymbol{\phi}_K^\alpha$, $\boldsymbol{\phi}_e^\beta$ is a basis of $RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)$ dual to the basis $\mathbf{p}^\alpha_K$ and $p^\beta_e$ of $RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)^*$.
Let us consider the linear map $\mathsf{A}: H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega)\rightarrow L(V_h^r, V_h^r)$ defined in . From a general result of linear algebra, we have $\operatorname{dim}(\operatorname{Im}\mathsf{A})=\operatorname{dim}(\operatorname{Im}\mathsf{A}^*)$, where $\mathsf{A}^*: L(V_h^r, V_h^r)^*\rightarrow H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega)^*$ is the adjoint to $\mathsf{A}$. We have $$\operatorname{Im}\mathsf{A}^*= \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^N c_i \sigma_{f_i g_i} \in H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega)^*\;\Big|\; N \in \mathbb{N},\, f_i,g_i \in V_h^r,\, c_i \in \mathbb{R}, \, i=1,2,\dots,N \right\},$$ where the linear form $\sigma_{fg}:= \mathsf{A}^*(f\otimes g) \colon H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, is given by $\sigma_{fg}(u)=\langle f, A_u g \rangle$.
Now, the space $\operatorname{Im}\mathsf{A}^*$ is spanned by functionals of the form $$\label{functional1}
u \mapsto \int_e (u \cdot n) pq \, {\rm d}s, \quad p,q \in P_r(e), \, e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0,$$ and $$\label{functional2}
u \mapsto \int_K (u \cdot \nabla q) p \, {\rm d}x \quad \, p,q \in P_r(K), \, K \in \mathcal{T}_h.$$ This can be seen by choosing appropriate $f$ and $g$ in $\sigma_{fg}$ and using the definition of $A_u$. Indeed, if we choose two adjacent simplices $K_1$ and $K_2$ and set $\left. f \right|_{K_1} = p \in P_r(K_1)$, $\left. g \right|_{K_2} = -2q \in P_r(K_2)$, $\left.f\right|_{\Omega \setminus K_1} = 0$, and $\left.g\right|_{\Omega \setminus K_2} = 0$, we get $\langle A_u f, g \rangle = \int_e (u \cdot n) p q \, {\rm d}s$ with $e=K_1 \cap K_2$. Likewise, if we choose a simplex $K$ and set $\left. f \right|_K = q \in P_r(K)$, $\left. g \right|_K = p \in P_r(K)$, and $\left.f\right|_{\Omega \setminus K} = \left.g\right|_{\Omega \setminus K} = 0$, we get $\langle A_u f, g \rangle = \int_K (u \cdot \nabla q) p \, {\rm d}x + \frac{1}{2}\int_{\partial K} (u \cdot n) p q \, {\rm d}s$. Taking appropriate linear combinations yields the functionals (\[functional1\]-\[functional2\]).
Now observe that the functionals (\[functional1\]-\[functional2\]) span the same space (see Lemmas \[lemma:PrPr\] and \[lemma:PrgradPr\] in Appendix \[Appendix\_C\]) as the functionals $$u \mapsto \int_e (u \cdot n) p \, {\rm d}s, \quad p \in P_{2r}(e), \, e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0,$$ and $$u \mapsto \int_K u \cdot p \, {\rm d}x \quad \, p \in P_{2r-1}(K)^n, \, K \in \mathcal{T}_h.$$ These functionals are well-known [@BrFo1991]: they are a basis for the dual of $$RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h) = \{ u \in H(\operatorname{div},\Omega) \mid \left.u \cdot n \right|_{\partial\Omega} = 0, \, \left.u\right|_K \in (P_{2r}(K))^n + x P_{2r}(K), \, \forall K \in \mathcal{T}_h \},$$ often referred to as the “degrees of freedom” for $RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)$.
We thus have proven that $\operatorname{Im}\mathsf{A}^*$ is isomorphic to $RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h) ^*$, and hence $S_h^r= \operatorname{Im}\mathsf{A}$ is isomorphic to $RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)$, all these spaces having the same dimensions. Now, let us consider the linear map $u\in RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)\rightarrow \mathsf{A}(u)=A_u\in S^r_h$. Since its kernel is zero, the map is an isomorphism.
Consider now a basis ${\bf p}^\alpha_K$, $p^\beta_e$ of the dual space $RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)^*$ identified with $\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_h} P_{2r-1}(K)^n \oplus \sum_{e\in\mathcal{T}_h}P_{2r}(e)$, i.e., the collection $\{{\bf p}^\alpha_K\}$ is a basis of $\sum_{K\in \mathcal{E}_h} P_{2r-1}(K)^n$ and the collection $p^\beta_e$ is a basis of $\sum_{e\in\mathcal{T}_h}P_{2r}(e)$. There is a dual basis $\boldsymbol{\phi}_K^\alpha$, $\boldsymbol{\phi}_e^\beta$ of $RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)$ such that $$\langle ({\bf p}^\alpha_K, 0), \boldsymbol{\phi}_{K'}^{\alpha'}\rangle=\delta_{\alpha\alpha'}\delta_{KK'}\qquad \langle ({\bf p}^\alpha_K, 0), \boldsymbol{\phi}_{e}^{\beta}\rangle=0$$ $$\langle (0, p^\beta_e), \boldsymbol{\phi}_{e'}^{\beta'}\rangle=\delta_{\beta\beta'}\delta_{ee'}\qquad \langle (0, p^\beta_e), \boldsymbol{\phi}_{K}^{\alpha}\rangle=0,$$ where $$\langle (\mathbf{p},p), u \rangle = \sum_K \int_K u \cdot \mathbf{p}\, {\rm d}x + \sum_e \int_e (u \cdot n)p\, {\rm d}s$$ is the duality pairing between $RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)^*$ and $RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)$.
Choosing $f^{\alpha,j}_K, g^{\alpha,j}_K\in V_h^r$ and $f^{\beta,j}_e, g^{\beta,j}_e\in V_h^r$ such that $$\sum_j \nabla f^{\alpha,j}_K g^{\alpha,j}_K|_{K'}= \mathbf{p}^\alpha_K\delta_{KK'}, \qquad \sum_j \llbracket f^{\alpha,j}_K\rrbracket_e \{g^{\alpha,j}_K\}_e=0,$$ $$\sum_j \nabla f^{\beta,j}_e g^{\beta,j}_e|_K=0, \qquad \sum_j \llbracket f^{\beta,j}_e \rrbracket_{e'} \{g^{\beta,j}_e\}_{e'}=p_e^\beta\delta_{ee'},$$ we have that $$\sum_j \langle A_u f^{\alpha,j}_K, g^{\alpha,j}_K\rangle \quad \text{and}\quad \sum_j \langle A_u f^{\beta,j}_e, g^{\beta,j}_e\rangle$$ are exactly the degrees of freedom of $u$ relative to the basis ${\bf p}^\alpha_K$, $p^\beta_e$. Therefore, $u$ is expressed as $$u= \sum_K \sum_\alpha \boldsymbol{\phi}_K^\alpha \sum_j \langle A_u f^{\alpha,j}_K, g^{\alpha,j}_K\rangle + \sum_{e\in K} \sum_\beta \boldsymbol{\phi}_e^\beta \sum_j \langle A_u f^{\beta,j}_e, g^{\beta,j}_e\rangle$$ as desired.
Note that the map , with $V_h^r\otimes V_h^r$ identified with $L(V_h^*, V_h^r)$ can be identified with the composition $I^* \circ \mathsf{A}^*$, where $I^*$ is the dual map to the inclusion $I: RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)\rightarrow H_0(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)$. This map is surjective, from the preceding result.
The kernel of the map $u \in H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)^n \mapsto \mathsf{A}(u)=A_u \in L(V_h^r, V_h^r)$, $p > 2$, is $$\operatorname{ker}\mathsf{A}= \{u \in H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega) \mid\Pi_{2r}(u)=0\}= \operatorname{ker}\Pi_{2r},$$ where $\Pi_{2r}: H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega) \cap L^p(\Omega)^n\rightarrow RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)$ is the global interpolation operator defined by $\Pi_{2r}(v)|_K:= \Pi_{2r}^K(v|_K)$, with $\Pi_{2r}^K: H(\operatorname{div}, K) \cap L^p(K)^n\rightarrow RT_{2r}(K)$ defined by the two conditions $$\int_e \big((u-\Pi_{2r}^K u)\cdot n\big) p\, {\rm d} s=0,\quad\text{for all $p\in P_{2r}(e)$, for all $e\in K$}$$ and $$\int_K (u- \Pi_{2r}^K u)\cdot p\, {\rm d} x=0,\quad\text{for all $p\in P_{2r-1}(K)^n$}.$$
For $u \in H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega) \cap L^p(\Omega)^n$ we have $A_u=0$ if and only if $\langle A_u f, g\rangle=0$ for all $f, g\in V_h^r$. As we just commented above, the map is surjective, hence from we see that $\langle A_u f, g\rangle=0$ for all $f, g\in V_h^r$ holds if and only if $$\int_e (u \cdot n) p \, {\rm d}s=0, \quad \text{for all}\;\; p \in P_{2r}(e), \, e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0,$$ and $$\int_K u \cdot p \, {\rm d}x=0, \quad \text{for all}\;\; p \in P_{2r-1}(K)^n, \, K \in \mathcal{T}_h.$$ This holds if and only if $\Pi_{2r}(u)=0$.
In particular for $u\in H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)$, $p>2$, there exists a unique $\bar u \in RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)$ such that $A_{\bar u}= A_u$. It is given by $\bar u = \Pi_{2r}(u)$.
The lowest-order setting {#sec:loworder}
------------------------
We now investigate the setting in which $r=0$ in order to connect with the previous works [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010] and [@BaGB2019] for both the incompressible and compressible cases. Enumerate the elements of $\mathcal{T}_h$ arbitrarily from 1 to $N$, and let $\{\psi_i\}_i$ be the orthogonal basis for $V_h^0$ given by $$\psi_i(x) =
\begin{cases}
1, &\mbox{ if } x \in K_i, \\
0, &\mbox{ otherwise, }
\end{cases}$$ where $K_i \in \mathcal{T}_h$ denotes the $i^{th}$ element of $\mathcal{T}_h$. Relative to this basis, for $A\in \mathfrak{g}^0_h\subset L(V_h^0,V_h^0)$ we have $$A \Big( \sum_{j=1}^N f_j \psi_j \Big) = \sum_{i=1}^N \Big( \sum_{j=1}^N A_{ij} f_j \Big) \psi_i, \quad \forall f = \sum_{j=1}^N f_j \psi_j \in V_h,$$ where $$\label{Aij}
A_{ij} = \frac{\langle \psi_i, A\psi_j \rangle}{\langle \psi_i, \psi_i \rangle} = \frac{1}{|K_i|} \langle \psi_i, A\psi_j \rangle.$$
In what follows, we will abuse notation by writing $A$ for both the operator $A \in \mathfrak{g}_h^0$ and the matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ with entries . It is immediate from that $$\mathring{\mathfrak{g}}^0_h=\Big\{ A \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N} \;\Big|\; \sum_{j=1}^N A_{ij} = 0, \, \forall i, \text{ and } A^\mathsf{T}\Theta + \Theta A = 0\Big\},\quad \mathfrak{g}^0_h=\Big\{ A \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N} \;\Big|\; \sum_{j=1}^N A_{ij} = 0\Big\}$$ where $\Theta$ is a diagonal $N\times N$ matrix with diagonal entries $\Theta_{ii} = |K_i|$. These are the Lie algebras used in [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010] and [@BaGB2019].
The next lemma determines the subspace $S_h^0:= \operatorname{Im}\mathsf{A}$ in the case $r=0$. We write $j \in N(i)$ to indicate that $j \neq i$ and $K_i \cap K_j$ is a shared $(n-1)$-dimensional simplex.
\[lemma:Aij\] If $A=A_u$ for some $u \in H_0(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)^n$, $p>2$, then, for each $i$, $$\label{A_ij_order0}
\begin{aligned}
A_{ij} &= -\frac{1}{2|K_i|} \int_{K_i \cap K_j} u \cdot n \, {\rm d}s, \quad j \in N(i),\\
A_{ii} &= \frac{1}{2|K_i|} \int_{K_i} \operatorname{div}u \, {\rm d}x,
\end{aligned}$$ and $A_{ij} = 0$ for all other $j$.
Let $j \in N(i)$ and consider the expression with $f=\psi_j$ and $g=\psi_i$. All terms vanish except one, giving $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A\psi_j, \psi_i \rangle
&= -\int_{K_i \cap K_j} u \cdot \llbracket \psi_j \rrbracket \{\psi_i \} \, {\rm d}s \\
&= -\frac{1}{2} \int_{K_i \cap K_j} u \cdot n \, {\rm d}s.\end{aligned}$$ Now consider the case in which $i=j$. Let $\mathcal{E}^0(K_i)$ denote the set of $(n-1)$-simplices that are on the boundary of $K_i$ but in the interior of $\Omega$. Since $u \cdot n = 0$ on $\partial\Omega$, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A\psi_i, \psi_i \rangle
&= - \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}^0(K_i)} \int_e u \cdot \llbracket \psi_i \rrbracket \{\psi_i \} \, {\rm d}s, \\
&= \int_{\partial K_i} u \cdot n \frac{1}{2} \, {\rm d}s \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \int_{K_i} \operatorname{div}u \, {\rm d}x.\end{aligned}$$ The expressions in follow from . Finally, if $j \neq i$ and $j \notin N(i)$, then all terms in vanish when $f=\psi_j$ and $g=\psi_i$.
\[case\_r=0\][The expressions in recover the relations between Lie algebra elements and vector fields used in [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010] and [@BaGB2019]. In particular, in the incompressible case, using also in Proposition \[A\_u\_properties\], we have $$\operatorname{Im}\mathsf{A}=\big \{A\in \mathring{\mathfrak{g}}^0_h \mid A_{ij}=0,\;\forall j\in N(i)\big\}$$ which is the nonholonomic constraint used in [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010]. Similarly, in the compressible case, using in Proposition \[A\_u\_properties\], we have $$\operatorname{Im}\mathsf{A}= \big\{A\in \mathfrak{g}^0_h \mid A_{ij}=0,\;\forall j\in N(i),\;\; A^\mathsf{T}\Theta + \Theta A\text{ is diagonal} \big\}$$ which is the nonholonomic constraint used in [@BaGB2019]. By Proposition \[important\_prop\], we have $\operatorname{Im}\mathsf{A} \simeq RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h) = RT_0(\mathcal{T}_h)$ in the compressible case. This is reflected in (\[A\_ij\_order0\]): every off-diagonal entry of $A \in \operatorname{Im}\mathsf{A}$ corresponds to a degree of freedom $\int_e(u\cdot n){\rm d}s$, $e\in \mathcal{E}^0_h$, for $RT_0(\mathcal{T}_h)$ (and every diagonal entry of $A$ is a linear combination thereof).]{}
The Lie algebra-to-vector fields map {#sec_Lie_to_vector}
====================================
In this section we define a Lie algebra-to-vector fields map that associates to a matrix $A\in L(V_h^r,V_h^r)$ a vector field on $\Omega$. Such a map is needed to define in a general way the semidiscrete Lagrangian associated to a given continuous Lagrangian.
Since any $A\in S_h^r$ is associated to a unique vector field $u \in RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)$, one could think that the correspondence $A\in S^h_r\rightarrow u\in RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)$ can be used as a Lie algebra-to-vector fields map. However, as explained in detail in Appendix \[Appendix\_B\], the Lagrangian must be defined on a larger space than the constraint space $S_h^r$, namely, at least on $S_h^r+[S_h^r,S_h^r]$. This is why such a Lie algebra-to-vector fields map is needed.
For $r\geq 0$ an integer, we consider the Lie algebra-to-vector field map $\widehat{\;\;}: L(V_h^r, V_h^r) \rightarrow [V_h^r]^n$ defined by $$\label{hat}
\widehat{A}:= \sum_{k=1}^n A (I_h^r(x^k)) e_k,$$ where $I_h^r:L^2(\Omega) \rightarrow V_h^r$ is the $L^2$-orthogonal projector onto $V_h^r$, $x^k:\Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ are the coordinate maps, and $e_k$ the canonical basis for $\mathbb{R}^n$.
The idea leading to the definition is the following. On one hand the component $u^k$ of a general vector field $u= \sum_k u^ke_k$, can be understood as the derivative of the coordinate function $x^k$ in the direction $u$, i.e. $u^k= \nabla_u x^k$. On the other hand, from the definition of the discrete diffeomorphism group, the linear map $f\mapsto Af$ for $f\in V_h^r$ is understood as a derivation, hence is a natural candidate for a Lie algebra-to-vector field map. We shall study its properties below, after describing in more detail in the next lemma the expression for $r=0$.
\[hat\_0\] For $r=0$ and $A\in \mathfrak{g}_h^0\subset L(V_h^0,V_h^0)$, $\widehat{A}$ is the vector field constant on each simplex, given on simplex $K_i$ by $$\label{hatAlow}
\widehat{A} |_{K_i}= \sum_j (b_j - b_i) A_{ij},$$ where $b_i = \frac{1}{|K_i|}\int_{K_i} x \, {\rm d}x$ denotes the barycenter of $K_i$.
The $L^2$-projection of the coordinate function $x^k$ onto $V_h$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
I_h^0( x^k)
&= \sum_j \psi_j \frac{1}{|K_j|} \int_{K_j} x^k = \sum_j \psi_j (b_j)_k,\end{aligned}$$ where $(b_j)_k$ denotes the $k^{th}$ component of $b_j$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{A}
&= \sum_{k=1}^n (A(I_h x^k)) e_k
= \sum_{k=1}^n \sum_j (b_j)_k e_k A \psi_j
= \sum_j b_j A \psi_j \\
&= \sum_j b_j \sum_i A_{ij} \psi_i
= \sum_i \psi_i \sum_j b_j A_{ij}
= \sum_i \psi_i \sum_j (b_j - b_i) A_{ij},\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from the fact that $\sum_j A_{ij} = 0$ for every $i$.
\[hat\_A\_u\] For $u\in H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega) \cap L^p(\Omega)$, $p>2$ and $r\geq 0$, we consider $A_u \in L(V_h^r, V_h^r)$ defined in .
- If $r\geq 1$, then for all $u\in H_0(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)$, $p>2$, we have $$(\widehat{A_u})^k= I_h^r(u^k),\quad k=1,...,n.$$ In particular, if $u$ is such that $u|_K \in P_r(K)^n$ for all $K$, then $\widehat{A_u}= u$.
- If $r=0$, then $$\widehat{A_u}|_K = \frac{1}{2|K|}\sum_{e\in K}\int_e u \cdot n_{e_-} (b_{e_+}-b_{e_-}){\rm d}s$$ where $n_{e_-}$ is the normal vector field pointing from $K_-$ to $K_+$ and $b_{e_\pm}$ are the barycenters of $K_\pm$. In particular, if $u \in RT_0(\mathcal{T}_h)$, then $$\widehat{A_u}|_K = \frac{1}{2|K|}\sum_{e\in K}|e| u \cdot n_{e_-} (b_{e_+}-b_{e_-}).$$ More particularly, if $u \in RT_0(\mathcal{T}_h)$ and the triangles are regular $$\widehat{A_u}=u.$$
As a consequence, we also note that for $r\geq 1$ and $u\in H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)$, $p>2$ : $$\widehat{A_u}=u\;\;\Leftrightarrow\;\; u|_K \in P_r(K)^n,\;\forall K.$$
When $r\geq 1$, we have $I_h ^r(x^k)=x^k$, hence $\widehat{A_u} (x)=\sum_{k=1}^n (A_u x^k)(x)e_k$. We compute $A_u x^k\in V_h^r$ as follows: for all $g \in V_h^r$, we have $$\langle A_u x^k, g \rangle= \sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_h}\int_K (\nabla x^k \cdot u )g{\rm d} x- \sum_{e\in \mathcal{E}^0_h}\int_e u \cdot \llbracket x^k\rrbracket_e \{g\}_e{\rm d}s= \int_\Omega u^k g {\rm d}x.$$ Since this is true for all $g\in V_h^r$ and since $A_u x^k$ must belong to $V_h^r$, we have $$(\widehat{A_u})^k = A_u x^k= I_h ^r(u^k),$$ as desired.
When $r=0$, we have $I_h^0( f)|_{K_i}= \frac{1}{|K_i|}\int_{K_i} f(x) {\rm d }x$ hence $I_h^0(x^k)|_{K_i}= (b_i)^k$. We compute $A_u I _h^0(x^k)\in V_h^0$ as follows: for all $g \in V_h^0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A_u I _h^0(x^k), g\rangle &= \sum_{K_i\in\mathcal{T}_h} \int_{K_i}(\nabla (b_i)^k\cdot u ) g {\rm d}x- \sum_{e\in \mathcal{E}_h^0} \int_e u \cdot \left( b_{e_+}^k n_{e_+}+b_{e_-}^k n_{e_-}\right)\{g\}_e{\rm d}s \\
&= 0 - \sum_{e\in \mathcal{E}_h^0} \int_e u \cdot \left( b_{e_+}^k n_{e_+}+b_{e_-}^k n_{e_-}\right)\frac{1}{2} (g_{e_+}+ g_{e_-}) {\rm d}s\\
&= - \sum_{e\in \mathcal{E}_h^0} \int_e u \cdot \left( b_{e_+}^k n_{e_+}+b_{e_-}^k n_{e_-}\right){\rm d}s \left(\frac{1}{2|K_{e_+}|} \int_{K_{e_+}}g{\rm d} x + \frac{1}{2|K_{e_-}|} \int_{K_{e_-}}g{\rm d} x \right)\\
&= -\sum_K \sum_{e\in K} \int_e u \cdot \left( b_{e_+}^k n_{e_+}+b_{e_-}^k n_{e_-}\right){\rm d}s\frac{1}{2|K|} \int_{K}g{\rm d} x\end{aligned}$$ hence we get $$A_u I _h^0(x^k)|_K= \frac{1}{2|K|} \sum_{e\in K} \int_e u \cdot n_{e_-}\left( b_{e_+}^k -b_{e_-}^k\right){\rm d}s$$ from which the result follows. This result can be also obtained by combining the results of Proposition \[lemma:Aij\] and Lemma \[hat\_0\].
In 2D, for the case of a regular triangle, we have $b_{e_+}-b_{e_-}= n_{e_-} \frac{2}{3}H$, where $H$ is the height, and $|K|= \frac{1}{2}|e| H$ so we get $$\widehat{A_u}|_K = \frac{1}{2|K|}\frac{2}{3}H\sum_{e\in K}|e| (u \cdot n_{e_-})n_{e_-}= \frac{2}{3}\sum_{e\in K} (u \cdot n_{e_-})n_{e_-}=u.$$ Similar computations hold in 3D.
\[prop:hatbracket\] For all $u,v\in H_0(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)$, $p>2$, and $r\geq 1$, we have $$\langle \widehat{[A_u, A_v]}^k, g \rangle = \sum_K \int_K ( \nabla \bar v ^k \cdot u - \nabla \bar u^k \cdot v) g {\rm d}x - \sum_{e\in \mathcal{E}^0_h} \int_e\big(u \cdot n [\bar v ^k] - v\cdot n [\bar u ^k] \big)\{g\}{\rm d}s,$$ for $k=1,...,n$, for all $g\in V_h^r$, where $\bar u ^k= I_h ^r(u^k)\in V_h^r$ and $\bar v^k = I_h^r( v^k)\in V_h^r$. The convention is such that if $n$ is pointing from $K_-$ to $K_+$, then $[\bar v ^k]=\bar v^k_- - \bar v^k_+$.
So, in particular if $u|_K, v|_K\in P_r(K)$, then $$\langle \widehat{[A_u, A_v]}^k, g \rangle = \sum_K \int_K [u,v]^k g {\rm d}x - \sum_{e\in \mathcal{E}^0_h} \int_e\big(u \cdot n [ v ^k] - v\cdot n [ u ^k]\big)\{g\}{\rm d}s.$$
If $u,v,w\in H_0(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)$, $p>2$ and $u|_K, v|_K, w|_K \in P_r(K)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega\widehat{[A_u, A_v]}\cdot \widehat{A_w}\,{\rm d}x &= \sum_{k=1}^n \langle \widehat{[A_u, A_v]}^k, \widehat{A_w}^k\rangle\\
& =\sum_K \int_K [ u,v]\cdot w\, {\rm d}x - \sum_{e\in \mathcal{E}^0_h} \int_e (n \times \{w\}) \cdot [u \times v] {\rm d}s.\end{aligned}$$
For $r=0$, and $u,v \in H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)$, $p>2$ such that $u|_K, v|_K\in P_0(K)$, then $\widehat{[A_u,A_v]}\in [V_h^0]^n$ is the vector field constant on each simplex $K$, given on $K$ by $$\widehat{[A_u,A_v]}|_K= \frac{1}{2|K|} \sum_{e\in K} |e| \Big(u \cdot n_{e_-}( c[v]_{e_+}- c[v]_{e_-}) - v \cdot n_{e_-}( c[u]_{e_+}- c[u]_{e_-})\Big),$$ where $c[u]\in [V_h^0]^n$ is the vector field constant on each simplex $K$, given on $K$ by $$c[u]_K = \frac{1}{2|K|}\sum_{e\in K}|e| u \cdot n_{e_-} (b_{e_+}-b_{e_-})$$ similarly for $c[v]\in [V_h^0]^n$.
We note that from Proposition \[hat\_A\_u\], $$\widehat{[A_u, A_v]}^k= A_u(A_v x^k)- A_v(A_u x^k) = A_u I_h^r (v^k)- A_v I_h ^r(u^k)=A_u \bar v^k- A_v \bar u^k.$$ for all $u,v\in H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)$, $p>2$. Then, using , we have for all $g\in V_h^r$: $$\langle A_u \bar v^k, g\rangle =\sum_K \int_K (\nabla \bar v^k \cdot u) g {\rm d}x- \sum_{e\in\mathcal{E}^0_h}\int_e u \cdot \llbracket \bar v^k\rrbracket\{g\}{\rm d}s$$ similarly for $\langle A_v \bar u^k, g\rangle$ from which we get the first formula.
The second formula follows when $u|_K, v|_K \in P_r(K)$ since in this case $u=\bar u$, $v=\bar v$.
For the third formula we choose $g= \widehat{A_w}^k=\bar w^k$ in the first formula and sum over $k=1,...,n$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega\widehat{[A_u, A_v]}\cdot \widehat{A_w}\,{\rm d}x &= \sum_{k=1}^n \langle \widehat{[A_u, A_v]}^k, \widehat{A_w}^k\rangle\\
& =\sum_K \int_K (\nabla \bar v\cdot u - \nabla \bar u \cdot v)\cdot \bar w\, {\rm d}x\\
&\qquad \qquad - \sum_{e\in \mathcal{E}^0_h} \int_e \big(u\cdot n\, [\bar v] - v\cdot n\, [\bar u] \big)\cdot \{\bar w\} {\rm d}s.\end{aligned}$$ So far we only used $u,v,w\in H_0(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)\cap L^p(\Omega)$, $p>2$. Now we assume further that $u|_K, v|_K, w|_K\in P_r(K)$ for all $K$, so we have $\bar u=u$, $\bar v=v$, $\bar w=w$, $u\cdot n=\{u\}\cdot n$, $v\cdot n= \{v\}\cdot n$, $[\bar v]\cdot n= [\bar u]\cdot n=0$. Using some vector calculus identities for the last term, we get $$\int_\Omega\widehat{[A_u, A_v]}\cdot \widehat{A_w}\,{\rm d}x =\sum_K \int_K [u,v]\cdot w\, {\rm d}x - \sum_{e\in \mathcal{E}^0_h} \int_e (n \times \{ w\}) \cdot ( \{u\}\times [ v] + [ u] \times \{v\}) {\rm d}s.$$ which yields the desired formula since $[u\times v]= \{u\}\times [v]+ [u]\times \{v\}$.
Finite element variational integrator {#sec_FEVA}
=====================================
In this section we derive the variational discretization for compressible fluids by using the setting developed so far. We focus on the case in which the Lagrangian depends only on the velocity and the mass density, since the extension to a dependence on the entropy density is straightforward, see §\[sec\_examples\] and Appendix \[Appendix\_A\].
Semidiscrete Euler-Poincaré equations
-------------------------------------
Given a continuous Lagrangian $\ell(u,\rho)$ expressed in terms of the Eulerian velocity $u$ and mass density $\rho$, the associated discrete Lagrangian $\ell_d:\mathfrak{g}_h^r\times V_h^r\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is defined with the help of the Lie algebra-to-vector fields map as $$\label{discrete_l}
\ell_d(A, D):= \ell(\widehat{A}, D),$$ where $D\in V_h^r$ is the discrete density. Exactly as in the continuous case, the right action of $G_h^r$ on discrete densities is defined by duality as $$\label{Daction}
\langle D \cdot q, E \rangle = \langle D, qE \rangle, \quad \forall E \in V_h^r.$$ The corresponding action of $\mathfrak{g}_h^r$ on $D$ is given by $$\label{Daction_g}
\langle D \cdot B, E \rangle = \langle D, BE \rangle, \quad \forall E \in V_h^r.$$
The semidiscrete equations are derived by mimicking the variational formulation of the continuous equations, namely, by using the Euler-Poincaré principle applied to $\ell_d$. As we have explained earlier, only the Lie algebra elements in $\operatorname{Im}\mathsf{A}=S_h^r$ actually represent a discretization of continuous vector fields. Following the approach initiated [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010] this condition is included in the Euler-Poincaré principle by imposing $S_h^r$ as a nonholonomic constraint, and hence applying the Euler-Poincaré-d’Alembert recalled in Appendix \[Appendix\_B\]. As we will see later, one needs to further restrict the constraint $S_h^r$ to a subspace $\Delta_h^R\subset S_h^r$.
For a given constraint $\Delta_h^R\subset \mathfrak{g}_h^r$, a given Lagrangian $\ell_d$, and a given duality pairing $\langle\!\langle K,A \rangle\!\rangle$ between elements $K\in (\mathfrak{g}_h^r)^*$ and $A\in \mathfrak{g}_h^r$, the Euler-Poincaré-d’Alembert principle seeks $A(t)\in \Delta _h^R$ and $D(t)\in V_h^r$ such that $$\delta \int_0^T\ell_d(A, D){\rm d}t=0,\quad \text{for $\delta A = \partial_t B + [B,A]$ and $\delta D= - D\cdot B$},$$ for all $B(t) \in \Delta_h^R$ with $B(0)=B(T)=0$. The expressions for $\delta A$ and $\delta B$ are deduced from the relations $A(t)= \dot q(t) q(t)^{-1}$ and $D(t)= D_0\cdot q(t)^{-1}$, with $D_0$ the initial value of the density, as in the continuous case.
The critical condition associated to this principle is $$\label{EP_a_weak_fluid}
\Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \partial_t \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A}, B\Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle + \Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A}, [A,B]\Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle + \Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta D},D\cdot B \Big\rangle=0, \quad \forall \;t \in (0,T),\quad\forall\; B\in \Delta_h^R,$$ or, equivalently, $$\label{EP_a_strong_fluid}
\partial_t \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A}+ \operatorname{ad}^*_A \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A} - \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta D}\diamond D\in (\Delta_h^R)^\circ , \quad \forall t \in (0,T).$$ The differential equation for $D$ follows from differentiating $D(t)=D_0\cdot q(t)^{-1}$ to obtain $\partial_t D = -D \cdot A$, or, equivalently, $$\label{Devolution}
\langle \partial_t D, E \rangle + \langle D, AE \rangle = 0, \quad \forall t \in (0,T),\quad\forall\; E\in V_h^r.$$ We refer to Appendix \[Appendix\_B\] for more details and the explanation of the notations. The extension of and to the case when the Lagrangian depends also on the entropy density is straightforward but important, see §\[sec\_examples\].
As explained in Appendix \[Appendix\_B\], a sufficient condition for to be a solvable system for $T$ small enough is that the map $$\label{diffeomorphism}
A\in \Delta^R_h \rightarrow \frac{\delta \ell_d}{\delta A}(A,D)\in (\mathfrak{g}_h^r)^*/(\Delta^R_h)^\circ$$ is a diffeomorphism for all $D\in V^r_h$ strictly positive.
The compressible fluid {#sec_comp}
----------------------
We now focus on the compressible barotropic fluid, whose continuous Lagrangian is given in . Following , we have the discrete Lagrangian $$\label{discrete_l_fluid}
\ell_d(A, D):= \ell(\widehat{A}, D)= \int_\Omega \Big[\frac{1}{2}D |\widehat{A}|^2- D e( D)\Big]{\rm d} x.$$ In order to check condition , we shall compute the functional derivative $\frac{\delta \ell_d}{\delta A}$. We have $$\Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A},\delta A \Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle = \int_\Omega D \widehat{A}\cdot \widehat{\delta A} {\rm d}x = \int_\Omega I_h^r(D \widehat{A})\cdot \widehat{\delta A} {\rm d}x =\Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle I_h^r(D\widehat{A})^\flat,\delta A\Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle$$ where we defined the linear map $\flat: ([V_h^r]^n)^*=[V_h^r]^n\rightarrow (\mathfrak{g}_h^r)^*$ as the dual map to $\widehat{\;}:\mathfrak{g}_h^r\rightarrow [V_h^r]^n$, namely $$\langle\!\langle \alpha^\flat , A \rangle\!\rangle = \langle\alpha,\widehat{A} \rangle,\;\forall \alpha\in [V_h^r]^n, \; A\in \mathfrak{g}_h^r.$$ We thus get $\frac{\delta \ell_d}{\delta A}= I_h^r(D\widehat{A})^\flat$ and note that the choice $\Delta_h^R=S_h^r$ is not appropriate since the linear map $A\in S^r_h \mapsto I_h^r(D\widehat{A})^\flat\in (\mathfrak{g}_h^r)^*/(S^r_h)^\circ$ is not an isomorphism. We thus need to restrict the constraint $S_h^r$ to a subspace $\Delta^R_h\subset S_h^r$ such that $$\label{isom}
A\in \Delta^R_h \mapsto I_h^r(D\widehat{A})^\flat\in (\mathfrak{g}_h^r)^*/(\Delta^R_h)^\circ$$ becomes an isomorphism, for all $D\in V^r_h$ strictly positive. We shall denote by $R_h$ the subspace of $RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)$ corresponding to $\Delta^R_h$ via the isomorphism $u\in RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)\mapsto A_u \in S_h^r$ shown in Proposition \[important\_prop\]. The diagram below illustrates the situation that we consider. $$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
& & H_0(\operatorname{div},\Omega) \textcolor{white}{\frac{1}{2}}\ar[r]^{\;\;\mathsf{A}} & S_h^r \textcolor{white}{\frac{1}{2}}\ar@{^{(}->}[r] & \mathfrak{g}_h^r \ar[r]^{\widehat{\;}} & [V_h^r]^n\\
& & RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)\textcolor{white}{\frac{1}{2}}\ar@{^{(}->}[u] \ar@{<->}[ur]& \Delta_h^R \textcolor{white}{\frac{1}{2}}\ar@{^{(}->}[u]& &\\
& & R_h\textcolor{white}{\frac{1}{2}}\ar@{^{(}->}[u] \ar@{<->}[ur]& & &
}
\end{xy}$$
The kernel of is computed as $$\begin{aligned}
\{A \in \Delta^R_h \mid I_h^r(D\widehat{A})^\flat\in (\Delta^R_h)^\circ \}&= \{A\in \Delta^R_h \mid \langle\!\langle I_h^r(D\widehat{A})^\flat, B \rangle\!\rangle=0,\;\forall B\in \Delta^R_h \}\\
&= \{A\in \Delta^R_h \mid \langle I_h^r(D\widehat{A}), \widehat{B} \rangle=0,\;\forall B\in \Delta^R_h \}\\
&=\{A_u \in \Delta^R_h \mid \langle I_h^r(DI_h^r(u)), I^r_h(v) \rangle=0,\;\forall v\in R_h \} \\
&=\{A_u \in \Delta^R_h \mid \langle DI_h^r(u), I^r_h(v) \rangle=0,\;\forall v\in R_h \}.\end{aligned}$$ We note that since $A,B\in \Delta^R_h \subset S_h^r$, we have $A=A_u$ and $B=B_v$ for unique $u,v \in R_h\subset RT_{2r}(\mathcal{T}_h)$ by Proposition \[important\_prop\], so the kernel is isomorphic to the space $$\label{space_intermediate}
\{u \in R_h \mid \langle DI_h^r(u), I^r_h(v) \rangle=0,\;\forall v\in R_h \}.$$ This space is zero if and only if $R_h$ is a subspace of $[V_h^r]^n\cap H_0(\operatorname{div}, \Omega)=BDM_r(\mathcal{T}_h)$, the Brezzi-Douglas-Marini finite element space of order $r$. Indeed, in this case the space can be rewritten as $$\{u \in R_h \mid \langle Du, v \rangle=0,\;\forall v\in R_h \}=\{0\}$$ since $D$ is strictly positive (it suffices to take $v=u$). Conversely, if there exists a nonzero $w \in R_h \setminus BDM_r(\mathcal{T}_h)$, then $u := w - I_h^r(w) \neq 0$ satisfies $I_h^r(u) = 0$, showing that is nonzero.
Using the expressions of the functional derivatives $$\frac{\delta \ell_d}{\delta A}= I_h^r(D\widehat{A})^\flat,\quad \frac{\delta \ell_d}{\delta D}=I_h^r\Big( \frac{1}{2} |\widehat{A}|^2- e( D) -D \frac{\partial e}{\partial D}\Big),$$ of , the Euler-Poincaré equations are equivalent to $$\label{EP_comp}
\Big\langle \partial_t (D\widehat{A}), \widehat{B}\Big\rangle + \Big\langle D\widehat{A}, \widehat{[A,B]} \Big\rangle + \Big\langle I_h^r\Big(\frac{1}{2} |\widehat{A}|^2- e( D) -D \frac{\partial e}{\partial D}\Big),D\cdot B \Big\rangle=0, \quad \forall t \in (0,T), \quad\forall\; B\in \Delta_h^R.$$
To relate and to more traditional finite element notation, let us denote $\rho_h = D$, $u_h = -\widehat{A}$, and $\sigma_h = E$, and $v_h=-\widehat{B}$. Then, using Proposition \[prop:hatbracket\], the identities $\widehat{A_{u_h}} = -\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{A_{v_h}} = -\widehat{B}$, and the definition of $A_u$, we see that and are equivalent to seeking $u_h \in R_h$ and $\rho_h \in V_h^r$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \partial_t(\rho_h u_h), v_h \rangle + a_h(w_h, u_h, v_h) - b_h(v_h, f_h, \rho_h) &= 0, & \forall v_h \in R_h \label{rhohuhdot} \\
\langle \partial_t \rho_h, \sigma_h \rangle - b_h(u_h, \sigma_h, \rho_h) &= 0, & \forall \sigma_h \in V_h^r, \label{rhohdot}\end{aligned}$$ where $w_h = I_h^r(\rho_h u_h)$, $f_h = I_h^r\left( \frac{1}{2}|u_h|^2 - e(\rho_h) - \rho_h \frac{\partial e}{\partial \rho_h} \right)$, and $$\begin{aligned}
a_h(w,u,v) &= \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} \int_K w \cdot (v \cdot \nabla u - u \cdot \nabla v) \, dx + \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0} \int_e (v \cdot n [ u ]- u \cdot n [ v ]) \cdot \{w\} \, ds, \\
b_h(w,f,g) &= \sum_{K \in \mathcal{T}_h} \int_K (w \cdot \nabla f) g \, dx - \sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}_h^0} w \cdot \llbracket f \rrbracket \{g\} \, ds.\end{aligned}$$
The above calculations carry over also to the setting in which the density is taken to be an element of $V_h^s \subset V_h^r$, $s<r$. In this setting, (\[rhohdot\]) must hold for every $\sigma_h \in V_h^s$, the definition of $f_h$ becomes $f_h = I_h^s\left( \frac{1}{2}|u_h|^2 - e(\rho_h) - \rho_h \frac{\partial e}{\partial \rho_h} \right)$, and the definition of $w_h$ remains unchanged. By fixing $s$ and $R_h$, we may then take $r$ large enough so that $I_h^r(\rho_h u_h)=\rho_h u_h$.
#### Extension to rotating fluids.
For the purpose of application in geophysical fluid dynamics, we consider the case of a rotating fluid with angular velocity $\omega$ in a gravitational field with potential $\Phi(x)$. The equations of motion are obtained by taking the Lagrangian $$\ell(u,\rho)= \int_\Omega \Big[\frac{1}{2}\rho|u|^2 + \rho R\cdot u - \rho e(\rho) -\rho\Phi\Big] {\rm d}x,$$ where the vector field $R$ is half the vector potential of $\omega$, i.e. $2\omega= \operatorname{curl}R$. Application of the Euler-Poincaré principle yields the balance of fluid momentum $$\label{Euler_rot}
\rho(\partial_t u + u \cdot \nabla u + 2\omega \times u) = - \rho\nabla\Phi -\nabla p, \quad \text{with}\quad p = \rho^2\frac{\partial e}{\partial \rho}.$$
The discrete Lagrangian is defined exactly as in and reads $$\label{discrete_l_rot}
\ell_d(A, D):= \ell(\widehat{A}, D)= \int_\Omega \Big[\frac{1}{2}D |\widehat{A}|^2+ D \widehat{A}\cdot R- D e( D) - D \Phi \Big]{\rm d} x.$$ We get $\frac{\delta \ell_d}{\delta A}= I_h^r(D\widehat{A})^\flat+ I_h (D R)^\flat$ and the same reasoning as before shows that the affine map $$\label{isom_rot}
A\in \Delta^R_h \rightarrow \frac{\delta \ell_d}{\delta A}\in (\mathfrak{g}_h^r)^*/(\Delta^R_h)^\circ$$ is a diffeomorphism for all $D\in V_h^r$ strictly positive. The Euler-Poincaré equations now yield $$\label{EP_comp_rot}
\Big\langle \partial_t \big(D(\widehat{A}+R)\big), \widehat{B}\Big\rangle + \Big\langle D(\widehat{A}+R), \widehat{[A,B]} \Big\rangle + \Big\langle I_h^r\Big(\frac{1}{2} |\widehat{A}|^2 + \widehat{A} \cdot R- e( D) -D \frac{\partial e}{\partial D}-\Phi\Big),D\cdot B \Big\rangle=0,\;\;\forall B\in \Delta^R_h,$$ which, in traditional finite element notations is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \partial_t(\rho_h u_h+\rho_h R), v_h \rangle + a_h(w_h, u_h, v_h) - b_h(v_h, f_h, \rho_h) &= 0, &\quad \forall v_h \in R_h, \label{FEMvelocity} \\
\langle \partial_t \rho_h, \sigma_h \rangle - b_h(u_h, \sigma_h, \rho_h) &= 0, &\quad \forall \sigma_h \in V_h^r, \label{FEMdensity}\end{aligned}$$ where $w_h = I_h^r(\rho_h u_h+\rho_h R)$, $f_h = I_h^r\left( \frac{1}{2}|u_h|^2 + u_h \cdot R - e(\rho_h)- \rho_h \frac{\partial e}{\partial \rho_h} -\Phi \right)$, and $a_h$, $b_h$ defined as before.
#### Lowest-order setting.
As a consequence of Remark \[case\_r=0\], for $r=0$, the Euler-Poincaré equations are identical to the discrete equations considered in [@BaGB2019] and, in the incompressible case, they coincide with those of [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010; @GaMuPaMaDe2011; @DeGaGBZe2014]. The discrete Lagrangians used are however different. For instance, by using the result of Lemma \[hat\_0\], for $r=0$, the discrete Lagrangian for $A\in S_h^0$ becomes $$\label{lagrangianAlow}
\ell(A,D) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_i |K_i| D_i\sum_{j,k \in N(i)} M^{(i)}_{jk} A_{ij}A_{ik}- \sum_i |K_i| D_i e(D_i),$$ where $M^{(i)}_{jk} = (b_j - b_i) \cdot (b_k - b_i)$. This is similar, but not identical, to the reduced Lagrangian used in, e.g., [@PaMuToKaMaDe2010]. There, each $M^{(i)}$ is replaced by a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries $M^{(i)}_{jj} = 2|K_i||c_i-c_j|/|K_i \cap K_j|$, where $c_i$ denotes the circumcenter of $K_i$.
#### Variational time discretization.
The variational character of compressible fluid equations can be exploited also at the temporal level, by deriving the temporal scheme via a discretization in time of the Euler-Poincaré variational principle, in a similar way to what has been done in [@GaMuPaMaDe2011; @DeGaGBZe2014] for incompressible fluid models. This discretization of the Euler-Poincaré equation follows the one presented in [@BRMa2009].
In this setting, the relations $A(t)=\dot g (t) g(t)^{-1}$ and $D(t)=D_0\cdot g(t)^{-1}$ are discretized as $$\label{discrete_reduction}
A_k=\tau^{-1}(g_{k+1}g_k^{-1})/\Delta t\quad\text{and}\quad D_k=D_0\cdot g_k^{-1},$$ where $\tau:\mathfrak{g}_h^r\rightarrow G_h^r$ is a local diffeomorphism from a neighborhood of $0 \in \mathfrak{g}_h^r$ to a neighborhood of $e \in G_h^r$ with $\tau(0)=e$ and $\tau(A)^{-1}=\tau(-A)$. Given $A\in\mathfrak{g}_h^r$, we denote by $d\tau_A:\mathfrak{g}_h^r\rightarrow\mathfrak{g}_h^r$ the right trivialized tangent map defined as $$d\tau_A(\delta A):=\left(\mathbf{D}\tau(A)\cdot\delta A\right)\tau(A)^{-1},\quad\delta A\in\mathfrak{g}_h^r.$$ We denote by $d\tau_A^{-1}:\mathfrak{g}_h^r\rightarrow\mathfrak{g}_h^r$ its inverse and by $ (d\tau_A^{-1} )^*:( \mathfrak{g}_h^r)^*\rightarrow(\mathfrak{g}_h^r)^*$ the dual map.
The discrete Euler-Poincaré-d’Alembert variational principle reads $$\delta \sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\ell_d(A_k,D_k)\Delta t=0,$$ for variations $$\delta A_k = \frac{1}{\Delta t}d\tau_{\Delta t A_k}^{-1}(B_{k+1})- \frac{1}{\Delta t}d\tau^{-1}_{- \Delta tA_k}(B_k),\qquad \delta D_k= - D_k \cdot B_k$$ where $B_k\in \Delta^R_h$ vanishes at the extremities. These variations are obtained by taking the variations of the relations and defining $B_k= \delta g_k g_k^{-1}$. It yields $$\frac{1}{\Delta t}\Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle\left(d\tau^{-1}_{\Delta t A_{k-1}}\right)^*\frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_{k-1}}- \left(d\tau^{-1}_{-\Delta t A_k}\right)^*\frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_k}, B_k \Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle - \Big\langle \frac{\delta \ell_d}{\delta D_k}, D_k\cdot B_k\Big\rangle=0,\qquad \forall\; B_k \in \Delta_h^R.$$ From $D_k= D_0\cdot g_k^{-1}$, one gets $$\label{Dkp1}
D_{k+1}=D_k\cdot \tau(-\Delta tA_k).$$
Several choices are possible for the local diffeomorphism $\tau$, see, e.g., [@BRMa2009]. One option is the Cayley transform $$\tau (A)= \left(I- \frac{A}{2}\right)^{-1} \left(I +\frac{A}{2}\right).$$ We have $\tau(0)=I$ and since $\mathbf{D}\tau(0)\delta A= \delta A$, it is a local diffeomorphism. We also note that $A\mathbf{1}=0$ implies $\tau(A) \mathbf{1}=\mathbf{1}$ in a suitably small neighborhood of $0$. We have $$d\tau_A(\delta A)= \left(I- \frac{A}{2}\right)^{-1} \delta A \left(I + \frac{A}{2}\right)^{-1},\quad d\tau_A^{-1}(B)= B + \frac{1}{2}[B,A] - \frac{1}{4}ABA,$$ so the discrete Euler-Poincaré equations read $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(\frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_k}- \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_{k-1}}\right) , B_k \Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle +\frac{1}{2} \Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_k}, [A_k,B_k] - \frac{\Delta t}{2} A_k B_k A_k\Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle \\
&+ \frac{1}{2} \Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle\frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_{k-1}}, [A_{k-1},B_k] + \frac{\Delta t}{2} A_{k-1} B_k A_{k-1} \Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle + \Big\langle \frac{\delta \ell_d}{\delta D_k}, D_k\cdot B_k\Big\rangle=0,\quad \forall\; B_k \in \Delta_h^R.\end{aligned}$$ This is the discrete time version of . The discrete time version of can be similarly written. With this choice of $\tau$, the evolution $D_k$ is obtained from (\[Dkp1\]), which is equivalent to $$D_k \cdot (I+\frac{\Delta t}{2} A_{k-1}) = D_{k-1} \cdot (I-\frac{\Delta t}{2} A_{k-1}).$$ Recalling (\[Daction\_g\]), we get $$\left\langle \frac{D_k-D_{k-1}}{\Delta t}, E_k \right\rangle + \left\langle \frac{D_{k-1}+D_k}{2}, A_{k-1} E_k \right\rangle = 0, \quad \forall E_k \in V_h^r.$$
#### Energy preserving time discretization.
For Lagrangians of the form (\[discrete\_l\_rot\]), it is possible to construct a time discretization that exactly preserves the energy $\int_\Omega [\frac{1}{2}D |\widehat{A}|^2 + D e( D) + D\Phi ]{\rm d} x$. Note that the contribution of the rotation does not appear in the expression of the total energy. To do this, let us define $$\label{discrete_gradient}
F_{k-1/2} = \frac{1}{2} \widehat{A_{k-1}} \cdot \widehat{A_k} + \widehat{A_{k-1/2}} \cdot R - f(D_{k-1},D_k)- \Phi,$$ where $$f(x,y) = \frac{ye(y)-xe(x)}{y-x}.$$ Also let $A_{k-1/2} = \frac{1}{2}(A_{k-1}+A_k)$ and $D_{k-1/2} = \frac{1}{2}(D_{k-1}+D_k)$. The energy-preserving scheme reads $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(\frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_k}- \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_{k-1}}\right) , B_k \Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle\hspace{2in}& \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{1}{2} \Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_{k-1}} + \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_k}, [A_{k-1/2},B_k] \Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle + \langle F_{k-1/2}, D_{k-1/2} \cdot B_k\rangle&=0,\quad \forall\; B_k \in \Delta_h^R, \label{energy_pres_A} \\
&&\left\langle \frac{D_k - D_{k-1}}{\Delta t}, E_k \right\rangle + \langle D_{k-1/2} \cdot A_{k-1/2}, E_k \rangle &= 0, \quad \forall E_k \in V_h^r. \label{energy_pres_D}\end{aligned}$$
The solution of (\[energy\_pres\_A\]-\[energy\_pres\_D\]) satisfies $$\label{discrete_energy_pres}
\int_\Omega \left[\frac{1}{2}D_k |\widehat{A_k}|^2 + D_k e( D_k) + D_k\Phi \right]{\rm d} x = \int_\Omega \left[\frac{1}{2}D_{k-1} |\widehat{A_{k-1}}|^2 + D_{k-1} e( D_{k-1}) + D_{k-1}\Phi \right]{\rm d} x.$$
Taking $B_k = A_{k-1/2}$ in (\[energy\_pres\_A\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(\frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_k}- \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_{k-1}}\right) , A_{k-1/2} \Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle + \langle F_{k-1/2}, D_{k-1/2} \cdot A_{k-1/2} \rangle = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Using the density equation (\[energy\_pres\_D\]) and the definition (\[discrete\_l\_rot\]) of $\ell_d$, we can rewrite this as $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle \frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(D_k(\widehat{A_k}+R) - D_{k-1}(\widehat{A_{k-1}}+R)\right) , \widehat{A_{k-1/2}} \Big\rangle - \left\langle \frac{D_k-D_{k-1}}{\Delta t}, F_{k-1/2} \right\rangle = 0. \label{energyproof}\end{aligned}$$ After rearrangement, the first term can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big\langle \frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(D_k(\widehat{A_k}+R) - D_{k-1}(\widehat{A_{k-1}}+R)\right) , \widehat{A_{k-1/2}} \Big\rangle \\
&=
\frac{1}{2\Delta t} \left( \langle D_k \widehat{A_k}, \widehat{A_k} \rangle - \langle D_{k-1} \widehat{A_{k-1}}, \widehat{A_{k-1}} \rangle \right) + \left\langle \frac{D_k-D_{k-1}}{\Delta t}, \widehat{A_{k-1/2}} \cdot R + \frac{1}{2}\widehat{A_{k-1}} \cdot \widehat{A_k} \right\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting this and the definition of $F_{k-1/2}$ into (\[energyproof\]) gives $$\frac{1}{2\Delta t} \left( \langle D_k \widehat{A_k}, \widehat{A_k} \rangle - \langle D_{k-1} \widehat{A_{k-1}}, \widehat{A_{k-1}} \rangle \right) + \left\langle \frac{D_k-D_{k-1}}{\Delta t}, f(D_{k-1},D_k) + \Phi \right\rangle = 0.$$ Finally, the definition of $f$ yields $$\frac{1}{2\Delta t} \left( \langle D_k \widehat{A_k}, \widehat{A_k} \rangle - \langle D_{k-1} \widehat{A_{k-1}}, \widehat{A_{k-1}} \rangle \right) + \left\langle \frac{D_k e(D_k)-D_{k-1}e(D_{k-1}) + D_k \Phi -D_{k-1}\Phi}{\Delta t}, 1 \right\rangle = 0,$$ which is equivalent to (\[discrete\_energy\_pres\]).
Note that the definition of $F_{k-1/2}$ in can be rewritten in terms of $\ell_d$ as $$\label{elldiff}
\ell_d(A_k, D_k) - \ell_d(A_{k-1},D_{k-1})= \frac{1}{2} \Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_{k-1}} + \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_k}, A_k-A_{k-1} \Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle+ \langle F_{k-1/2}, D_k - D_{k-1} \rangle,$$ This is reminiscent of a discrete gradient method [@HaLuWa2006 p. 174], with $F_{k-1/2}$ playing the role of the discrete version of $\frac{\delta\ell}{\delta D}$.
Numerical tests {#sec_examples}
===============
[ ]{}
[ ]{}
![Contours of the mass density at $t=1.0,1.2,1.4,1.6,1.8,2.0$ in the Rayleigh-Taylor instability simulation.[]{data-label="fig:raytay"}](raytay_t1p0.png "fig:") ![Contours of the mass density at $t=1.0,1.2,1.4,1.6,1.8,2.0$ in the Rayleigh-Taylor instability simulation.[]{data-label="fig:raytay"}](raytay_t1p2.png "fig:") ![Contours of the mass density at $t=1.0,1.2,1.4,1.6,1.8,2.0$ in the Rayleigh-Taylor instability simulation.[]{data-label="fig:raytay"}](raytay_t1p4.png "fig:") ![Contours of the mass density at $t=1.0,1.2,1.4,1.6,1.8,2.0$ in the Rayleigh-Taylor instability simulation.[]{data-label="fig:raytay"}](raytay_t1p6.png "fig:") ![Contours of the mass density at $t=1.0,1.2,1.4,1.6,1.8,2.0$ in the Rayleigh-Taylor instability simulation.[]{data-label="fig:raytay"}](raytay_t1p8.png "fig:") ![Contours of the mass density at $t=1.0,1.2,1.4,1.6,1.8,2.0$ in the Rayleigh-Taylor instability simulation.[]{data-label="fig:raytay"}](raytay_t2p0.png "fig:")
table \[x expr=0.01, y expr=\][raytay\_energyminus1.dat]{};
#### Convergence.
To test our numerical method, we used (\[FEMvelocity\]-\[FEMdensity\]) to simulate a rotating fluid with angular velocity $\omega = 1$ (i.e. $R=(-y,x)$) and internal energy $e(\rho) = \frac{1}{2} \rho$ in the absence of a gravitational field. This choice of the function $e(\rho)$ corresponds to the case of the rotating shallow water equations, for which $\rho$ is interpreted as the fluid depth. We initialized $u(x,y,0) = (0,0)$ and $\rho(x,y,0) = 2 + \sin(\pi x/2) \sin(\pi y/2)$ on $\Omega=(-1,1) \times (-1,1)$ and numerically integrated (\[FEMvelocity\]-\[FEMdensity\]) using the energy-preserving time discretization (\[energy\_pres\_A\]-\[energy\_pres\_D\]) with $\Delta t = 0.00625$. We used the finite element spaces $R_h=RT_r(\mathcal{T}_h)$ and $V_h^r$ with $r=0,1,2$ on a uniform triangulation $\mathcal{T}_h$ of $\Omega$ with maximum element diameter $h = 2^{-j}$, $j=0,1,2,3$. We computed the $L^2$-errors in the velocity and density at time $T=0.5$ by comparing with an “exact solution” obtained with $h=2^{-5}$, $r=2$. The results in Table \[tab:a0b0\] indicate that the method’s convergence order is optimal (order $r+1$) when $r=0$ and suboptimal when $r>0$, but still grows with $r$.
We also repeated the above experiment with varying values of $\Delta t$ and with fixed values of $h=2^{-4}$ and $r=2$. The results in Table \[tab:a0b0\_dt\] indicate that the method is second-order accurate with respect to $\Delta t$.
#### Rayleigh-Taylor instability.
Next, we simulated a Rayleigh-Taylor instability. For this test, we considered a fully (or baroclinic) compressible fluid, whose energy depends on both the mass density $\rho$ and the entropy density $s$, both of which are advected parameters. The setting is the same as above, but with a Lagrangian $$\label{Baroclinic_L}
\ell(u,\rho,s)= \int_\Omega \Big[\frac{1}{2}\rho|u|^2 - \rho e(\rho, \eta) -\rho\Phi\Big] {\rm d}x,$$ where $\eta= \frac{s}{\rho}$ is the specific entropy. In terms of the discrete velocity $A \in \Delta_h^R$, discrete mass density $D \in V_h^r$, and discrete entropy density $S \in V_h^r$, the spatially discrete Euler-Poincaré equations for this Lagrangian read $$\label{EP_a_weak_fluid_S}
\Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \partial_t \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A}, B\Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle + \Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A}, [A,B]\Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle + \Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta D},D\cdot B \Big\rangle+\Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta S},S\cdot B \Big\rangle=0, \quad \forall \;t \in (0,T),\quad\forall\; B\in \Delta_h^R,$$ or, equivalently, $$\label{EP_a_strong_fluid_S}
\partial_t \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A}+ \operatorname{ad}^*_A \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A} - \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta D}\diamond D- \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta S}\diamond S\in (\Delta_h^R)^\circ , \quad \forall t \in (0,T),$$ together with $$\label{Devolution}
\langle \partial_t D, E \rangle + \langle D, AE \rangle = 0,\quad\text{and}\quad \langle \partial_t S, H \rangle + \langle S, AH \rangle = 0, \quad \forall t \in (0,T),\quad\forall\; E,H\in V_h^r.$$ In analogy with (\[energy\_pres\_A\]-\[energy\_pres\_D\]), an energy-preserving time discretization is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \frac{1}{\Delta t}\left(\frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_k}- \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_{k-1}}\right) , B_k \Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle +\frac{1}{2} \Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_{k-1}} + \frac{\delta\ell_d}{\delta A_k}, [A_{k-1/2},B_k] \Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle \hspace{0in}& \nonumber \\
&& + \langle F_{k-1/2}, D_{k-1/2} \cdot B_k\rangle + \langle G_{k-1/2}, S_{k-1/2} \cdot B_k\rangle&=0,\quad \forall\; B_k \in \Delta_h^R, \label{baro_energy_pres_A} \\
&&\left\langle \frac{D_k - D_{k-1}}{\Delta t}, E_k \right\rangle + \langle D_{k-1/2} \cdot A_{k-1/2}, E_k \rangle &= 0, \quad \forall E_k \in V_h^r, \label{baro_energy_pres_D} \\
&&\left\langle \frac{S_k - S_{k-1}}{\Delta t}, H_k \right\rangle + \langle S_{k-1/2} \cdot A_{k-1/2}, H_k \rangle &= 0, \quad \forall H_k \in V_h^r, \label{baro_energy_pres_S}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{k-1/2} = \frac{1}{2}(A_{k-1}+A_k)$, $D_{k-1/2} = \frac{1}{2}(D_{k-1}+D_k)$, $S_{k-1/2} = \frac{1}{2}(S_{k-1}+S_k)$, $$\begin{aligned}
F_{k-1/2} &= \frac{1}{2} \widehat{A_{k-1}} \cdot \widehat{A_k} - \frac{1}{2}\left(f(D_{k-1},D_k,S_{k-1})+f(D_{k-1},D_k,S_k) \right) - \Phi, \label{baro_discrete_gradient1} \\
G_{k-1/2} &= -\frac{1}{2}\left( g(S_{k-1},S_k,D_{k-1}) + g(S_{k-1},S_k,D_k)\right), \label{baro_discrete_gradient2}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
f(D,D',S) &= \frac{D'e(D',S/D')-De(D,S/D)}{D'-D}, \\
g(S,S',D) &= \frac{De(D,S'/D)-De(D,S/D)}{S'-S}.\end{aligned}$$ We took $e$ equal to the internal energy for a perfect gas, $$e(\rho,\eta) =K e^{\eta/C_v} \rho^{\gamma-1},$$ where $\gamma=5/3$ and $K=C_v=1$, and we used a graviational potential $\Phi = -y$, which corresponds to an upward gravitational force. We initialized $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(x,y,0) &= 1.5-0.5\tanh\left( \frac{y-0.5}{0.02} \right), \\
u(x,y,0) &= \left( 0, -0.025\sqrt{\frac{\gamma p(x,y)}{\rho(x,y,0)}} \cos(8\pi x) \exp\left( -\frac{(y-0.5)^2}{0.09}\right) \right), \\
s(x,y,0) &= C_v \rho(x,y,0) \log\left( \frac{p(x,y)}{(\gamma-1)K\rho(x,y,0)^\gamma} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$p(x,y) = 1.5y+1.25 + (0.25-0.5y) \tanh\left( \frac{y-0.5}{0.02} \right).$$ We implemented (\[baro\_energy\_pres\_A\]-\[baro\_energy\_pres\_S\]) with $\Delta t = 0.01$ and with the finite element spaces $R_h = RT_0(\mathcal{T}_h)$ and $V_h^1$ on a uniform triangulation $\mathcal{T}_h$ of $\Omega = (0,1/4) \times (0,1)$ with maximum element diameter $h = 2^{-8}$. We incorporated upwinding into (\[baro\_energy\_pres\_A\]-\[baro\_energy\_pres\_S\]) using the strategy detailed in [@GaGB2019], which retains the scheme’s energy-preserving property. Plots of the computed mass density at various times $t$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:raytay\]. Fig. \[fig:raytay\_energy\] confirms that energy was preserved exactly up to roundoff errors.
Euler-Poincaré variational principle {#Appendix_A}
====================================
In this Appendix we first recall the Euler-Poincaré principle for invariant Euler-Lagrange systems on Lie groups. This general setting underlies the Lie group description of incompressible flows recalled in §\[subsec\_incomp\] due to [@Ar1966], in which case the Lie group is $G=\operatorname{Diff}_{\rm vol}(\Omega)$. It also underlies the semidiscrete setting, in which case the Lie group is $G=G_h$. In this situation, however, a nonholonomic constraint needs to be considered, see Appendix \[Appendix\_B\]. Then, we describe the extension of this setting that is needed to formulate the variational formulation of compressible flow and its discretization.
Euler-Poincaré variational principle for incompressible flows {#A1}
-------------------------------------------------------------
Let $G$ be a Lie group and let $L:TG \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a Lagrangian defined on the tangent bundle $TG$ of $G$. The associated equations of evolution, given by the Euler-Lagrange equations, arise as the critical curve condition for the Hamilton principle $$\label{HP_G}
\delta\int_0^T L(g(t), \dot g(t)){\rm d} t=0,$$ for arbitrary variations $\delta g$ with $\delta g(0)= \delta g(T)=0$.
If we assume that $L$ is $G$-invariant, i.e., $L(gh, \dot gh)=L(g, \dot g)$, for all $h\in G$, then $L$ induces a function $\ell:\mathfrak{g}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ on the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of $G$, defined by $\ell(u)=L(g,\dot g)$, with $u=\dot g g^{-1}\in \mathfrak{g}$. In this case the equations of motion can be expressed exclusively in terms of $u$ and $\ell$ and are obtained by rewriting the variational principle in terms of $\ell$ and $u(t)$. One gets $$\label{EP}
\delta\int_0^T \ell(u(t)){\rm d}t=0,\quad \text{for $\delta u = \partial_t v + [v,u]$},$$ where $v(t)\in \mathfrak{g}$ is an arbitrary curve with $v(0)=v(T)=0$. The form of the variation $\delta u$ in is obtained by a direct computation using $u= \dot g g^{-1}$ and defining $v= \delta g g^{-1}$.
In order to formulate the equations associated to one needs to select an appropriate space in nondegenerate duality with $\mathfrak{g}$ denoted $\mathfrak{g}^*$ (the usual dual space in finite dimensions). We shall denote by $\langle\!\langle\,, \rangle \!\rangle: \mathfrak{g}^* \times \mathfrak{g}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ the associated nondegenerate duality pairing. From one directly obtains the equation $$\label{EP_weak}
\Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \partial_t \frac{\delta\ell}{\delta u}, v\Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle + \Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell}{\delta u}, [u,v]\Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle =0,\quad\forall\; v\in \mathfrak{g}.$$ In , the functional derivative $\frac{\delta\ell}{\delta u}\in \mathfrak{g}^*$ of $\ell$ is defined in terms of the duality pairing as $$\Big\langle\!\!\Big \langle\frac{\delta\ell}{\delta u}, \delta u \Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle= \left.\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\right|_{\epsilon=0}\ell(u+\epsilon\delta u).$$
In finite dimensions, and under appropriate choices for the functional spaces in infinite dimensions, is equivalent to the Euler-Poincaré equation $$\partial_t \frac{\delta\ell}{\delta u}+ \operatorname{ad}^*_u\frac{\delta\ell}{\delta u} =0,$$ where the coadjoint operator $ \operatorname{ad}^*_u: \mathfrak{g}^* \rightarrow \mathfrak{g}^*$ is defined by $\langle\!\langle \operatorname{ad}^*_um,v\rangle \!\rangle=\langle\!\langle m,[u,v]\rangle \!\rangle$.
For incompressible flows, without describing the functional analytic setting for simplicity, we have $G=\operatorname{Diff}_{\rm vol}(\Omega)$ and $\mathfrak{g}= \mathfrak{X}_{\rm vol}(\Omega)$ the Lie algebra of divergence free vector fields parallel to the boundary. We can choose $\mathfrak{g}^*= \mathfrak{X}_{\rm vol}(\Omega)$ with duality pairing $\langle\!\langle\,, \rangle \!\rangle$ given by the $L^2$ inner product. A direct computation gives the coadjoint operator $\operatorname{ad}^*_u m= \mathbf{P}(u \cdot \nabla m + \nabla u ^\mathsf{T} m)$, where $\mathbf{P}$ is the Leray-Hodge projector onto $\mathfrak{X}_{\rm vol}(\Omega)$. One directly checks that in this case yields the Euler equations for incompressible flows.
Euler-Poincaré variational principle for compressible flows {#A2}
-----------------------------------------------------------
The general setting underlying the variational formulation for compressible fluids starts exactly as before, namely, a system whose evolution is given by the Euler-Lagrange equations for a Lagrangian defined on the tangent bundle of a Lie group $G$. The main difference is that the Lagrangian depends parametrically on some element $a_0\in V$ of a vector space (the reference mass density $\varrho_0$ in the case of the barotropic compressible fluid, the reference mass and entropy densities $\varrho_0$ and $S_0$ for the general compressible fluid) on which $G$ acts by representation, and, in addition, $L$ is invariant only under the subgroup of $G$ that keeps $a_0$ fixed. If we denote by $L(g, \dot g, a_0)$ this Lagrangian and by $a\in V\mapsto a\cdot g \in V$ the representation of $G$ on $V$, the reduced Lagrangian is defined by $\ell(u, a)= L(g, \dot g, a_0)$, where $u= \dot gg^{-1}$, $a= a_0\cdot g^{-1}$.
The Hamilton principle now yields the variational formulation $$\label{EP_a}
\delta\int_0^T \ell(u(t),a(t)){\rm d}t=0,\quad \text{for $\delta u = \partial_t v + [v,u]$ and $\delta a= - a\cdot v$},$$ where $v(t)\in \mathfrak{g}$ is an arbitrary curve with $v(0)=v(T)=0$. The form of the variation $\delta u$ in is the same as before, while the expression for $\delta a$ is obtained from the relation $a= a_0\cdot g^{-1}$.
From and with respect to the choice of a spaces $\mathfrak{g}^*$ and $V^*$ in nondegenerate duality with $\mathfrak{g}$ and $V$, with duality pairings $\langle\!\langle \,,\rangle\!\rangle$ and $\langle\,,\rangle_V$, one directly obtains the equations $$\label{EP_a_weak}
\Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \partial_t \frac{\delta\ell}{\delta u}, v\Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle + \Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell}{\delta u}, [u,v]\Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle + \Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell}{\delta a},a\cdot v \Big\rangle_V=0,\quad\forall\; v\in \mathfrak{g}.$$ The continuity equation $$\partial_t a + a \cdot u=0$$ arises from the definition $a(t)= a_0 \cdot g(t)^{-1}$. In a similar way with above, now yields the Euler-Poincaré equations $$\label{EP_a_strong}
\partial_t \frac{\delta\ell}{\delta u}+ \operatorname{ad}^*_u\frac{\delta\ell}{\delta u} =\frac{\delta \ell}{\delta a}\diamond a,$$ where $\frac{\delta \ell}{\delta a}\diamond a\in \mathfrak{g}^*$ is defined by $\left\langle\!\left\langle\frac{\delta \ell}{\delta a}\diamond a,v\right\rangle\!\right\rangle = -\Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell}{\delta a},a\cdot v \Big\rangle_V $, for all $v\in \mathfrak{g}$. We refer to [@HoMaRa1998] for a detailed exposition.
For the compressible fluid, in the continuous case we have $G= \operatorname{Diff}(\Omega)$ and $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{X}(\Omega)$ the Lie algebra of vector fields on $\Omega$ with vanishing normal component to the boundary. We choose to identify $\mathfrak{g}^*$ with $\mathfrak{g}$ via the $L^2$ duality pairing. Consider the Lagrangian of the general compressible fluid. Using the expressions $\operatorname{ad}^*_u m = u \cdot \nabla m + \nabla u^\mathsf{T} m + m \operatorname{div} u$, $\frac{\delta \ell}{\delta u}= \rho u$, $\frac{\delta \ell}{\delta \rho}= \frac{1}{2}|u|^2 - e(\rho) - \rho \frac{\partial e}{\partial \rho}+\eta \frac{\partial e}{\partial\eta}-\Phi$, $\frac{\delta \ell}{\delta s}= - \frac{\partial e}{\partial\eta}$, $\frac{\delta\ell}{\delta \rho}\diamond \rho= \rho \nabla \frac{\delta\ell}{\delta \rho}$, and $\frac{\delta\ell}{\delta s}\diamond s= s \nabla \frac{\delta\ell}{\delta s}$, one directly obtains $$\rho(\partial_tu + u \cdot\nabla u)= - \nabla p - \rho\nabla\Phi$$ from , with $p= \rho^2\frac{\partial e}{\partial \rho}$. For the semidiscrete case, one uses a nonholonomic version of the Euler-Poincaré equations , reviewed in the next paragraph.
Remarks on the nonholonomic Euler-Poincaré variational formulation {#Appendix_B}
==================================================================
Hamilton’s principle can be extended to the case in which the system under consideration is subject to a constraint, given by a distribution on the configuration manifold, i.e., a vector subbundle of the tangent bundle. This is known as the Lagrange-d’Alembert principle and, for a system on a Lie group $G$ and constraint $\Delta_G \subset TG$, it is given by the same critical condition but only with respect to variations statisfaying the constraint, i.e., $\delta g\in \Delta_G$.
In the $G$-invariant setting recalled in §\[A1\] it is assumed that the constraint $\Delta_G$ is also $G$-invariant and thus induces a subspace $\Delta \subset \mathfrak{g}$ of the Lie algebra. In the more general setting of §\[A2\], one can allow $\Delta_G$ to be only $G_{a_0}$-invariant, although for the situation of interest in this paper, $\Delta_G$ is also $G$-invariant.
The Lagrange-d’Alembert principle yields now the Euler-Poincaré-d’Alembert principle in which we have the additional constraint $u(t)\in \Delta$ on the solution and $v(t)\in \Delta$ on the variations, so that becomes $$\label{EP_a_weak_NH}
\Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \partial_t \frac{\delta\ell}{\delta u}, v\Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle + \Big\langle\!\!\Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell}{\delta u}, [u,v]\Big\rangle\!\!\Big\rangle + \Big\langle \frac{\delta\ell}{\delta a},a\cdot v \Big\rangle_V=0,\quad\text{for all $v\in \Delta$, where $u\in \Delta$}.$$ In presence of the nonholonomic constraint, becomes $$\label{EP_a_strong_NH}
\partial_t \frac{\delta\ell}{\delta u}+ \operatorname{ad}^*_u\frac{\delta\ell}{\delta u} -\frac{\delta \ell}{\delta a}\diamond a\in \Delta^\circ,\qquad u \in \Delta,$$ where $\Delta^\circ= \{m \in \mathfrak{g}^* \mid \langle\!\langle m,u\rangle\!\rangle=0, \;\forall\; u\in \Delta\}$.
There are two important remarks concerning and that play an important role for the variational discretization carried out in this paper. First, we note that although the solution belongs to the constraint, i.e., $u\in \Delta$, the equations depend on the expression of the Lagrangian $\ell$ on a larger space, namely, on $\Delta+ [\Delta, \Delta]$. It is not enough to have its expression only on $\Delta$. This is a main characteristic of nonholonomic mechanics. Second, a sufficient condition to get a solvable differential equation is that the map $u \in \Delta \mapsto \frac{\delta \ell}{\delta u } \in \mathfrak{g}^*/\Delta^\circ$ is a diffeomorphism for all $a$.
Polynomials {#Appendix_C}
===========
Below we prove two facts about polynomials that are used in the proof of Proposition \[important\_prop\]. We denote by $H_r(K)$ the space of homogeneous polynomials of degree $r$ on a simplex $K$. To distinguish powers from indices, we denote coordinates by $x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n$ rather than $x^1,x^2,\dots,x^n$ in this section.
\[lemma:PrPr\] Let $K$ be a simplex of dimension $n \ge 1$. For every integer $r \ge 0$, $$\left\{ \sum_{i=1}^N p_i q_i \mid N \in \mathbb{N}, \, p_i, q_i \in P_r(K), \, i=1,2,\dots,N \right\} = P_{2r}(K).$$
This follows from the fact that every monomial in $P_{2r}(K)$ can be written as a product of two monomials in $P_r(K)$.
\[lemma:PrgradPr\] Let $K$ be a simplex of dimension $n \in \{2,3\}$. For every integer $r \ge 0$, $$\left\{ \sum_{i=1}^N p_i \nabla q_i \mid N \in \mathbb{N}, \, p_i, q_i \in P_r(K), \, i=1,2,\dots,N \right\} = P_{2r-1}(K)^n.$$
We proceed by induction.
Denote $Q_r(K) = \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^N p_i \nabla q_i \mid N \in \mathbb{N}, \, p_i, q_i \in P_r(K), \, i=1,2,\dots,N \right\}$. By inductive hypothesis, $Q_r(K)$ contains $Q_{r-1}(K)=P_{2r-3}(K)^n$. It also contains $H_{2r-2}(K)^n$. Indeed, if $f e_k \in H_{2r-2}(K)^n$ with $k \in \{1,2,\dots,n\}$ and $f$ a monomial, then $f=x_j g$ for some $g \in H_{2r-3}(K)$ and some $j \in \{1,2,\dots,n\}$, so $fe_k = \sum_i (x_j p_i) \nabla q_i \in Q_r(K)$ for some $p_i,q_i \in P_{r-1}(K)$ by inductive hypothesis. Thus, $Q_r(K)$ contains $P_{2r-2}(K)^n$.
Next we show that $Q_r(K)$ contains every $u \in H_{2r-1}(K)^n$. Without loss of generality, we may assume $u = fe_1$ with $f \in H_{2r-1}(K)$ a monomial. When $n=2$, the only such vector fields are $u = x_1^a x_2^{2r-1-a} e_1$, $a=0,1,\dots,2r-1$, which can be expressed as $$x_1^a x_2^{2r-1-a} e_1 = \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{r} x_1^{a-r+1} x_2^{2r-1-a} \nabla (x_1^r), &\mbox{ if } a \ge r-1, \\
\frac{1}{a+1} x_2^r \nabla ( x_1^{a+1} x_2^{r-1-a} ) - \frac{r-1-a}{(a+1)r} x_1^{a+1} x_2^{r-1-a} \nabla (x_2^r), &\mbox{ if } a < r-1.
\end{cases}$$ The case $n=3$ is handled similarly by considering the vector fields $f e_1$ with $$f \in \{x_1^a x_2^b x_3^{2r-1-a-b} \mid a,b \ge 0, \, a+b \le 2r-1 \}.$$
[9]{}
D. N. Arnold \[1982\], An interior penalty finite element method with discontinuous elements, *SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis*, **19**(4), 742–760.
V. I. Arnold \[1966\], Sur la géométrie différentielle des des groupes de Lie de dimension infinie et ses applications à l’hydrodynamique des fluides parfaits, *Ann. Inst. Fourier*, Grenoble **16**, 319–361.
W. Bauer, F. Gay-Balmaz \[2019\], Towards a variational discretization of compressible fluids: the rotating shallow water equations, *Journal of Computational Dynamics*, **6**(1), <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.10617.pdf>
W. Bauer, F. Gay-Balmaz \[2019\], Variational integrators for anelastic and pseudo-incompressible flows, *J. Geom. Mech.*, to appear.
P. K. Bhattacharyya \[2012\], *Distributions, Generalized Functions with Applications in Sobolev Spaces*, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
N. Bou-Rabee and J. E. Marsden \[2009\], Hamilton-Pontryagin Integrators on Lie Groups. Part I: Introduction and Structure-Preserving Properties, *Foundations of Computational Mathematics*, **9**, 197–219.
R. Brecht, W. Bauer, A. Bihlo, F. Gay-Balmaz, and S. MacLachlan \[2019\], Variational integrator for the rotating shallow-water equations on the sphere, *Q. J. Royal Meteorol. Soc.*, **145**, 1070–1088. [https: //arxiv.org/pdf/1808.10507.pdf](https: //arxiv.org/pdf/1808.10507.pdf)
F. Brezzi and M. Fortin \[1991\], *Mixed and Hybrid Finite Element Methods*, Springer-Verlag, New York.
M. Desbrun, E. Gawlik, F. Gay-Balmaz and V. Zeitlin \[2014\], Variational discretization for rotating stratified fluids, *Disc. Cont. Dyn. Syst. Series A*, **34**, 479–511.
A. Ern and J.-L. Guermond \[2004\], *Theory and Practice of Finite Elements*, Applied Mathematical Sciences, **159**, Springer.
E. Gawlik, P. Mullen, D. Pavlov, J. E. Marsden and M. Desbrun \[2011\], Geometric, variational discretization of continuum theories, *Physica D*, **240**, 1724–1760.
E. Gawlik and F. Gay-Balmaz \[2019\], A conservative finite element method for the incompressible Euler equations with variable density, preprint.
J. Guzman, C. W. Shu, and A. Sequeira \[2016\], H(div) conforming and DG methods for incompressible Euler’s equations, *IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis*, **37**(4), 1733–71.
E. Hairer, C. Lubich, and G. Wanner \[2006\], *Geometric Numerical Integration: Structure-Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Diffrential Equations*, Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, **31**, Springer-Verlag, 2006.
D. D. Holm, J. E. Marsden, and T. S. Ratiu \[1998\], The Euler-Poincaré equations and semidirect products with applications to continuum theories, *Adv. in Math.*, **137**, 1–81.
B. Liu, G. Mason, J. Hodgson, Y. Tong and M. Desbrun \[2015\], Model-reduced variational fluid simulation, *ACM Trans. Graph. (SIG Asia)*, **34**, Art. 244.
J. E. Marsden and M. West \[2001\], Discrete mechanics and variational integrators, *Acta Numer.*, **10**, 357–514.
A. Natale and C. Cotter \[2018\], A variational H(div) finite-element discretization approach for perfect incompressible fluids, *IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis*, **38**(2), 1084.
D. Pavlov, P. Mullen, Y. Tong, E. Kanso, J. E. Marsden and M. Desbrun \[2010\], Structure-preserving discretization of incompressible fluids, *Physica D*, **240**, 443–458.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, University of Hawaii at Manoa, [[email protected]]([email protected])
[^2]: CNRS - LMD, Ecole Normale Supérieure, [[email protected]]([email protected])
[^3]: Strictly speaking, only a subspace of this Lie algebra represents discrete vector fields, as we will see in detail later.
[^4]: The fact that $A$ approximates $-u$ and not $u$ is consistent with the fact that $f\mapsto Af$ is a left Lie algebra action whereas the derivative $f\mapsto \nabla_u f$ is a right Lie algebra action.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We obtain a (5+1)-dimensional global flat embedding of the Gibbons-Maeda-Garfinkle-Horowitz-Strominger spacetime in Einstein frame, and a (5+2)-dimensional global flat embedding in string frame. We show that the local free-fall temperatures for freely falling observers in each frames are finite at the event horizons, while the local temperatures for fiducial observers are divergent. We also observe that the local free-fall temperatures differ between the two frames.'
---
[**Local free-fall Temperature\
of GMGHS Black Holes**]{}
Yong-Wan Kim[^1]$^{1}$, Jaedong Choi[^2]$^{2}$, Young-Jai Park$\footnote{Electronic address: [email protected]}^{1,3}$
[${}^{1}$Center for Quantum Spacetime, Sogang University, Seoul 121-742, Korea,\
${}^{2}$Department of Basic Science, Korea Air Force Academy,]{}
[Ssangsu, Namil, Cheongwon, Chungbuk 363-849, Korea,]{}
[${}^{3}$Department of Physics, Sogang University, Seoul 121-742, Korea]{}
0.5cm
PACS numbers: 04.70.Dy, 04.20.Jb, 04.62.+v Keywords: GMGHS spacetime, Global flat embedding, Unruh effect\
Introduction
=============
Hawking discovered that a black hole emits thermal radiation with characteristic Hawking temperature $T_H$ as seen by asymptotic observers [@Hawking:1974sw]. The local temperature measured by a fiducial observer at a finite distance from a black hole is then described by the Tolman temperature [@Tolman:1930zza] T\_[FID]{}=, where $\xi^\mu$ is a timelike Killing vector. Later, Unruh [@Unruh:1976db] showed that a uniformly accelerated observer in flat spacetime, with proper acceleration $a$, will detect thermal radiation at the Unruh temperature T\_U=. These two effects are related, [*i.e.,*]{} the Hawking effect for a fiducial observer in a black hole spacetime can be considered as the Unruh effect for a uniformly accelerated observer in a higher dimensional global embedding Minkowskian spacetime (GEMS). After confirming these ideas in an analysis of de Sitter (dS) [@Narnhofer:1996zk] and anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetimes [@Deser:1997ri] and their corresponding GEMSs, Deser and Levin [@Deser:1998xb] have shown that the GEMS approach provides a unified derivation of temperature for Bañados-Teitelboim-Zanelli, Schwarzschild-AdS(-dS), and Reissner-Nordström (RN) spacetimes. These results have since been extended to a wide variety of curved spacetimes [@Kim:2000ct; @Hong:2000kn; @Hong:2003xz; @Chen:2004qw; @Santos:2004ws; @Banerjee:2010ma; @Cai:2010bv; @Majhi:2011yi; @Hu:2011yx], and also see references therein. Recently, Brynjolfsson and Thorlacius [@Brynjolfsson:2008uc] have used the GEMS approach to define a local temperature for a freely falling observer outside Schwarzschild(-AdS) and RN spacetimes, and we have extended the results to RN-AdS spacetime [@Kim:2009ha]. In particular, here a local free-fall temperature is defined at special turning points of radial geodesics where a freely falling observer is momentarily at rest with respect to a black hole. It was shown that the local free-fall temperature approaches the Hawking temperature at spatial infinity, while it remains finite at the event horizon.
On the other hand, the spherically symmetric static charged black hole solution in low energy effective theory of heterotic string theory in four dimension was found by Gibbons, Maeda [@Gibbons:1987ps], and independently, by Garfinkle, Horowitz, Strominger [@Garfinkle:1990qj], by turning antisymmetric tensor gauge fields off, from now on refereed to as the Gibbons-Maeda-Garfinkle-Horowitz-Strominger (GMGHS) solution. See also [@Horowitz:1992jp; @Rakhmanov:1993yd; @Chan:1996sx; @Bose:1998yp]. After these works, there were enormous interests in the spherically symmetric static charged black holes [@Natsuume:1994hd; @Galtsov:1995va; @Xulu:1997fk; @Shu:2004fj; @Sur:2005pm; @Sheykhi:2007wg; @Jiang:2008zzg; @Chen:2010kn; @Fernando:2011ki; @Choi:2013bec] and see also references therein. In particular, this GMGHS black hole spacetime can be described by the solutions either in Einstein or string frames. In Einstein frame, the action is in the form of the Einstein-Hilbert action, while in string frame strings directly couple to the metric of $e^{2\phi}g_{\mu\nu}$ where $e^{2\phi}$ is a conformal factor and $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the Einstein metric. Even though the solutions in the two frames are related by a conformal transformation so that they are mathematically isomorphic to each other [@Faraoni:1998qx], however, there are differences in some of the physical properties of the black hole solutions in the two frames [@Casadio:1998wu].
In this paper, we wish to study the GEMSs of the GMGHS black hole spacetimes both in the Einstein and string frames, and investigate how different GEMS embeddings are in the two frames. The GEMS approach is also important on its own, since it gives a powerful tool that simplifies the study of black hole physics by working instead, but equivalently, in an accelerated frame in a higher dimensional flat spacetime. In section 2, we briefly review the structure of the GEMS of the curved Schwarzschild and RN spacetimes, and their local free-fall temperatures. In section 3, we apply this GEMS approach to the charged GMGHS black hole spacetimes in the Einstein frame. In section 4, we also embed both the magnetically and electrically charged GMGHS black hole spacetimes in the string frame into higher-dimensional flat spacetimes, and find their local free-fall temperatures. Our conclusions are drawn in section 5.
Schwarzschild and RN spacetimes
===============================
Schwarzschild spacetime
-----------------------
The Schwarzschild spacetime described by the metric ds\^2=-(1-)dt\^2+(1-)\^[-1]{}dr\^2 +r\^2(d\^2+\^2d\^2) can be embedded into a (5+1)-dimensional Minkowskian spacetime ds\^2=\_[IJ]{}z\^I z\^J with a metric $\eta_{IJ}={\rm diag}(-1,1,1,1,1,1)$. Explicitly, the (5+1)-dimensional Minkowskian spacetime is given by the transformations [@Fronsdal:1959zza] \[schemb1\] z\^0&=&(k\_H t),\
z\^1&=&(k\_H t),\
z\^2&=&dr ,\
z\^3&=&r,\
z\^4&=&r,\
\[schemb2\] z\^5&=&r. Note that $k_H(=\frac{1}{4M})$ is the surface gravity and the event horizon $r_H$ is $2M$. An observer, who is uniformly accelerated in the (5+1)-dimensional flat spacetime, follows a hyperbolic trajectory described by proper acceleration \[Sch-accel\] a\^[-2]{}\_6=(z\^1)\^2-(z\^0)\^2=16M\^2(1-). Thus, as was shown by Unruh [@Unruh:1976db], the Unruh temperature can be read as \[unruh-sch\] T\_U==. In fact, this corresponds to the local temperature measured by a fiducial observer at a finite distance from the black hole, also called the fiducial temperature \[fid-temp\] T\_[FID]{}=, where the Hawking temperature $T_H$ measured by an asymptotic observer is T\_H=. As results, the Hawking effect for a fiducial observer in the black hole spacetime can be said to be the Unruh effect for a uniformly accelerated observer in a higher-dimensional flat spacetime.
Now, consider a freely falling observer who is dropped from rest at $r=r_0$ and at $\tau=0$. For a freely falling observer, there are turning points [@Brynjolfsson:2008uc] of radial geodesics where a freely falling observer is momentarily at rest with respect to black holes. Making use of the orbit equations [@Kim:2009ha] \[orbiteq\] =, =-, [ with]{} f(r)=1-, one can obtain the $\widetilde{a}_6$ acceleration given by \[a6-sch\] (\_6)\^2=. Taking the local free-fall temperature T\_[FFAR]{}= measured by the freely falling observer at rest (FFAR) to be the local Unruh temperature, one obtains \[ffar-sch\] T\_[FFAR]{}=, which is reduced to the Hawking temperature $T_H$ at infinity. It is important to note that the local free-fall temperature at the event horizon is finite as $T_{\rm FFAR}=2T_H$, while the local temperature $T_{\rm FID}$ (\[fid-temp\]) for the fiducial observer diverges as $r\rightarrow r_H$.
RN spacetime
------------
In order to embed the charged RN black hole given by ds\^2=-(1-+)dt\^2+(1-+)\^[-1]{}dr\^2 +r\^2(d\^2+\^2d\^2), into the higher dimensional flat spacetime, one needs to introduce one more time dimension, compared with the GEMS embedding of the Schwarzschild spacetime. As a result, the embedded flat spacetime is described by the (5+2)-dimensional Minkowskian spacetime ds\^2=\_[IJ]{}z\^I z\^J with a metric $\eta_{IJ}={\rm diag}(-1,1,1,1,1,1,-1)$ given by the transformations [@Deser:1998xb; @Kim:2000ct] \[embrn1\] z\^0&=&(k\_H t),\
z\^1&=&(k\_H t),\
z\^2&=&dr ,\
z\^3&=&r,\
z\^4&=&r,\
z\^5&=&r,\
\[embrn2\] z\^6&=&dr, where $r_H(=M+\sqrt{M^2-Q^2})$ denotes the outer horizon and the surface gravity is $k_H=\sqrt{M^2-Q^2}/r^2_H$. Note that since $z^6\rightarrow 0$ in the $Q\rightarrow 0$ limit, the transformations are reduced to the Schwarzschild ones.
For an uniformly accelerating observer, the $a_7$-acceleration is given by a\^[-2]{}\_7=(1-+), and thus the fiducial temperature corresponding to the Unruh one is read as T\_[FID]{}=. Then, one can obtain the Hawking temperature $T_H$ by taking $r\rightarrow\infty$ as T\_H=. On the other hand, for the RN black hole, the local free-fall temperature seen by a freely falling observer is given by T\_[FFAR]{}=, which is reduced to the local free-fall temperature $T_{FFAR}$ of the Schwarzschild black hole in Eq. (\[ffar-sch\]) in the $Q=0$ limit [@Brynjolfsson:2008uc; @Kim:2009ha].
GMGHS spacetime in Einstein frame
=================================
Now, let us start with the GMGHS action [@Garfinkle:1990qj] in the Einstein frame \[E-action\] S=d\^4x (R-2()\^2-e\^[-2]{}F\_F\^), where $R$ is the scalar curvature, $\phi$ is a dilaton, and $F_{\mu\nu}$ is the Maxwell field. Spherically symmetric static charged solutions [@Garfinkle:1990qj; @Horowitz:1992jp; @Rakhmanov:1993yd; @Chan:1996sx; @Bose:1998yp] to equations of motion of the action (\[E-action\]) are given by \[metric-e\] ds\^2=-(1-)dt\^2+(1-)\^[-1]{}dr\^2 +r(r-)(d\^2+\^2 d\^2), where $Q$ is related to the magnetic and electric charges defined by F\_=Q, F\_[tr]{}=, respectively. Moreover, they have the relation with the dilaton as e\^[-2]{}=1-, e\^[-2]{}=1+ for the magnetically and electrically charged black holes, respectively. This charged case seems to the string analog of the RN spacetime.
However, this (3+1)-dimensional curved spacetime (\[metric-e\]) can be embedded into a (5+1)-dimensional Minkowskian spacetime ds\^2=\_[IJ]{}z\^I z\^J with a flat metric $\eta_{IJ}={\rm diag}(-1,1,1,1,1,1)$, similar to the Schwarzschild spacetime in contrast to the RN case. Here, the (5+1)-dimensional Minkowskian spacetime is explicitly given by the transformations z\^0&=&(k\_H t),\
z\^1&=&(k\_H t),\
z\^2&=&dr ,\
z\^3&=&,\
z\^4&=&,\
z\^5&=&, which reduce to the transformations (\[schemb1\])-(\[schemb2\]) in the $Q\rightarrow 0$ limit. However, they are very different from the embeddings of the RN spacetime (\[embrn1\])-(\[embrn2\]). Note here that $k_H(=\frac{1}{4M})$ is the surface gravity and the event horizon $r_H$ is given by $2M$ as like the Schwarzschild case. However, the area of the two sphere of constant $t$ and $r$ is smaller than the Schwarzschild one due to the presence of the dilaton.
Now, for an uniformly accelerating observer, the $a_6$-acceleration is given by a\_6=. Then, the fiducial temperature corresponding to the Unruh one is simply written T\_[FID]{}=. As results, we see that these are the same with the ones of the Schwarzschild spacetimes (\[unruh-sch\]). Moreover, it is independent of the charge $Q$.
On the other hand, making use of the orbit equations (\[orbiteq\]) with $f(r)=1-\frac{2M}{r}$, we can obtain the $\widetilde{a}_6$ acceleration for a freely falling observer given by (\_6)\^2=, which is exactly the same with the 6-acceleration (\[a6-sch\]) for the freely falling observer in the Schwarzschild spacetime. As a result, we have the same local Unruh temperature $T_{FFAR}$ (\[ffar-sch\]) for the freely fall observer at rest.
In this respect, we know that even though the transformations of the embedding coordinates are differently given due to the charge of the GMGHS spacetime in the Einstein frame, it does not have any affects on the accelerations and the corresponding Unruh/free-fall temperatures.
GMGHS spacetime in string frame
===============================
In the string frame, the GMGHS action is described by \[S-action\] S=d\^4x e\^[-2]{}(R+4()\^2-F\_F\^), which is related to the action (\[E-action\]) in the Einstein frame through the conformal transformation of $g^{\rm
S}_{\mu\nu}=e^{2\phi}g^{\rm E}_{\mu\nu}$.
Magnetically charged solution
-----------------------------
Now, let us study the magnetically charged GMGHS solution in the string frame, which is given by \[metric-s1\] ds\^2=-dt\^2 + +r\^2(d\^2+\^2d\^2). The (3+1)-dimensional curved spacetime can be embedded in a (5+2)-dimensional Minkowskian spacetime ds\^2=\_[IJ]{}z\^I z\^J with a metric $\eta_{IJ}={\rm diag}(-1,1,1,1,1,1,-1)$. The transformations are z\^0&=&(k\_H t),\
z\^1&=&(k\_H t),\
z\^2&=&dr ,\
z\^3&=&r,\
z\^4&=&r,\
z\^5&=&r,\
z\^6&=&dr . Changing the frame from the Einstein to the string makes different the embeddings of the GMGHS spacetimes. Note that $k_H(=\frac{1}{4M})$ is the surface gravity and the event horizon $r^m_H$ is also $2M$ as like the Schwarzschild case.
The $a_7$-acceleration for an uniformly accelerating observer is given by a\_7=. Then, the fiducial temperature is given by \[unruh-m\] T\_[FID]{}=. This becomes the Hawking temperature $T_H$ at the asymptotic infinity, as expected.
On the other hand, for the case of the magnetically charged solution (\[metric-s1\]), we have orbit equations as &=& ()\^[1/2]{} (),\
&=&-\^[1/2]{},\
which can be used to get the $\widetilde{a}_7$ acceleration for a freely falling observer given by \[local-a7-mag\] (\_7)\^2=. As a result, we have the local free-fall temperature for the freely falling observer at rest as \[ffar-mag\] T\_[FFAR]{}=. At the asymptotic infinity, the local free-fall temperature becomes the Hawking temperature $T_H$. Note also that the local free-fall temperature in the string frame depends on the charge, while the local free-fall temperature in the Einstein frame does not. Moreover, when $Q\rightarrow 0$, the temperature (\[ffar-mag\]) reduces to the local free-fall temperature (\[ffar-sch\]) for the Schwarzschild spacetime. At the event horizon, the local free-fall temperature remains finite as \[srootdiv\] T\_[FFAR]{}=, while the fiducial temperature (\[unruh-m\]) diverges. It also depends on the charge, and has lower temperature, compared with the temperatures of $T_{\rm FFAR}=2T_H$ in the Einstein frame and for the Schwarzschild spacetime.
On the other hand, in the extremal limit of $2M^2=Q^2$, the local free-fall temperature becomes \[extT-mag\] T\_[FFAR]{}= so that the local free-fall temperature for the extremal black hole appears to be constant, depending on the mass of the black hole, for the freely falling observer.
Electrically charged solution
-----------------------------
The electrically charged GMGHS solution in the string frame is given by \[metric-s2\] ds\^2=-dt\^2 + +r\^2(d\^2+\^2d\^2). This spacetime can be also embedded in a (5+2)-dimensional Minkowskian spacetime ds\^2=\_[IJ]{}z\^I z\^J with a metric $\eta_{IJ}={\rm diag}(-1,1,1,1,1,1,-1)$. The transformations are z\^0&=&(k\_H t),\
z\^1&=&(k\_H t),\
z\^2&=&dr ,\
z\^3&=&r,\
z\^4&=&r,\
z\^5&=&r,\
z\^6&=&dr .\
Note that $k_H(=\frac{1}{4M})$ is the surface gravity and the event horizon $r^e_H$ is given by $2M-Q^2/M$, which is shifted from $2M$ by $Q^2/M$ as compared with the event horizon $r^m_H$ of the magnetically charged solution.
The $a_7$-acceleration for an uniformly accelerating observer is given by a\_7=, and thus the fiducial temperature is \[unruh-e\] T\_[FID]{}=.
On the other hand, for the case of the electrically charged solution (\[metric-s2\]), we have orbit equations as &=& ,\
&=&-\^[1/2]{},\
which can be used to get the $\widetilde{a}_7$ acceleration for a freely falling observer given by \[local-a7-ele\] (\_7)\^2=, where h\_e(r,M,Q)= -(2++).\
As a result, we have the local free-fall temperature for a freely falling observer at rest as \[ffar-ele\] T\_[FFAR]{}= At the asymptotic infinity the local free-fall temperature again becomes the Hawking temperature $T_H$. Note that when $Q\rightarrow
0$, the local $FFAR$ temperature (\[ffar-ele\]) reduces exactly again to the local free-fall temperature (\[ffar-sch\]) for the Schwarzschild spacetime. At the event horizon, the local free-fall temperature also remains finite as T\_[FFAR]{}=, while the fiducial temperature (\[unruh-e\]) diverges.
On the other hand, in the extremal limit of $2M^2=Q^2$, it becomes T\_[FFAR]{}=. This contrasts with the magnetically charged extremal $T_{FFAR}$ in Eq. (\[extT-mag\]), which is independent of $r$, while the electrically charged extremal $T_{FFAR}$ is a function of $r$. However, as $r\rightarrow\infty$, the temperature $T_{FFAR}$ becomes the same as the local free-fall temperature $T_{FFAR}$ (\[extT-mag\]) for the magnetically charge solution.
In short, we have plotted in Fig. \[fig1\] the local temperatures $T_{\rm FID}$ measured by the fiducial observers for the nonextremal GMGHS spacetime. All the fiducial temperatures show the same behaviors that they blow up near the event horizons and become the Hawking temperatures at asymptotic infinities. On the other hand, Fig. \[fig2\] shows that the local free-fall temperatures obtained in the string frames as well as in Einstein Einstein frame remain finite at the event horizons. Note that in the Einstein frame, the temperature is independent of the charge, while in the string frames the temperature depends on the charge so that the temperature differs between the two frames.
Conclusions
===========
\[sec:conclusions\] In this paper, we have obtained the (5+1)/(5+2)-dimensional global flat embeddings of the GMGHS spacetime according to the Einstein/string frames. In the Einstein frame, we need the (5+1)-dimensional embedding, which is similar to the embedding of the Schwarzschild spacetime. In some sense, it is expected since the metric is identical to the Schwarzschild black hole metric in the $(t-r)$ plane and thus the casual structure is the same. However, by changing the Einstein frame to the string frame, we have shown that regardless of the type of the charges the global flat embeddings of the GMGHS spacetime are needed one more time dimension as like the RN spacetime. In this respect, the GEMS of the GMGHS spacetime in the string frame is more like the ones of the RN spacetime.
We have also found the Unruh/fiducial temperatures in each frame and their corresponding Hawking temperatures. Moreover, by finding local free-fall temperatures for the freely falling observers, we have shown that the local free-fall temperature in the Einstein frame as well as in the string frame remains finite at the event horizon, while the Unruh/fiducial temperature is divergent. On the other hand, regardless of the frames, all the temperatures are reduced to the Hawking temperature $T_H$ at infinity.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MISP) through the Center for Quantum Spacetime (CQUeST) of Sogang University with grant number 2005-0049409.
[99]{} S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. [**43**]{}, 199 (1975) \[Erratum-ibid. [**46**]{}, 206 (1976)\]. R. C. Tolman, “Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology", New York, Dover Publication (1987). W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D [**14**]{}, 870 (1976). H. Narnhofer, I. Peter and W. E. Thirring, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [**10**]{}, 1507 (1996). S. Deser and O. Levin, Class. Quant. Grav. [**14**]{}, L163 (1997) \[gr-qc/9706018\]. S. Deser and O. Levin, Class. Quant. Grav. [**15**]{}, L85 (1998) \[hep-th/9806223\]. S. Deser and O. Levin, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 064004 (1999) \[hep-th/9809159\]. Y. -W. Kim, Y. -J. Park and K. -S. Soh, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 104020 (2000) \[gr-qc/0001045\]. S. -T. Hong, Y. -W. Kim and Y. -J. Park, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 024024 (2000) \[gr-qc/0003097\]. S. -T. Hong, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**36**]{}, 1919 (2004) \[gr-qc/0310118\]. H. -Z. Chen, Y. Tian, Y. -H. Gao and X. -C. Song, JHEP [**0410**]{}, 011 (2004) \[gr-qc/0409107\]. N. L. Santos, O. J. C. Dias and J. P. S. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 124033 (2004) \[hep-th/0412076\]. R. Banerjee and B. R. Majhi, Phys. Lett. B [**690**]{}, 83 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.0985 \[gr-qc\]\]. R. -G. Cai and Y. S. Myung, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 107502 (2011) \[arXiv:1012.5709 \[hep-th\]\]. B. R. Majhi, arXiv:1110.6008 \[gr-qc\]. B. Hu and H. -F. Li, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**27**]{}, 1250002 (2012) \[arXiv:1101.4074 \[hep-th\]\].
E. J. Brynjolfsson and L. Thorlacius, JHEP [**0809**]{}, 066 (2008) \[arXiv:0805.1876 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. -W. Kim, J. Choi and Y. -J. Park, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**25**]{}, 3107 (2010) \[arXiv:0909.3176 \[gr-qc\]\]. G. W. Gibbons and K. Maeda, Nucl. Phys. B [**298**]{}, 741 (1988). D. Garfinkle, G. T. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{}, 3140 (1991) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**45**]{}, 3888 (1992)\]. G. T. Horowitz, In \*Trieste 1992, Proceedings, String theory and quantum gravity ’92\* 55-99 \[hep-th/9210119\]. M. Rakhmanov, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 5155 (1994) \[hep-th/9310174\]. K. C. K. Chan, J. D. E. Creighton and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 3892 (1996) \[gr-qc/9604055\]. S. Bose and D. Lohiya, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 044019 (1999) \[gr-qc/9810033\].
M. Natsuume, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 3949 (1994) \[hep-th/9406079\]. D. V. Galtsov and A. A. Garcia, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 3432 (1995). S. S. Xulu, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**37**]{}, 1773 (1998) \[gr-qc/9712100\]. F. -W. Shu and Y. -G. Shen, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 084046 (2004) \[gr-qc/0410108\]. S. Sur, S. Das and S. SenGupta, JHEP [**0510**]{}, 064 (2005) \[hep-th/0508150\]. A. Sheykhi, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 124025 (2007) \[arXiv:0709.3619 \[hep-th\]\]. Q. -Q. Jiang, Phys. Lett. B [**666**]{}, 517 (2008). C. -M. Chen and D. -W. Pang, JHEP [**1006**]{}, 093 (2010) \[arXiv:1003.5064 \[hep-th\]\]. S. Fernando, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 024033 (2012) \[arXiv:1109.0254 \[hep-th\]\]. J. Choi, Y. -W. Kim and Y. -J. Park, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**28**]{}, 1350143 (2013) \[arXiv:1306.3020 \[gr-qc\]\].
V. Faraoni, E. Gunzig and P. Nardone, Fund. Cosmic Phys. [**20**]{}, 121 (1999) \[gr-qc/9811047\]. R. Casadio and B. Harms, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**14**]{}, 1089 (1999) \[gr-qc/9806032\].
C. Fronsdal, Phys. Rev. [**116**]{}, 778 (1959).
[^1]: Electronic address: [email protected]
[^2]: Electronic address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct two infinite families of knots each of which admits a Seifert fibered surgery with none of these surgeries coming from Dean’s primitive/Seifert-fibered construction. This disproves a conjecture that all Seifert fibered surgeries arise from Dean’s primitive/Seifert-fibered construction. The $(-3,3,5)$-pretzel knot belongs to both of the infinite families.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, California State University, Chico, Chico CA95929-0525, U.S.A. '
- 'Faculty of Engineering, Tokyo Denki University, Tokyo 101-8457, Japan'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Nihon University, Tokyo 156-8550, Japan'
author:
- 'Thomas Mattman$^*$, Katura Miyazaki and Kimihiko Motegi$^{**}$\'
title: 'Seifert fibered surgeries which do not arise from primitive/Seifert-fibered constructions'
---
Introduction
============
Let $K$ be a knot in the $3$-sphere $S^3$. Then we denote by $(K;\gamma)$ the $3$-manifold obtained by $\gamma$-surgery on $K$, i.e., by attaching a solid torus to $S^3-$int$N(K)$ in such a way that $\gamma$ bounds a meridian disk of the filling solid torus. Using the preferred meridian-longitude pair of $K\subset S^3$, we parametrize slopes $\gamma$ of $K$ by $r \in \mathbb{Q} \cup \{ \infty \}$; then we also write $(K; r)$ for $(K; \gamma)$.
We begin by recalling Berge’s [@B] construction, an explicit construction which yields several infinite families of knots each admitting a lens space Dehn surgery.
Let $K$ be a knot contained in a genus two Heegaard surface $F$ for $S^3$, i.e., $S^3 = H \cup_{F} H'$, where $H$ and $H'$ denote genus two handlebodies. Suppose that $K$ is nontrivial and that the manifolds $H(K)$ and $H'(K)$ are both solid tori, where $H(K)$ (resp. $H'(K)$) is obtained by attaching a $2$-handle to $H$ (resp. $H'$) along $K$. The isotopy class in $\partial N(K)$ of the curve(s) in $\partial N(K) \cap F$ is called the *surface slope* of $K$ with respect to $F$. Then by performing Dehn surgery on $K$ along the surface slope $\gamma$, we obtain a $3$-manifold $(K; \gamma) = H(K) \cup H'(K)$, which is a lens space. It cannot be $S^2 \times S^1$ by [@Ga], nor $S^3$ by [@GL]. This construction is called *Berge’s construction* or the *primitive/primitive construction* and such a knot $K$ is said to be *primitive/primitive* with respect to $F$.
In [@B] Berge suggested the following. See also [@Go].
\[Berge\] If $(K; \gamma)$ is a lens space, then this surgery arises from Berge’s construction.
Dean [@D], [@D2] made a natural modification to Berge’s construction; suppose that $K$ is as before except that $H'(K)$ is now a Seifert fiber space over the disk with two exceptional fibers. Then for the surface slope $\gamma$, $(K; \gamma)$ is a Seifert fiber space over $S^2$ with at most three exceptional fibers or a connected sum of two lens spaces. If $K$ is hyperbolic, then the cabling conjecture [@GS] states that the latter cannot occur. This construction is called *Dean’s construction* or the *primitive/Seifert-fibered construction* and such a knot $K$ is said to be *primitive/Seifert-fibered* with respect to $F$.
The notion of primitive/Seifert-fibered construction has been slightly generalized by allowing the possibility that $H'(K)$ is a Seifert fiber space over the M[ö]{}bius band with one exceptional fiber [@EM2], [@MM7]. In the following, we use the term primitive/Seifert-fibered construction (or knot) in this generalized sense.
In analogy with Conjecture \[Berge\], Dean [@D] and Gordon [@Go] asked:
\[Dean\] If $(K; \gamma)$ is a Seifert fiber space other than a lens space, then does this surgery arise from a primitive/Seifert-fibered construction?
Many examples of Seifert fibered surgeries (see, for example, [@BH], [@BZ], [@EM1] and [@EM2]) have been constructed using the Montesinos trick ([@Mon], [@Bl]). Recently, in [@EM2], Eudave-Muñoz has shown that all known examples of Seifert fibered surgeries constructed by the Montesinos trick can be explained by Dean’s construction. Furthermore, Seifert fibered surgeries on twisted torus knots in [@MM3] can also be explained by such constructions [@MM7].
On the other hand, in the present note we demonstrate the following which answers the question above in the negative. A knot $K$ is *strongly invertible* if there is an orientation preserving involution of $S^3$ which leaves $K$ invariant and reverses an orientation of $K$; primitive/Seifert-fibered knots are shown to be strongly invertible.
\[non-p/s\] There is an infinite family of non-strongly invertible knots each of which admits a Seifert fibered surgery with none of these surgeries arising from the primitive/Seifert-fibered construction. For example, the $(-3,3,5)$-pretzel knot belongs to the family.
Very recently Hyung-Jong Song has observed that the 1-surgery of the $(-3,3,3)$-pretzel knot is a Seifert fibered surgery, but does not arise from the primitive/Seifert-fibered construction. In contrast with our examples, the $(-3,3,3)$-pretzel knot is strongly invertible; but it has cyclic period $2$ and tunnel number greater than one like ours.
In his thesis [@Mat], the first author observed that the $(-3, 3, 5)$-pretzel knot has a small Seifert fibered surgery by experiments via Weeks’ computer program SnapPea. This observation is the starting point of our study.
**Acknowledgements** – The first author wishes to thank Steven Boyer and Jinha Jun for helpful conversations. We would like to thank the referee for careful reading and useful comments.
Examples
========
We shall say that a Seifert fiber space is of *type* $S^2(n_1, n_2, n_3)$ if it has a Seifert fibration over $S^2$ with three exceptional fibers of indices $n_1, n_2$ and $n_3$ $(n_i \ge 2)$.
**Example 1.** Let $K \cup t_1$ be the two component link of Figure \[fig:Fig1\].
![[]{data-label="fig:Fig1"}](Fig1.eps){width="0.3\linewidth"}
Here $K$ is the Montesinos knot given by the triple of rational tangles $(1/3, -1/3, -1/5)$, which is often called the $(-3, 3, 5)$-pretzel knot. (We adopt Bleiler’s convention [@Ble] on the parametrization of rational tangles.) Let $K_n$ ($n$ is possibly zero) be the knot obtained from $K$ by performing $-1/n$-surgery on $t_1$. Equivalently, $K_n$ is obtained by doing $n$-twisting along $t_1$. Then $K_n$ enjoys the following properties.
1. $K_n$ is a hyperbolic knot,
2. $K_n$ has cyclic period $2$, but is not strongly invertible,
3. the tunnel number of $K_n$ is $2$, and
4. $(K_n ; 1)$ is a Seifert fiber space of type $S^2(3, 5, |15n + 4|)$.
Before verifying properties (1)–(4) we observe that $\{K_n\}$ is the family of Theorem \[non-p/s\].
*Proof of Theorem* \[non-p/s\]. Properties (2) and (4) show that $K_n$ is not strongly invertible and admits a Seifert fibered surgery. Assume for a contradiction that $K_n$ is primitive/Seifert-fibered; then $H(K_n)$ is a solid torus for an unknotted genus $2$ handlebody $H$ with $K \subset \partial H$. First we show that $K_n$ has tunnel number $1$ following [@D]. By [@Z], there is a homeomorphism of the genus two handlebody $H$ after which $K_n$ appears as in Figure \[fig:Fig2\]. After pushing $K_n$ into $H$, take an arc $t$ as in Figure \[fig:Fig2\].
![[]{data-label="fig:Fig2"}](Fig2.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Then $H - \mathrm{int}N(K_n \cup t)$ is the product of a surface and an interval. Thus $S^3 - \mathrm{int}N(K_n \cup t) =
H' \cup (H - \mathrm{int}N(K_n \cup t))$ is a genus two handlebody, so the knot $K_n$ has tunnel number $1$. This then implies that $K_n$ is strongly invertible by [@Mor2 Lemma 5], a contradiction. Hence the Seifert fibered surgery does not come from the primitive/Seifert-fibered construction. $\qed$(Theorem \[non-p/s\])
\[Period2\] $K_n$ has cyclic period $2$.
*Proof.* As shown in Figure \[fig:Fig3\], let $f: S^3 \to S^3$ be the $\pi$-rotation about $C$ such that $f(K) = K$ and $f(t_1) = t_1$. The axis $C$ is disjoint from $K$ and intersects $t_1$ in exactly two points.
![[]{data-label="fig:Fig3"}](Fig3.eps){width="0.4\linewidth"}
Hence, $f|S^3-$int$N(t_1)$ extends to an involution $\bar{f}$ of $\displaystyle (t_1; -1/n)\cong S^3$ about an axis $\overline{C}$ such that $\bar{f}(K_n) =K_n$ and $K_n\cap \overline{C} =\emptyset$. It follows that $K_n$ has cyclic period 2. $\qed$(Claim \[Period2\])
\[Seifert\] $(K_n; 1)$ is a Seifert fiber space of type $S^2(3, 5, |15n + 4|)$.
*Proof.* Let $(K \cup t_1;\ 1, -1/n)$ denote the manifold obtained by performing a surgery on the link $K \cup t_1$ with surgery slopes $1$ for $K$ and $-1/n$ for $t_1$. We will show that $(K \cup t_1;\ 1, -1/n)$ is a Seifert fiber space of type $S^2(3, 5, |15n + 4|)$.
To prove this we form the quotient by the involution $f:S^3 \to S^3$ to obtain the factor knot $K_f$, the branched knot $c$ which is the image of $C$, and the arc $\tau_1$ which is the image of $t_1$ and connects two points in $c$ (Figure \[fig:Fig4\]).
![[]{data-label="fig:Fig4"}](Fig4.eps){width="0.75\linewidth"}
As shown in Figure \[fig:Fig4\], the factor knot $K_f$ is unknotted in $S^3/f \cong S^3$. Note that $1$-surgery on $K$ corresponds to $1/2$-surgery on the factor knot $K_f$ which is equivalent to $(-2)$-twisting along $K_f$ because $K_f$ is unknotted; see Figure \[fig:Fig6\]. We denote the image of $c$ after $(-2)$-twisting along $K_f$ by $c'$. Note also that by the Montesinos trick ([@Mon], [@Bl]), $-1/n$-surgery on $t_1$ corresponds to $-1/n$-untangle surgery (i.e., a replacement of a $1/0$-untangle by a $-1/n$-untangle) on $c'$ along $\tau_1$ as indicated in Figure \[fig:Fig8\]. In order to correctly perform the untangle surgery, we keep track of the framing. This can be done by indicating a band $\beta$ whose core is $\tau_1$; see Figure \[fig:Fig4\]. (For simplicity, we indicate the band $\beta$ in only two places: just after taking the quotient by the involution $f$, and just before performing the untangle surgery.) By an isotopy as in Figures \[fig:Fig6\] and \[fig:Fig7\], we see that $c'$ is the Montesinos knot given by the triple of rational tangles $(2/5, -3/4, 1/3)$. Denote the result of $-1/n$-untangle surgery on $c'$ by $c'_n$ (Figure \[fig:Fig8\]). Then $c'_n$ is the Montesinos knot given by the triple of rational tangles $(2/5, (11n+3)/(-15n-4), 1/3)$, and the branched covering space $(K \cup t_1;\ 1, -1/n)$ of $S^3$ branched along $c'_n$ is a Seifert fiber space of type $S^2(3, 5, |15n+4|)$. Since the linking number of $K$ and $t_1$ is zero, the $1$-slope of $K$ corresponds to the $1$-slope of $K_n$, and hence $(K \cup t_1;\ 1, -1/n) \cong (K_n; 1)$. It follows that $(K_n; 1)$ is a Seifert fiber space of type $S^2(3, 5, |15n+4|)$ as required. $\qed$(Claim \[Seifert\])
![[]{data-label="fig:Fig5"}](Fig5.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"}
![Continued from Figure \[fig:Fig5\].[]{data-label="fig:Fig6"}](Fig6.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"}
![Continued from Figure \[fig:Fig6\].[]{data-label="fig:Fig7"}](Fig7.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"}
![Continued from Figure \[fig:Fig7\].[]{data-label="fig:Fig8"}](Fig8.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"}
\[hyperbolic\] $K_n$ is a hyperbolic knot.
*Proof.* The knot $K$ bounds an obvious Seifert surface $S$ of genus one. Since $t_1$ can be isotoped off $S$, after doing $n$-twisting along $t_1$ $S$ becomes a Seifert surface for $K_n$. By Claim \[Seifert\], $K_n$ is a nontrivial knot and thus $g(K_n)$, the genus of $K_n$, is equal to one.
Assume for a contradiction that $K_n$ is a satellite knot. Then since $(K_n ; 1)$ is atoroidal, $K_n$ has a companion solid torus $V$ whose core is a simple knot $\widehat{K_n}$ such that $K_n$ is a $0$ or $1$-bridge braid in $V$ ([@MM2 Proposition 2.2(1)]). From Schubert’s formula [@S] ([@BuZ Proposition 2.10]) we have $g(K_n) \ge w g(\widehat{K_n})$, where $w$ denotes the winding number of $K_n$ in $V$. Since $w \ge 2$ and $g(\widehat{K_n}) \ge 1$, we have $g(K_n) \ge 2$, a contradiction. If $K_n$ is a torus knot, then since the genus is one, $K_n$ is a $(\pm 2, 3)$-torus knot $T_{\pm 2, 3}$. However $(T_{2, 3}; 1)$ (resp. $(T_{-2, 3}; 1)$) is a Seifert fiber space of type $S^2(2, 3, 5)$ (resp. $S^2(2, 3, 7)$), contradicting Claim \[Seifert\]. It follows that $K_n$ is a hyperbolic knot. $\qed$(Claim \[hyperbolic\])
\[non-invertible\] $K_n$ is not strongly invertible.
*Proof.* Recall that $K_n$ has cyclic period $2$ and that $(K_n; 1)$ is a Seifert fiber space of type $S^2(3, 5, |15n+4|)$ (Claim \[Seifert\]). Since $|15n + 4| > 2$ and $|15n + 4| \ne 3, \ 5$, if $K_n$ is strongly invertible, then by [@Mot Theorem 1.7(1)], $K_n$ is a torus knot or a cable of a torus knot. This contradicts $K_n$ being hyperbolic (Claim \[hyperbolic\]). Therefore $K_n$ is not strongly invertible. $\qed$(Claim \[non-invertible\])
\[tunnel number\] The tunnel number of $K_n$ is two.
*Proof*. Let $H$ be a handlebody in $S^3$ which is obtained by thickening the obvious genus one Seifert surface for $K$. Then $F =\partial H$ is a genus 2 Heegaard surface for $S^3$ which contains $K$. Since $t_1$ is a core of a handlebody $H$, $H$ remains a handlebody after $-1/n$-surgery on $t_1$. It follows that $K_n$ is embedded in a genus 2 Heegaard surface $F$. Then, by [@Mor Fact on p.138] the tunnel number of $K_n$ is less than or equal to $2$. On the other hand, since a tunnel number one knot is strongly invertible ([@Mor2 Lemma 5]), Claim \[non-invertible\] implies that the tunnel number of $K_n$ is two. $\qed$(Claim \[tunnel number\])
**Example 2.** The second example is a variant of Example 1. Let us consider the trivial knot $t_2$ of Figure \[fig:Fig9\] below, instead of $t_1$ of Figure \[fig:Fig1\].
![[]{data-label="fig:Fig9"}](Fig9.eps){width="0.3\linewidth"}
Let $K'_n$ be the knot obtained from $K$ by doing $n$-twisting along $t_2$. Then the argument in the proof of Claim \[Seifert\] shows that $(K'_n ; 1)$ is a Seifert fiber space of type $S^2(3, 4, |12n + 5|)$; see Figures \[fig:Fig10\]–\[fig:Fig13\]. The arguments in the proofs of Claims \[Period2\], \[hyperbolic\], \[non-invertible\] and \[tunnel number\] show that the $K'_n$ also enjoy the same properties as in Example 1, and that the Seifert fibered surgeries do not come from the primitive/Seifert-fibered construction.
![[]{data-label="fig:Fig10"}](Fig10.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"}
![Continued from Figure \[fig:Fig10\].[]{data-label="fig:Fig11"}](Fig11.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"}
![Continued from Figure \[fig:Fig11\].[]{data-label="fig:Fig12"}](Fig12.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"}
![Continued from Figure \[fig:Fig12\].[]{data-label="fig:Fig13"}](Fig13.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Remarks and questions
=====================
In [@MM3] it has been conjectured that if $(K; r)$ is a Seifert fiber space, then it admits a Seifert fibration such that one of its fibers is unknotted in $($the original$)$ $S^3$. For our knots $K_n$ (resp. $K'_n$), the trivial knot $t_1^*$ which is the dual of $t_1$ (i.e., the core knot of $-1/n$-filling along $t_1$) (resp. $t_2^*$ which is the dual of $t_2$) becomes an exceptional fiber of index $|15n + 4|$ in $(K_n ; 1)$ (resp. an exceptional fiber of index $|12n + 5|$ in $(K'_n ; 1)$). Thus the Dehn surgeries described in Examples 1 and 2 satisfy the conjecture. (Song’s example mentioned in the Introduction also satisfies the conjecture.)
We also mention a geometric aspect of Seifert fibered surgeries on hyperbolic knots. It was observed in [@MM3 Section 7] that short closed geodesics in hyperbolic knot complements are often unknotted in $S^3$ and become Seifert fibers in the resulting Seifert fiber spaces after Dehn surgery. An experiment via Weeks’ computer program SnapPea [@W] suggests the table below, where $K$ is the $(-3, 3, 5)$-pretzel knot, and $t_1$, $t_2$ are trivial knots described in Figures 1 and 9. Recall that $(K; 1)$ is a Seifert fiber space of type $S^2(3, 4, 5)$.
$S^3 - K$ $S^3$ $(K; 1)$
------- ------------------------- -------- --------------------
$t_1$ third shortest geodesic unknot fiber of index $4$
$t_2$ shortest geodesic unknot fiber of index $5$
The second shortest geodesic is unknotted in $S^3$, but it does not become a fiber in $(K ; 1)$. In fact it is hyperbolic in $(K; 1)$.
We conclude this paper with some questions. Although the knots given in Examples 1 and 2 cannot be primitive/Seifert-fibered for any genus two Heegaard surface, they are still embedded in a genus two Heegaard surface for $S^3$. We would like to ask:
\[genus 2\] If $(K;r)$ is a Seifert fiber space, then is $K$ embedded in a genus two Heegaard surface for $S^3$?
In particular,
\[tunnel number 2\] If $(K;r)$ is a Seifert fiber space, then is the tunnel number of $K$ at most $2$?
[99]{} J.Berge; Some knots with surgeries yielding lens spaces, unpublished manuscript.
S. A. Bleiler; Knots prime on many strings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **282** (1984), 385–401.
S. A. Bleiler; Prime tangles and composite knots, Lect. Notes in Math. vol. **1144**, Springer-Verlag, 1985, pp. 1–13.
S. Bleiler and C. Hodgson; Spherical space forms and Dehn filling, Topology **35** (1996), 809–833.
S. Boyer and X. Zhang; Finite surgery on knots, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **9** (1996), 1005–1050.
G. Burde and H. Zieschang; Knots, de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics **5**, 1985.
J. Dean; Hyperbolic knots with small Seifert-fibered Dehn surgeries, Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1996.
J. Dean; Small Seifert-fibered Dehn surgery on hyperbolic knots, Algebraic and Geometric Topology **3** (2003), 435–472.
M. Eudave-Muñoz; Non-hyperbolic manifolds obtained by Dehn surgery on a hyperbolic knot, In: Studies in Advanced Mathematics vol. **2**, part 1, (ed. W. Kazez), 1997, Amer. Math. Soc. and International Press, pp. 35–61.
M. Eudave-Muñoz; On hyperbolic knots with Seifert fibered Dehn surgeries, Topology Appl. **121** (2002), 119–141.
D. Gabai; Foliations and the topology of 3-manifolds [III]{}, J. Diff. Geom. **26** (1987), 479–536. F. González-Acuña and H. Short; Knot surgery and primeness, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. **99** (1986), 89–102.
C. McA. Gordon; Dehn Filling; a survey, Knot theory (Warsaw, 1995), 129–144, Banach Center, Publ. 42, Polish Acad. Sci., Warsaw, 1998.
C. McA. Gordon and J. Luecke; Knots are determined by their complements, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **2** (1989), 371–415.
T. Mattman; The Culler-Shalen seminorms of pretzel knots, Ph.D. thesis, McGill University, Montréal, 2000.
K. Miyazaki and K. Motegi; Seifert fibered manifolds and Dehn surgery [II]{}, Math. Ann. **311** (1998), 647–664.
K. Miyazaki and K. Motegi; Seifert fibered manifolds and Dehn surgery [III]{}, Comm. Anal. Geom. **7** (1999), 551–582.
K. Miyazaki and K. Motegi; On primitive/Seifert-fibered constructions, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. (to appear).
J. M. Montesinos; Surgery on links and double branched coverings of $S^3$, Ann. Math. Studies **84** (1975), 227–260.
K. Morimoto; On the additivity of h-genus of knots, Osaka J. Math. **31** (1994), 137–145.
K. Morimoto; There are knots whose tunnel numbers go down under connected sum, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **123** (1995), 3527–3532.
K. Motegi; Dehn surgeries, group actions and Seifert fiber spaces, Comm. Anal. Geom. **11** (2003), 343–389.
H. Schubert; Knoten und Vollringe, Acta Math. **90** (1953), 131–286.
J. Weeks; SnapPea: a computer program for creating and studying hyperbolic $3$-manifolds, freely available from http://thames.northnet.org/weeks/index/SnapPea.html
H. Zieschang; On simple systems of paths on complete pretzels, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. **92**, 127–137.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We find 3-brane Higgs and Coulomb phases in the 5D Abelian Higgs Model and determine the transition surfaces that separate them from the usual bulk phases.'
address:
- 'Physics Department, National Technical University, 15780 Zografou Campus, Athens, Greece'
- 'CNRS–Centre de Physique Théorique, Luminy, BP 907, 13288 Marseille, France'
- 'CNRS (UMR 6083)–Laboratoire de Mathématiques et Physique Théorique, Université de Tours, Parc Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France'
author:
- 'P. Dimopoulos [^1], K. Farakos[^2], C. P. Korthals-Altes[^3], G. Koutsoumbas[^4] and S. Nicolis[^5]'
title: Branes in the 5D Abelian Higgs Model
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Anisotropy has been shown to be a relevant perturbation for gauge theories[@FN]. The coupling to fermions allows us to put chiral fermions on the lattice in either the overlap or the domain wall variants[@Hernandez]. The continuum limit may be taken, since a new phase of “layers”, or 3-branes, appears[@ANP] and the transition from this phase to the 5D confining phase turns out to be second order[@HKAN].
In the past year we have studied what happens, when scalar fields are included [@DFKAKN; @DFN]. We have found that an additional “layered” phase appears. It consists of a stack of 3-branes, one lattice spacing apart, that are in the Higgs phase and the fields are confined on each layer. The phase diagram comprises thus of five phases, three bulk and two layered: a confining phase (${\sf S}$), a bulk Higgs phase (${\sf H}_5$) a bulk Coulomb phase (${\sf C}_5$), a layered Coulomb phase (${\sf C}_4$) and a layered Higgs phase (${\sf H}_4$). We obtained the phase diagram by Monte Carlo simulations and mean field theory calculations. Indeed the phase of “layers” is found also as a solution of the mean field (i.e. classical) equations of motion.
THE MODEL
=========
We use the standard, compact, Abelian Higgs action, with provision made for different couplings along a single ($\hat 5$) direction from the other four. $$\begin{array}{l}
S= \beta_{g} \sum_x\sum_{1 \le \mu<\nu \le 4}(1-\cos F_{\mu
\nu}(x))\\
+\beta_g^{\prime}\sum_x\sum_{1 \le \mu \le 4}(1-\cos F_{\mu
5}(x))\\
+\beta_{h}\sum _{x} {\rm Re} [4 \varphi^{*}(x)\varphi (x)
- \sum_{1 \le \mu \le 4} \varphi^{*}(x)U_{\hat \mu}(x) \varphi (x+\hat
\mu)]\\
+\beta_{h}^{\prime} \sum _{x} {\rm Re} [\varphi^{*}(x)\varphi (x)
- \varphi^{*}(x)U_{\hat 5}(x) \varphi (x+\hat 5)]\\
+\sum _{x}[(1-2\beta_{R}-4 \beta_{h}- \beta_{h}^{\prime})\varphi^{*}(x)\varphi
(x)\\
+\beta_{R}(\varphi ^*(x)\varphi (x))^2]\\
\end{array}
\label{compactaction}$$ The order parameters we will use are the expectation values of the plaquette in the bulk $P_S$ and the plaquette in the transverse direction, $P_T$ defined by $$\begin{array}{l}
P_S=\left\langle\frac{1}{6 N^5} \sum_x
\sum_{1 \le \mu<\nu \le 4} \cos F_{\mu \nu}(x)\right\rangle\\
\\
P_T=\left\langle\frac{1}{4 N^5}
\sum_x \sum_{1 \le \mu \le 4} \cos F_{\mu 5}(x)\right\rangle \\
\end{array}$$ and the susceptibility of the link in the bulk $$\begin{array}{l}
L_S=\frac{1}{4 N^5} \sum_x
\sum_{1 \le \mu \le 4} \cos(\chi(x+\hat \mu) +A_{\hat \mu}(x)-\chi(x))\\
\\
{\cal S}(L_S)=N^5\left(\left\langle L_S^2\right\rangle-\left\langle L_S\right\rangle^2\right)\\
\end{array}$$ where $\chi(x)$ is the phase of the Higgs field, $\varphi(x)=\rho(x)\exp({\mathrm{i}}\chi(x))$ and $U_\mu(x)=\exp({\mathrm{i}}A_\mu (x))$.
The phase diagram of the 5D, anisotropic, compact $U(1)$ theory is, displayed, for reference purposes, in fig. \[u1phasediag\][@FN; @HKAN]. Including the Higgs adds two more dimensions. We fix ${\beta_h}'=0.001$ and $\beta_R,\beta_g$ and vary $\beta_h$ and ${\beta_g}'$. For $\beta_g=4$ (weak 4d gauge coupling)[@DFKAKN] we find the following “snapshot” cf. fig. \[u1higgsphasediagw\], while for $\beta_g=0.5$ (strong 4d gauge coupling)[@DFN] we find the snapshot in fig. \[u1higgsphasediags\]. As expected, at strong coupling the ${\sf C}_4$ phase is no longer there. For generic values of the Higgs parameters, $\beta_h$ and ${\beta_h}'$we find that the phase transitions are 1st order: we display typical hysteresis loops for the “bulk” and “transverse” plaquettes, $P_S$ and $P_T$ in figs. \[Plaquettes\] for the transitions from the bulk confining phase ${\sf S}$ to the Higgs phases ${\sf H}_4$ and ${\sf H}_5$. However, we also find hints of continuous transitions, for some subsets of parameter values–cf. the susceptibility in fig. \[suscept\].
![Phase diagram of the 5D, anisotropic, compact $U(1)$ theory.[]{data-label="u1phasediag"}](phadi5new.ps)
![Phase diagram snapshot for $\beta_g=4$, ${\beta_h}'=0.001$ and $\beta_R=0.01$. Here $\beta'\equiv {\beta_g}'$.[]{data-label="u1higgsphasediagw"}](phase.ps)
![Phase diagram snapshot for $\beta_g=0.5$, ${\beta_h}'=0.001$.[]{data-label="u1higgsphasediags"}](phdiagbr001.eps)
![Susceptibility of the link in the bulk, ${\cal S}(L_S)$, vs. ${\beta_h}$ for $\beta_g=0.5$, ${\beta_g}'=1.5$, ${\beta_h}'=0.001$ and $\beta_R=0.01$.[]{data-label="suscept"}](susclsC5H5br001.eps)
CONCLUSIONS-PERSPECTIVES
========================
We have found 3-brane configurations in the 5D, anisotropic, Abelian Higgs model. They may be in either the Coulomb or the Higgs phases. The fields in these configurations are [*confined*]{} on these layers. This confinement is not put in by hand–it is the defining characteristic of the layered phase(s). The transitions between these layered phases and the usual bulk phases are, generically, 1st order; however it is also possible to find subsets in the space of parameter values, that lead to second order transitions. This points to the possibility of new, strongly coupled, continuum theories[@ambjorn], whose elucidation is of major interest. It is to be noted that Yang-Mills theories should exhibit $m$-brane configurations with $m>3$, since they have a Coulomb phase in more than four dimensions. Another alternative, relevant for four dimensions, would be the partial breaking of the Yang-Mills gauge group, that leaves a $U(1)$ factor in the residual gauge group.
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} P. D., K. F. and G. K. acknowledge support from TMR Project ““Finite Temperature Phase Transitions in Particle Physics", EU contract FMRX-CT97-0122.
[9]{} Y. K. Fu and H. B. Nielsen, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B236**]{} (1984) 167; [*Nucl. Phys.* ]{} [**B254**]{} (1985) 127. P. Hernández, these Proceedings; Y. Kikukawa, these Proceedings. C. P. Korthals-Altes, S. Nicolis and J. Prades, [*Phys. Lett.* ]{} [**B316**]{} (1993) 339, \[[hep-lat/9306017]{}\]. A. Hulsebos, C. P. Korthals-Altes and S. Nicolis, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B450**]{} (1995) 437, \[[hep-th/9406003]{}\]. A. Hulsebos, [*Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.*]{} [**42**]{} (1995) 618, \[[hep-lat/9412031]{}\]; P. Dimopoulos, K. Farakos, A. Kehagias and G. Koutsoumbas, \[[hep-th/0007079]{}\], [*Nucl. Phys.* ]{} [**B**]{} [*in press*]{} P. Dimopoulos, K. Farakos, C. P. Korthals-Altes, G. Koutsoumbas and S. Nicolis, [*J. High Energy Phys.*]{} [**02(2001)005**]{} \[[hep-lat/0012028]{}\]. P. Dimopoulos, K. Farakos and S. Nicolis, [*Multi-Layer Structure in the Strongly Coupled 5D Abelian Higgs Model*]{}, \[[hep-lat/0105014]{}\]; cf. also P. Dimopoulos, K. Farakos and S. Nicolis, these Proceedings.
J. Ambjørn, D. Espriu and N. Sasakura, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.* ]{} [**A12**]{} (1997) 2665, \[[hep-lat/9707095]{}\].
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-Mail: [email protected]
[^3]: E-Mail: [email protected]
[^4]: E-Mail: [email protected]
[^5]: Speaker. E-Mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We identify and explore differential access to population-level *signaling* (also known as *information design*) as a source of unequal access to opportunity. A population-level signaler has potentially noisy observations of a binary type for each member of a population and, based on this, produces a signal about each member. A decision-maker infers types from signals and accepts those individuals whose type is high in expectation. We assume the signaler of the disadvantaged population reveals her observations to the decision-maker, whereas the signaler of the advantaged population forms signals strategically. We study the expected utility of the populations as measured by the fraction of accepted members, as well as the false positive rates (FPR) and false negative rates (FNR).
We first show the intuitive results that for a fixed environment, the advantaged population has higher expected utility, higher FPR, and lower FNR, than the disadvantaged one (despite having identical population quality), and that more accurate observations improve the expected utility of the advantaged population while harming that of the disadvantaged one. We next explore the introduction of a publicly-observable signal, such as a test score, as a potential intervention. Our main finding is that this natural intervention, intended to *reduce* the inequality between the populations’ utilities, may actually *exacerbate* it in settings where observations and test scores are noisy.
author:
- 'Nicole Immorlica[^1]'
- 'Katrina Ligett[^2]'
- 'Juba Ziani[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Access to Population-Level Signaling as a Source of Inequality'
---
Introduction
============
Settings where personal data drive consequential decisions, at large scale, abound—financial data determine loan decisions, personal history affects bail and sentencing, academic records feed into admissions and hiring. Data-driven decision-making is not reserved for major life events, of course; on a minute-by-minute basis, our digital trails are used to determine the news we see, the job ads we are shown, and the behaviors we are nudged towards.
There has been an explosion of interest recently in the ways in which such data-driven decision-making can reinforce and amplify injustices. One goal of the literature has been to identify the points in the decision-making pipeline that can contribute to unfairness. For example, are *data more noisy or less plentiful* for a disadvantaged population than for an advantaged one? Are the available *data less relevant* to the decision-making task with respect to the disadvantaged population? Has the disadvantaged population historically been *prevented or discouraged from acquiring good data profiles* that would lead to favorable decisions? Is the decision-maker simply *making worse decisions* about the disadvantaged population, despite access to data that could prevent it?
In this paper, we study *access to population-level signaling* as a source of inequity that, to our knowledge, has not received attention in the literature. We consider settings where the data of individuals in a population passes to a *population-level signaler*, and the signaler determines what function of the data is provided as a signal to a decision-maker. The signaler can serve as an advocate for the population by filtering or noising its individuals’ data, but cannot outright lie to the decision-maker; whatever function the signaler chooses to map from individuals’ data to signals must be fixed and known to the decision-maker.
Examples of population-level strategic signalers include high schools, who, in order to increase the chances that their students will be admitted to prestigious universities, inflate their grades, refuse to release class rankings [@OS10], and provide glowing recommendation letters for more than just the best students. Likewise, law firms advocate on behalf of their client populations by selectively revealing information or advocating for trial vs. plea bargains. Even the choice of advertisements we see online is based on signals about us sold by exchanges, who wish to make their ad-viewing population seem as valuable as possible.
Our interest in asymmetric information in general and in population-level strategic signaling in particular are inspired by the recent wave of interest in these issues in the economics literature (see Section \[sec:rel\_work\] for an overview). In particular, the model we adopt to study these issues in the context of inequity parallels the highly influential work on Bayesian persuasion [@KG11] and information design [@infodesign17].
In order to explore the role that population-level strategic signaling can play in reinforcing inequity, we investigate its impact in a stylized model of university admissions.
We consider a setting in which a high school’s information about its students is noisy but unbiased. Throughout, we call this noisy information *grades*, but emphasize that it may incorporate additional sources of information such as observations of personality and effort, that are also indicative of student quality. Importantly, all relevant information about student quality is observed directly by the school alone. The school then aggregates each student’s information into a signal about that student that is transmitted to the university. This aggregation method is called a *signaling scheme*, or informally, a (randomized) mapping from a student’s information to a recommendation. A school could, for instance, choose to give the same recommendation for all its students, effectively aggregating the information about all students into one statement about average quality. Or, for example, the school could choose to provide positive recommendations to only those students that it believes, based on its information, to have high ability. The university makes admission decisions based on these recommendations, with the goal of admitting qualified students and rejecting unqualified ones.[^4] A school might make recommendations designed to maximize the number of their students admitted by the university. We call such a school [*strategic*]{}. Alternatively, a school might simply report the information it has collected on its students to the university directly. We call such a school [*revealing*]{}. As is common in economics, we assume that the university knows the signaling scheme chosen by the school (but does not know the realization of any randomness the school uses in its mapping). One justification typically given for such an assumption is that the university could learn this mapping over time, as it observes student quality from past years. As expected, we find that strategic schools with accurate information about their students have a significant advantage over revealing schools, and, in the absence of intervention, strategic schools get more of their students (including unqualified ones) admitted by the university.
A common intervention in this setting is the standardized test. The university could require students to take a standardized test before being considered for admission, and use test scores in addition to the school’s recommendations in an effort to enable more-informed admissions decisions. Intuitively, the role of the standardized test is that it “adds information back in” that was obfuscated by a strategic school in its recommendations, and so one might naturally expect the test to reduce inequity in the admissions process. While such a standardized test does increase the accuracy of admissions decisions, we show that when the test is a noisy estimate of student quality, it may in fact exacerbate the impact of disparities in signaling between schools.
#### Summary of contributions
We highlight access to strategic population-level signaling, as studied in the economics literature, as a potential source of inequity. We derive the optimal signaling scheme for a school in Section \[sec:opt\_scheme\] and compute the resulting school utility and false positive and negative rates in Section \[sec:utilfprfnr\]. We then show in Section \[sec:consequences\] that disparities in abilities to signal strategically can constitute a non-negligible source of inequity. In Section \[sec: standardized\_exam\], we study the effect of a standardized test that students must take before applying to the university, and highlight its limitations in addressing signaling-based inequity.
Related work
============
\[sec:rel\_work\]
There is a large literature on individual-level signaling in economics, following on the Nobel-prize-winning work of Spence [@Spence]. The general model there is quite different from our population-level signaling model; in the Spence model, *individuals* (not populations) invest in *costly* (in terms of money or effort) signals whose costs correlate with the individual’s type. In that model, equilibria can emerge where high-type individuals are more likely to invest in the signal than low-types, which can result in the signal being useful for admissions or hiring.
Closer to our setting, Ostrovsky and Schwarz [@OS10] study a model in which schools provide noisy information about their students to potential employers. Their focus is on understanding properties of the equilibria of the system; they do not fully characterize the equilibria, they do not consider the role of signaling in compounding inequity, and they do not investigate the impact of interventions like our standardized test. Unlike us, they do not consider the case where the schools have imperfect observations of the students’ types. Such work falls into a broader literature on optimal information structures (e.g., [@RS10]).
The impact of information asymmetries is a common theme in economics today, with key early work including Brocas and Carrillo [@BC08]. Our model of signaling is inspired by the influential work on Bayesian Persuasion [@KG11], where a persuader (played, in our model, by the school) commits to revealing some fixed function of the types of the population it serves; this revelation is used as the basis of a decision that impacts the welfare of both the decider and the persuader (and the persuader’s constituents). The Bayesian Persuasion model has been applied to a variety of domains, e.g. [@BBM15; @RJJX15; @XRDT15; @KMP14; @BDP07; @EFGPT12; @JM06; @AR06], and generalizations and alternatives to this model have been studied in [@RS10; @AB16; @GK17; @AC16; @GK14; @KMZL17]. Recent work [@D14; @D17; @DH16; @DH17; @EFGPT12; @GD13; @DIR14] has explored algorithmic aspects of persuasion settings. To our knowledge, ours is the first work to consider access to population-level signaling, Bayesian Persuasion, or information design as a source of inequity.
Recent work on fairness has highlighted a number of objectives that one might wish to enforce when allocating resources to or making decisions about large numbers of individuals. At a high level, these objectives tend to focus either on ensuring group-level fairness [@FFMS15; @Kamiran2012; @HDF13; @HPS16; @FSV16; @Choul17; @KMR17; @ZVGG17; @KNRW18] or individual-level fairness [@DHPRZ12; @JKMR16; @KKMPRVW17]. The metrics we study—expected utility, false positive rates and false negative rates—are generally considered to be metrics of group fairness, but they also (coarsely) compare the extent to which similar individuals are being treated similarly.
One very interesting recent paper on fairness [@HC17] does incorporate Spence-style individual-level signaling; in their model, a worker can choose whether and how much to invest in human capital, and this acts as an imperfect signal on whether the worker is qualified. Although their model and its implications are very different from ours, they similarly investigate the impact of upstream interventions on downstream group-level unfairness. Similar notions of individual-level signaling can also be found in [@FV92; @CL93].
Model {#sec:model}
=====
We consider a setting with high schools (henceforth, “schools”), and a single university. A school has a population of students. Each student $i$ has a binary type $t_i \in \{0,1\}$ that represents the quality of the student. The students’ types are drawn i.i.d. from a Bernoulli distribution with mean $p$; that is, a student has type $1$ w.p. $p$ and $0$ w.p. $1-p$. A student’s type is private, that is, known to the student but unknown to both the school and the university. The prior $p$ is public and common knowledge to all agents.
A school observes noisy information about the types of each of its students. To formally model this, we assume student $i$ has a grade $g_i\in\{0,1\}$, which is observed by the school but is unknown to the university.
The grade $g_i$ for student $i$ is drawn as follows: $\Pr[g_i = 0 | t_i = 0] = \Pr[g_i= 1 | t_i = 1 ] = q$, for $q \in [1/2,1]$.[^5] That is, the student’s type is flipped with some probability $1-q$. As $q$ increases, the grade $g_i$ becomes a more accurate estimate of the student’s type $t_i$. The grade $g_i$ is known to the school but [*not*]{} the university. The distribution $q$ of the grade, however, is public, i.e., common knowledge to all parties.
A school has access to a (possibly trivial or uncountably infinite) set of signals $\Sigma$, and commits to a signaling scheme mapping grades $g$ to probability distributions over signals in $\Sigma$. For each student $i$, the university makes an accept/reject decision based on the distribution of the types $p$, the distribution of the grades $q$, and the realization of the signal chosen by the school. The goal of the university is to maximize the quality of the students it accepts.[^6] In particular, we model the university as having additive utility over the set of students it accepts, with utility $1$ for accepting a student of high type ($t_i=1$), and utility $-1$ for a student with low type ($t_i=0$). We assume that the university has unlimited capacity; therefore, the university accepts exactly those students who induce non-negative expected utility given the common priors and the signal.[^7] We measure a school’s utility by the expected fraction of its students who are admitted to the university. We note that this choice of utility measures the [*access to opportunity*]{} (defined as admittance to university) of the school’s students. We refer to a school as *revealing* if it simply transmits the grade to the university as the signal. We refer to a school as *strategic* if it employs the optimal strategic signaling scheme, as examined in Section \[sec:opt\_scheme\]. A strategic school thus maximizes its expected utility.
In several places, we will discuss the distribution of students accepted by the university. To do so, it is useful to introduce the notions of *false positive* and *false negative* rates. The *false positive rate* of a school is the (expected) probability that a student with type $0$ is accepted by the university. The *false negative rate* of a school is the (expected) probability that a student with type $1$ is rejected by the university.
We introduce several assumptions that restrict our attention to settings of interest. First, we assume the expected quality of a student is negative, such that the university would reject students without any signal from the school.
\[as: utility\_noinfo\] The university’s expected utility for accepting any given student, absent any auxiliary information, is negative, i.e., $p - (1-p) <0$, and therefore $p < 1/2.$
Next we assume the university’s expected utility of accepting a student with a high (resp. low) grade is positive (resp. negative).
\[as: grades\] The university has non-negative expected utility for accepting a student with a high grade, and negative expected utility for accepting a student with a low grade: $$\begin{aligned}
&\Pr \left[t = 1 | g = 1 \right] - \Pr \left[t = 0 | g = 1 \right] \geq 0;
\\&\Pr \left[t = 1 | g = 0 \right] - \Pr \left[t = 0 | g = 0 \right] < 0. \end{aligned}$$ These can be rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
& p q - (1-p)(1-q) \geq 0;
\\& p (1-q) - (1-p) q < 0. \end{aligned}$$
We note that if the expected utility of accepting a student with a high grade were negative, then none of the school’s students would be admitted by the university under any signaling scheme. On the other hand, if the expected utility of accepting a student with a low grade were positive, then the university would always accept every student.[^8] Thus, this assumption restricts our analysis to the regime in which the utilities of revealing and strategic schools may differ.
The following easy consequence of these assumptions will be useful in our analysis.
\[clm: min\_q\] Under Assumption \[as: utility\_noinfo\], Assumption \[as: grades\] implies $q \geq 1-p.$
We conclude with the following well-known result (see, e.g., Kamenica and Gentzkow [@KG11]) that an optimal signaling scheme contains, without loss of generality, at most as many signals as there are actions available to the decision-maker. In our setting, this corresponds to restricting $|\Sigma|=2$ as the university makes an accept/reject decision for each student.
The result, reproduced below for our setting, follows from a revelation-principle type argument. The idea is to replicate the utilities of a signaling scheme with many signals by first producing a signal according to the original scheme and then simply reporting to the university, as a signal in the simplified scheme, the action $\sigma^+=$ [*accept*]{} or $\sigma^-=$ [*reject*]{} that it would choose to take as a result of seeing the original signal.
\[clm: rev\_principle\] Suppose $\Sigma$ is a measurable (but potentially uncountable) set with at least two elements. Let $\Sigma'$ be such that $|\Sigma'| = 2$. Given any original signaling scheme mapping to $\Delta\left(\Sigma\right)$, there exists a new signaling scheme mapping to $\Delta\left(\Sigma'\right)$ that induces the same utilities for the school and the university as those induced by the original scheme. Further, one can write $\Sigma' = \{\sigma^-,\sigma^+\}$ such that a student with signal $\sigma^+$ is accepted by the university with probability $1$, and a student with signal $\sigma^-$ is rejected with probability $1$.
When $|\Sigma|=1$, signals carry no information, making mute the question of access to signaling schemes. Therefore, throughout the paper, we make the assumption that $\vert \Sigma \vert = 2$ and denote its elements by $\Sigma=\{\sigma^+,\sigma^-\}$. This is without loss of generality, by the argument above.
The impacts of signaling schemes
================================
The goal of this paper is to highlight the role of access to strategic signaling in creating unequal access to opportunity and explore the intervention of a standardized test as a way to combat this inequity. In order to do so, we first formulate optimal signaling schemes, and then we study their impact on students and their relationship to noisy grades.
Optimal signaling scheme {#sec:opt_scheme}
------------------------
We first derive the optimal signaling scheme. The idea is to pack low-quality students together with high quality students by giving both the [*accept*]{} signal $\sigma^+$. A school is limited in the extent to which it can do so, as it must ensure the university obtains non-negative expected utility by accepting all the students who have signal $\sigma^+$. The following theorem provides the right balance.
\[thm:opt\_signal\] The optimal signaling scheme for a school is $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 0 \right] &= \frac{p + q - 1}{q - p}\\
\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 1 \right] &= 1.\end{aligned}$$
As per the revelation principle in Theorem \[clm: rev\_principle\], we can let $\sigma^+$ be a signal such that all students with that signal are accepted by the university, and $\sigma^-$ a signal such that all students with that signal are rejected. Conditional on $\sigma^+$, we can write the probabilities that a student is of each type as $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr &[ t = 1 | \sigma^+] \\
=& \frac{\Pr \left[ t = 1, \sigma^+ \right]}{\Pr \left[\sigma^+ \right]}\\
=& \Pr[t = 1]\cdot\frac{\Pr[\sigma^+ | t = 1]}{\Pr[\sigma^+]}\\
=& \Pr[t = 1]\cdot\frac{\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1]\Pr[g = 1 | t = 1] + \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0] \Pr[g = 0 | t = 1]}{\Pr[\sigma^+]}\\
=& p \cdot \frac{q \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1] + (1-q)
\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0]}{\Pr \left[\sigma^+\right]}\end{aligned}$$ and, similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr [ t = 0 | \sigma^+]
&= (1-p) \cdot \frac{(1-q) \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1] + q \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0]}{\Pr \left[\sigma^+\right]}.\end{aligned}$$
The university’s expected utility when accepting all those students with signal $\sigma^+$ is non-negative if and only if such a student is at least as likely to be of type $1$ as of type $0$, that is, $\Pr[t = 0 | \sigma^+] \leq \Pr[t = 1 | \sigma^+ ]$. Plugging in and rearranging, this gives the constraint $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0] &\cdot \left( q (1-p) - p (1-q) \right)\\
&\leq \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1] \cdot \left( p q - (1-q) (1-p) \right).\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $q ( 1 - p) - p (1-q) > 0$ by Assumption \[as: grades\], and thus the constraint can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0] &\leq \frac{ p q - (1-q) (1-p)}{ q ( 1 - p) - p (1-q) } \cdot \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1] \\
&= \frac{p + q - 1}{q - p}\cdot \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1].\end{aligned}$$ The school’s expected utility is $$\Pr[\sigma^+] = \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0]\Pr[g = 0] + \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1] \Pr[g = 1].$$ Since $\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1]$ is unconstrained, the school’s utility is maximized by setting it to $1$. The school’s utility is, similarly, maximized by maximizing the value of $\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0]$, which, given the constraint, occurs by setting $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0]
&= \frac{p + q - 1}{q - p}\cdot \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1]\\
& = \frac{p + q - 1}{q - p}.\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
School’s utility, false positive and false negative rates {#sec:utilfprfnr}
---------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we calculate the expected utility, false positive, and false negative rate achieved by a school, depending on the accuracy of its grades and whether it uses the optimal strategic signaling scheme when transmitting information about its students to the university. These lemmas will form the basis of our evaluation of the impacts of strategic signaling, in Section \[sec:consequences\]. Recall that we refer to a school that does not strategically signal and instead transmits its raw grades to the university as *revealing*.
The proofs of the following Lemmas follow by direct calculations. We provide an exposition of the more involved calculations of Lemmas \[lem:signal-util\] and \[lem:signal-fairness\] in Appendix \[app: proofs\_noexam\].
\[lem:reveal-util\] The expected utility $U_r(p,q)$ of a revealing school is $$U_r(p,q) = p q + (1-p)(1-q).$$ For the special case of a revealing school with accurate grades (when $q = 1$), we have $$U_r(p,1) = p.$$
A revealing school gets exactly the students with high grades accepted, as per Assumption \[as: grades\]; in particular, a $q$ fraction of high-type students will have a high grade and be accepted, while a $(1-q)$ fraction of the low-type students will be accepted.
\[lem:signal-util\] A school’s expected utility $U_s(p,q)$ when it signals strategically is given by $$\begin{aligned}
U_s(p,q) = 1 + (p + q - 2 p q) \cdot \frac{2 p - 1}{q - p}.\end{aligned}$$ For the special case of a strategic school with accurate grades (when $q = 1$), we have $$U_s(p,1) = 2p.$$
A school that signals strategically gets exactly those students with a signal of $\sigma^+$ accepted, as per the revelation principle argument of Theorem \[clm: rev\_principle\]; a student with a high grade will be accepted with probability $\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 1 \right]$ and a student with a low grade with probability $\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 0 \right]$, with the probabilities chosen according to Theorem \[thm:opt\_signal\].
\[lem:reveal-fairness\] When a school is revealing, the false positive rate is given by $$\begin{aligned}
FPR_r(p,q) = 1 - q\end{aligned}$$ and the false negative rate by $$\begin{aligned}
FNR_r(p,q) = 1 - q.\end{aligned}$$ For the special case of a revealing school with accurate grades (when $q = 1$), we have $FPR_r(p, 1) = FNR_r(p, 1) = 0$.
In the case of a revealing school, a low-type (resp. high-type) student obtains a low (resp. high) grade and gets rejected (resp. accepted) with probability $1 - q$, i.e., if the grade does not match the type.
\[lem:signal-fairness\] When a school signals strategically, the false positive rate is given by $$\begin{aligned}
FPR_s(p,q)= 1-q + q \cdot \frac{p + q - 1}{q - p } \end{aligned}$$ and the false negative rate by $$\begin{aligned}
FNR_s(p,q) =(1-q) \frac{ 1- 2p}{ q -p }.\end{aligned}$$ For the special case of a strategic school with accurate grades (when $q = 1$), we have $FPR_s(p,1) = \frac{p}{1-p}$ and $FNR_s(p,1) = 0.$
In the case of a school that signals strategically according to Theorem \[thm:opt\_signal\], a low-type student gets accepted with probability $\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 1 \right] = 1$ if his grade is $1$ (which occurs with probability $1 - q$), and probability $\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 0 \right]$ if his grade is $g = 0$ (which occurs with probability $q$). On the other hand, a high-type student gets rejected when his signal is $\sigma^-$; because $\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 1 \right] = 1$, this happens only when $g = 0$ and the signal is $\sigma^-$, i.e. with probability $\Pr \left[\sigma^- |~g = 0 \right] \Pr[g=0 | t=1]$.
#### Remark
While we chose to focus on average population (i.e., school) utility in this paper, because of space constraints, one can use these derivations of FRP and FNP to calculate the welfare of subpopulations, such as low-type students at a revealing school, which then implies population-level utility comparisons as well. One interesting observation is that, using the above Lemmas and Assumptions \[as: utility\_noinfo\] and \[as: grades\], one can see that the FPR of a strategic school is [*larger*]{} and the FNR [*smaller*]{} than that of a revealing school. Thus, while it is intuitively obvious that low-type students prefer a strategic school, these calculations show that high-type students also prefer a strategic school (and the preference is strict unless the assumptions hold with equality).
Consequences of strategic signaling for access to opportunity
-------------------------------------------------------------
\[sec:consequences\]
In this section, we quantify the impact of access to strategic signaling and its interaction with accuracy of the information (grades) on which the signals are based. We study both the resulting expected utility of a school as well as the resulting acceptance rates of both types of students. We find that the ability to strategically signal always has a positive (although bounded) impact, increasing students’ acceptance rates and the school’s expected utility. The benefit of strategic signaling for both students and the school improves (boundedly so) with the accuracy of the grades, whereas a revealing school and its students receive (potentially dramatically) higher expected utility from noisy grades. The following theorem is a direct consequence of Lemmas \[lem: monotonicity\_results\], \[lem: effect\_grades\_fix\_revealing\], \[lem: effect\_grades\_fix\_strat\], \[lem: effect\_strategic\_fix\_acc\_g\], and \[lem: effect\_strategic\_fix\_noisy\_g\] in the Appendix.
\[thm: utility\_comparison\] For all $p < 1/2$ and $q>q'\geq 1-p$, the following hold:
- accuracy in grades benefits strategic schools, $$\frac{1}{1 - p} U_s(p,q')\geq U_s(p,q) \geq U_s(p,q');$$
- strategic schools have higher expected utility than revealing schools, $$2 U_r(p,q) \geq U_s(p,q) \geq U_r(p,q);$$
- and accuracy in grades harms revealing schools, $$2(1-p) U_r(p,q)\geq U_r(p,q') \geq U_r(p,q).$$
Further, all above bounds are tight for some $q, q'$.
We see that, perhaps counter-intuitively, adding noise to the grades can help a revealing school get more students admitted, up to a point[^9]. This follows from the fact that adding noise to the grade increases the number of students with a high grade overall, by Assumption \[as: utility\_noinfo\], as there are more low-type students (whose representation increases as grade accuracy decreases) than high-type students (whose representation decreases as grade accuracy decreases). Adding noise to grades is, however, a blunt instrument, in that it drives up both false negatives and false positives (see Lemma \[lem:reveal-fairness\]), which limits its utility benefits. The ability to signal strategically is more subtle, driving up false positives (and expected utility), at no cost of false negatives. The power of strategic signaling is maximized when schools have access to highly accurate grades. Accurate information, the ability to control the noise level of that information, and, most notably, the ability to strategically signal about that information, therefore constitute powerful drivers of unequal access to opportunity in settings where key information is transmitted to a decision-maker on behalf of a population.
We can derive comparisons resulting in similar insights for the false positive and false negative rates of revealing and strategic schools (see Appendix \[app: false\_rates\_noexam\]).
Intervention: Standardized Test {#sec: standardized_exam}
===============================
The prior sections show that unequal access to strategic signaling can result in unequal access to opportunity. This is driven by high error rates for students accepted from schools with signaling technologies and/or noisy grades. The university has a vested interested in decreasing this error rate as it harms the university’s utility. In addition, an outside body or the university itself might be concerned about the resulting unequal access to opportunity. In this section, we explore the impact of a common intervention: the standardized test. While availability of a test score certainly can only improve the expected utility of the university,[^10] we find that it has an ambiguous effect on the inequity. In particular, for a large range of parameter settings, the introduction of a test can [*increase*]{} the inequality in access to opportunity.
Augmented model
---------------
Throughout this section, we augment the model of Section \[sec:model\] to add the requirement that each student must take a test, and the results of that test are visible both to the student’s school and to the university. (The school may then incorporate the test results into its subsequent strategic behavior.)
We model the test score $s_i\in \{0,1 \}$ of student $i$ as a noisy estimate of $t_i$, conditionally independent from the grade $g_i$, obtained as follows: $\Pr[s_i = 0 | t_i = 0] = \Pr[s_i= 1 | t_i = 1 ] = \delta$, for $\delta \in [1/2,1]$.[^11] The score $s_i$ is public, i.e., the school and the university both observe it.
A school has access to a set of signals $\Sigma$ as before, but now can design a signaling scheme $\sigma:\{0,1\}\times\{0,1\}\rightarrow\Delta(\Sigma)$ that is a function of both the student’s grade and his test score; i.e., the school designs $\Pr \left[\sigma |~g_i,s_i \right]$ for $\sigma \in \Sigma$. The university again makes accept/reject decisions that maximize its expected utility, but now the university has access to the test score $s_i$ and its distribution $\delta$ as well as the signal and the distributions $p$ and $q$. As before, a [*strategic*]{} school chooses a signaling scheme that maximizes the fraction of students accepted whereas a [*revealing*]{} school simply transmits the grade to the university as the signal.
As in Section \[sec:model\], we introduce an assumption controlling the noise $\delta$ of the test.
\[as: util\_SAT\] The university has non-negative expected utility for accepting a student with a high test score, and negative expected utility for accepting a student with a low test score: $$\begin{aligned}
0 &\leq p \delta - (1-p) (1-\delta) \\ 0 &> p (1-\delta) - (1-p) \delta .$$
We note that if the expected utility of accepting a student with a high test score were negative, or the expected utility of accepting a student with a low test score were positive, then in the absence of signals, the university would always accept either none or all of the students. Note that regimes when the standardized test is uninformative on its own but becomes informative when coupled with grades may still be interesting. However, even under Assumption \[as: util\_SAT\], which excludes certain parameter ranges from consideration, we have a rich enough model to illustrate our main findings. In Appendix \[app: relaxed\_assumption\] we show how to relax this assumption, and how doing so affects the optimal signaling scheme.
The following consequence will be useful in our analysis.
Under Assumption \[as: utility\_noinfo\], Assumption \[as: util\_SAT\] implies $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \geq 1-p.\end{aligned}$$
Fixing $p$, we denote by $u_{q,\delta}(g,s)$ the expected utility the university derives from admitting a student with score $s$ and grade $g$: $$\begin{aligned}
u_{q,\delta}(g,s):=\Pr[t_i=1|~g,s]-\Pr[t_i=0|~g,s].\end{aligned}$$ When $\delta=q=1$, $u_{q,\delta}(s,g)$ is not defined for $s\not=g$ as in this case $s$ and $g$ are perfectly correlated. For notational convenience, we define $u_{q,\delta}(s,g)=-1$ in these cases.
\[lem: SAT+gradesconditions\] Assumptions \[as: grades\] and \[as: util\_SAT\] together imply that the university receives non-negative expected utility from accepting a student with both a high grade and a high score, and negative expected utility from a student with both a low grade and a low score: $$u_{q,\delta}(1,1) \geq 0 > u_{q,\delta}(0,0).$$ This can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
& p q \delta - (1-p)(1-q) (1-\delta) \geq 0;
\\& p (1-q) (1-\delta) - (1-p) q \delta < 0.\end{aligned}$$
Theorem \[clm: rev\_principle\] (the revelation principle) also holds in this setting, and so we assume for the remainder of this section that $\Sigma = \{\sigma^-, \sigma^+\}$, without loss of generality.
Optimal signaling
-----------------
We first derive the optimal strategic signaling scheme. Again, a school would like to pack low-quality students together with high quality students, but is now limited in its ability to do so by their test scores. If the expected utility the university receives from a student with a high grade but low test score is negative ($u_{q,\delta}(1,0)<0$), then this student (and in fact any student with a low test score) will be rejected regardless of the signal from the school. Otherwise ($u_{q,\delta}(1,0)\geq0$), the school can signal to the university to accept such a student, and can additionally pack in some low-grade-low-score students, subject to maintaining non-negative expected utility for the university.
\[thm:opt-signaling-exam\] The optimal signaling scheme for a school with access to grades and a test score, under Assumption \[as: util\_SAT\], is $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 1,s = 1 \right] &= 1\\
\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 0,s = 1 \right] &= 1\\
\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 1,s = 0 \right] &=
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if}\ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0 \\
0, & \text{if}\ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) < 0
\end{cases}\\
\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 0,s = 0 \right] &=
\begin{cases}
\frac{p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta }{ (1-p) q \delta - p (1-q) (1-\delta) }, & \text{if}\ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0\\
0, & \text{if}\ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) < 0
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
We defer the proof to Appendix \[app: proofs\_withexam\].
School’s utility, false positive and false negative rates {#schools-utility-false-positive-and-false-negative-rates}
---------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we calculate the expected utility achieved by both a strategic school and a revealing school as a function of the type distribution, the accuracy of its grades, and the accuracy of the standardized test score. We defer all proofs to Appendix \[app: proofs\_withexam\].
For a revealing school, the university always accepts high-grade high-score students. If high grades are more informative than low test scores (that is, if $u_{q,\delta}(1,0)\geq0$, which depends on $p$ as well as $q$ and $\delta$ and happens, for instance, if $p=1/4$, $q=9/10$, and $\delta=7/10$), then the university also accepts students with low test scores, benefiting the school. Alternatively, if high test scores are more informative than low grades (i.e., $u_{q,\delta}(0,1)\geq 0$), then the university also accepts students with low grades. These conditions provide additional boosts to the utility of a revealing school.
\[lem:revealing-util-exam\] The expected utility $U_r(p,q,\delta)$ of a revealing school with access to grades and a test score is $$\begin{aligned}
U_r(p,q,\delta)
&= p q \delta + (1-p)(1-q)(1-\delta)
\\&+ \mathbbm{1} \left[ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0 \right] \left(p q (1-\delta) + (1-p)(1-q) \delta \right)
\\&+ \mathbbm{1} \left[ u_{q,\delta}(0,1) \geq 0 \right] \left(p (1-q) \delta + (1-p) q (1-\delta) \right).\end{aligned}$$ For the special case of a revealing school with accurate grades (when $q = 1$), we have $$U_r(p,1,\delta) = p.$$
As illustrated in Figure \[fig:utilities\], for fixed $p$ and $\delta$, $U_r(p,q,\delta)$ may not be a decreasing function of $q$. In fact, when $q$ is small enough, the grades are completely uninformative and the university only admits students with a test score of $1$. In that regime, the expected utility for a revealing school is therefore constant in $q$. For intermediate values of $q$, the grades are still uninformative on their own but are informative coupled with a high standardized test score; at this point, only students with both a score and a grade of $1$ get admitted by the university, and the school’s expected utility suddenly drops when compared to smaller $q$. The school’s expected utility in that regime is increasing in $q$ as, under Assumption \[as: util\_SAT\], increasing the value of $q$ increases the fraction of students with both high scores and high grades. Finally, when $q$ is large enough, the grades are significant enough on their own that only students with high grades are admitted; this leads to a jump in expected utility compared to the intermediate regime. In this regime for high values of $q$, the school’s expected utility is decreasing as a result of the fact that increasing the value of $q$ now decreases the number of students with a high grade by Assumption \[as: utility\_noinfo\], as seen in Section \[sec:consequences\].
\[lem:signaling-util-exam\] The expected utility $U_s(p,q)$ when a school signals strategically and $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) <0$ is $$U_s(p,q,\delta) = p \delta + (1-p) (1-\delta);$$ when $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0$, the expected utility is $$\begin{aligned}
U_s(p,q,\delta)
&= \left(1 - p (1-q) (1-\delta) - (1-p)q\delta \right)
\\&+ \left( p (1-q) (1-\delta) + (1-p) q \delta \right) \frac{p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta }{ (1-p) q \delta - p (1-q) (1-\delta)}. \end{aligned}$$ For the special case of a strategic school with accurate grades (when $q = 1$), we have $$U_s(p,1,\delta) = 1 - \delta + p.$$
The expected utility of a strategic school is, unsurprisingly, monotone in $q$ (as illustrated in Figure \[fig:utilities\]), as higher-quality information about its students’ types allows the school to signal more effectively. For small and intermediate values of $q$ (i.e., insignificant grades), the university bases admission decisions solely on the standardized test score and only admits students with a score of $1$ (it has positive expected utility from doing so, by Assumption \[as: util\_SAT\]); in this regime, a strategic school’s expected utility is hence constant. When $q$ becomes large enough, i.e., when the grades are significant enough, the university starts having positive expected utility from admitting students with a high grade even if they have a low score, and the school can start bundling these students together with the high score students, leading to a jump in its expected utility. The plotted parameters for the figures are chosen to satisfy Assumptions \[as: utility\_noinfo\], \[as: grades\] and \[as: util\_SAT\]; the discontinuities occur at $q$ such that $u_{q,\delta}(0,1) = 0$ and $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) = 0$.
We also calculate the false positive and false negative rates of strategic and revealing schools; we defer this derivation to Appendix \[app: false\_rates\_withexam\].
Impact of Standardized Test
---------------------------
With a perfect standardized test or, in fact, a sufficiently good one, (i.e., high enough $\delta$), it is not hard to see that the university accepts exactly those students with a high test score from strategic as well as revealing schools. Thus, no matter the accuracy of the grades or distribution of types, the standardized test results in equal expected utility, and hence equal access to opportunity, for revealing and strategic schools (see Appendix \[app: ratio\_utilities\_with\_exam\] for details). Similarly, if grades are accurate (i.e., $q=1$), then a revealing school’s expected utility is fixed at $p$ whereas a strategic school’s expected utility is only diminished (from $2p$ without the test) by the extra constraints introduced by a standardized test. Thus, in this case as well, a standardized test decreases the inequality between the utilities of a strategic and a revealing school, making the ratio of utilities less than $2$ (see Appendix \[app: ratio\_utilities\_with\_exam\] for details). Figure \[fig:truthful\_vs\_strategic\] plots $U_s(p,q)/U_r(p,q)$, with and without test scores, as a function of $q$, for $p = 0.35$ and different values of $\delta$. The form of the utility ratio between a strategic and a revealing school in the absence of a test score follows from the fact that both utilities are continuous, and that the expected utility of a strategic school increases while that of a revealing school decreases in $q$, as we have seen in Section \[sec:consequences\]. The form in the presence of a test score can be explained as follows. First, when in the regime of small values of $q$, only students with a high standardized test score are admitted by the university, in which case admission decisions do not depend on how the schools act and both the strategic school and the revealing school have the same expected utility, leading to a ratio of $1$. For intermediate values of $q$, we have previously discussed that the utility for a strategic school remains constant (the university still has positive utility for students with a score of $1$ and the strategic school can bundle all such students together, regardless of grade), while the utility for a revealing school suddenly drops (only students with both a high grade and a high score are admitted) and is increasing in $q$, explaining the sudden drop in ratio of utilities at the change of regime, and the decreasing monotonicity of the ratio in $q$ within the intermediate regime. When $q$ becomes large enough, we have seen that both the revealing and the strategic school experience a jump in utilities, which explains the second discontinuity in the ratio of utilities. Because the revealing school has significantly lower utility than the strategic school for intermediate values of $q$, the relative jump in the utility of a revealing school is higher than the relative jump in utility of a strategic school. Interestingly, we observe that the introduction of a standardized test does not always decrease inequity. For noisy grades, when the test score is also sufficiently noisy, the test may have the effect of increasing the ratio of utilities between a strategic school and a revealing school. This is clearly illustrated in Figure \[fig:truthful\_vs\_strategic\], where the curve with test scores sometimes lies above that without a test. Some intuition for this result is as follows. In the regime for intermediate values of $q$, as $q$ becomes more and more inaccurate, the ratio of utilities in the presence of a standardized test increases and eventually overtakes the ratio in the absence of a standardized test (which decreases to $1$ as the grades become more inaccurate). In the regime for high values of $q$, the university admits students with a high grade only, independently of what their standardized test scores are; therefore, the utility of a revealing school is the same with or without a standardized test. On the other hand, when the standardized test score becomes more inaccurate, the strategic school can take advantage of the noise in said score to bundle in more students than if there was no standardized test: the university loses in utility from accepting unqualified students with high scores, but at the same time gains in utility from accepting qualified students with low scores, allowing a strategic school to bundle more students when compared to the case with no standardized test. As $\delta$ decreases and the standardized test becomes less and less accurate, a strategic school starts losing fewer high-score students to rejection than it gains in admitted low-score students, and its utility increases.
Further discussion and future directions
========================================
Our paper, in introducing the study of inequity induced by population-level signaling, raises a number of directions for future work. We discuss a few of them here.
First, one might be interested in enriching the model of the standardized test intervention. For example, there could be asymmetries in how students from different schools perform on the standardized test. One might imagine students at an advantaged school might be better prepared for the test (e.g., by investment in expensive test-prep courses), giving them an edge in the form of an increased probability of performing well on the test. Suppose, for example, that high-type students in an advantaged school had a higher probability of passing the test than high-type students at a disadvantaged school. In such a situation, more high-type students from the advantaged school would be admitted by the university, and, as the utility for the university to accept high score students increased, the advantaged school could also bundle a larger number of low-type students with its high-type students. That is, a jump in high-types’ exam performance increases students’ utilities at that school, even for low types; this effect could further exacerbate disparities between and an advantaged and a disadvantaged school. An interesting question could be to quantify how much disparities between schools would increase in such a setting. One could also analyze other variants of advantage on the exam, such as an increased probability of passing both for high-types and for low-types.
One might also imagine that students in an advantaged school might have access to more resources and could take the standardized test several times, while students in a disadvantaged school could only take the test once. When only the highest test score is reported to the university (as is common in practice for university admissions in the United States), it can be seen that this reduces to the situation described above, in which students in each school take the standardized test exactly once, but students in the advantaged school have a higher probability of passing. An extreme case of such a situation would be when the advantaged school’s students could take the test enough times that they would pass with a probability approaching $1$; in such a case, a test score from the advantaged school would be meaningless to the university. On the other hand, the test would still be significant for the disadvantaged school, and could have the effect of reducing the number of its students that are accepted, further increasing disparities between schools. A natural question would be to quantify such disparities for intermediate values of the number of times that an advantaged-school student can take the standardized test.
Finally, throughout the paper, we assume that the university has unlimited capacity and is willing to accept every student that provides it with non-negative expected utility. One might ask what would happen if the university had a limited capacity. The university might then rank students as a function of their school of origin, their signal, and their test score (in the presence of a standardized test), and only accepted the highest-ranked students. If an advantaged school had the ability to make its students look better than a disadvantaged school (for example, an advantaged school might have more accurate grades and have a higher ability to strategically signal), then the advantaged school could guarantee that some of its students would get first pick by the university, to the detriment of a disadvantaged school—which would only have access to the (possibly small) remaining capacity. A natural direction would be to understand how much of an effect this limited capacity setting can have on inequity.
[0.45]{} ![Strategic school utility $U_s(p,q,\delta)$ and revealing school utility $U_r(p,q,\delta)$ as a function of the grade accuracy $q$, for average student type $p = 0.35$. We observe that the expected utility may be non-monotone in $q$. []{data-label="fig:utilities"}](utils_d010.png "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} ![Strategic school utility $U_s(p,q,\delta)$ and revealing school utility $U_r(p,q,\delta)$ as a function of the grade accuracy $q$, for average student type $p = 0.35$. We observe that the expected utility may be non-monotone in $q$. []{data-label="fig:utilities"}](utils_d020.png "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} ![Strategic school utility $U_s(p,q,\delta)$ and revealing school utility $U_r(p,q,\delta)$ as a function of the grade accuracy $q$, for average student type $p = 0.35$. We observe that the expected utility may be non-monotone in $q$. []{data-label="fig:utilities"}](utils_d025.png "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} ![Strategic school utility $U_s(p,q,\delta)$ and revealing school utility $U_r(p,q,\delta)$ as a function of the grade accuracy $q$, for average student type $p = 0.35$. We observe that the expected utility may be non-monotone in $q$. []{data-label="fig:utilities"}](utils_d035.png "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} ![The ratio $U_s(p,q)/U_r(p,q)$ of utilities of a strategic school vs. a revealing school, as a function of the grade accuracy $q$, with and without test score. We observe that the test score intervention may increase inequality.[]{data-label="fig:truthful_vs_strategic"}](comp_signal_d010.png "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} ![The ratio $U_s(p,q)/U_r(p,q)$ of utilities of a strategic school vs. a revealing school, as a function of the grade accuracy $q$, with and without test score. We observe that the test score intervention may increase inequality.[]{data-label="fig:truthful_vs_strategic"}](comp_signal_d020.png "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} ![The ratio $U_s(p,q)/U_r(p,q)$ of utilities of a strategic school vs. a revealing school, as a function of the grade accuracy $q$, with and without test score. We observe that the test score intervention may increase inequality.[]{data-label="fig:truthful_vs_strategic"}](comp_signal_d025.png "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} ![The ratio $U_s(p,q)/U_r(p,q)$ of utilities of a strategic school vs. a revealing school, as a function of the grade accuracy $q$, with and without test score. We observe that the test score intervention may increase inequality.[]{data-label="fig:truthful_vs_strategic"}](comp_signal_d035.png "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
False positive and negative rates – Model without standardized test {#app: false_rates_noexam}
===================================================================
\[thm: FPR+FNR\_comparison\] For all $p < 1/2$ and $q>q'\geq 1-p$, the following hold:
- increasing grade accuracy increases the $FPR$ and decreases the $FNR$ of a strategic school, $$\frac{1}{1 - p} FPR_s(p,q')\geq FPR_s(p,q) \geq FPR_s(p,q'),$$ $$FNR_s(p,q') \geq FNR_s(p,q);$$
- signaling increases the $FPR$ and decreases the $FNR$ as compared with revealing, $$FPR_s(p,q) \geq FPR_r(p,q)$$ $$\frac{1-2p}{1-p} FNR_r(p,q) \leq FNR_s(p,q) \leq FNR_r(p,q);$$
- increasing grade accuracy decreases both the $FPR$ and the $FNR$ of a revealing school $$FPR_r(p,q') \geq FPR_r(p,q),$$ $$FNR_r(p,q') \geq FNR_r(p,q).$$
Further, all above bounds are tight for some $q, q'$.
This is a direct consequence of Lemmas \[lem: monotonicity\_results\], \[lem: effect\_grades\_fix\_revealing\], \[lem: effect\_grades\_fix\_strat\], \[lem: effect\_strategic\_fix\_acc\_g\], and \[lem: effect\_strategic\_fix\_noisy\_g\].
Missing Lemmas and Proofs - Model Without Standardized Test {#app: proofs_noexam}
===========================================================
$$\begin{aligned}
U_s(p,q)
=& \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1] \left(pq + (1-p) (1-q) \right) \\
&+ \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0] \left(p (1-q) + q (1-p) \right)
\\=& (1 + 2p q - p -q) + \left(p + q - 2 p q \right) \cdot \frac{p + q - 1}{q - p}
\\=& 1 + (p + q - 2 p q) \cdot \frac{2 p - 1}{q - p}. \qedhere\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
FPR_s(p,q)
=& \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1] \Pr[g=1 | t=0] \\
&+ \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0] \Pr[g=0 | t=0]
\\=& 1-q + q \cdot \frac{p + q - 1}{q - p } \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
FNR_s(p,q)=& \left(1-\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1]\right) \Pr[g=1 | t=1] \\
&+ \left(1-\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0] \right) \Pr[g=0 | t=1]
\\=& (1-q) \left( 1-\frac{p + q - 1}{q - p } \right)
\\=&(1-q) \frac{ 1- 2p}{ q -p }.\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
\[lem: monotonicity\_results\] Suppose $p < 1/2$. Then $U_s(p,q)$ and $FPR_s(p,q)$ are increasing functions of $q \in [1-p,1]$. On the other hand, $U_r(p,q)$, $FPR_r(p,q)$, $FNR_r(p,q)$ and $FNR_s(p,q)$ are decreasing functions of $q \in [1-p,1]$.
We first consider the expected utility of a strategic school. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial U_s}{\partial q}\left(p,q\right)
&= \frac{2p-1}{(q-p)^2} \left((1-2p) (q-p) - (p + q - 2pq) \right)
\\&= \frac{2p-1}{(q-p)^2} \left(q-p-2pq + 2p^2 -p -q + 2pq\right)
\\& = 2 \frac{2p-1}{(q-p)^2} p (p-1)
\\&> 0,\end{aligned}$$ since $p < 1$ and by Assumption \[as: grades\], $2p - 1 < 0$. Therefore, $U_s(p,q)$ is increasing in $q$.
We next consider the FPR of a strategic school. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial FPR_s}{\partial q}\left(p,q\right) = \frac{2p (q-p) - (2pq - p)}{(q-p)^2} = \frac{p - 2p^2}{(q-p)^2} > 0\end{aligned}$$ as $p < 1/2$ implies $p-2p^2 = p(1-2p) > 0$.
$U_r(p,q) = p q + (1-p) (1-q) = (2p -1) q + 1 - p$ is decreasing in $q$ as $2p - 1 < 0$. $FPR_r(p,q) = FNR_r(p,q) = 1-q$ are immediately decreasing in $q$. $FNR_s(p,q) = (1-q) \frac{1-2p}{q-p}$ is decreasing in $q$ as $\frac{1-q}{q-p}$ is decreasing in $q$ and $1 - 2p > 0$.
\[lem: effect\_grades\_fix\_revealing\] For a revealing school, the impact on expected utility of moving between noisy and accurate grades is quantified by $$\frac{1}{2(1 - p)} \leq \frac{U_r(p, 1)}{U_r(p, q)} \leq 1.$$ A revealing school maximizes its expected utility by setting $q = 1 - p$.
The impact on the FPR and the FNR, when $q \neq 1$, is quantified by $$FPR_r(p,1) = FNR_r(p,1) = 0,~FPR_r(p,q) = FNR_r(p,q) = 1-q.$$
Further, all above bounds are tight for some $q$.
For a revealing school, $U_r(p,q) = p q + (1-p) (1-q)$. $U_r(p,q) = p q + (1-p) (1-q) = q (2p - 1) + (1 - p)$ is a decreasing function of $q$, so under Assumption \[as: grades\] that $p q \geq (1-p) (1-q)$, a revealing school’s expected utility is maximized when $p q = (1-p) (1-q)$, i.e., when $q = 1-p$ and minimized when $q=1$. It is therefore the case that $$\frac{U_r(p,1)}{U_r(p,q)} \geq \frac{U_r(p,1)}{U_r(p,1-p)} = \frac{p}{2p(1-p)} = \frac{1}{2(1-p)}$$ The result for false positive and negative rates follow immediately from the fact that they are $0$ for accurate and $1-q$ for noisy grades.
\[lem: effect\_grades\_fix\_strat\] For an strategically signaling school, the impact on expected utility of moving between noisy and accurate grades is quantified by $$1\leq \frac{U_s(p, 1)}{U_s(p, q)} \leq \frac{1}{1-p} < 2.$$ An strategically signaling school maximizes its expected utility when $q = 1$.
The impact on the FPR is $$1\leq \frac{FPR_s(p, 1)}{FPR_s(p, q)} \leq \frac{1}{1-p} < 2.$$
The impact on the FNR, for $q \neq 1$, is $$FNR_s(p, 1)=0,~FNR_s(p, q) = 1-q.$$
Further, all above bounds are tight for some $q$.
The expected utility of a strategic school with noisy grades is $$\begin{aligned}
U_s(p,q)
= 1 + (p + q - 2 p q) \cdot \frac{2 p - 1}{q - p}\end{aligned}$$ with $U_s(p,1) = 2p$. Because $U_s(p,q)$ is increasing in $q$ by Lemma \[lem: monotonicity\_results\], we have that $U_s(p,q) \leq U_s(p,1)$ and $\frac{U_s(p,1)}{U_s(p,q)} \geq 1$. Further, $q \geq 1-p$ implies $$U_s(p,q) \geq U_s(p,1-p) = 1 + (1 - 2p (1-p)) \cdot \frac{2p - 1 }{1 - 2p} = 2p (1-p)$$ Therefore, $$\frac{U_s(p,1)}{U_s(p,q)} \leq \frac{1}{1-p} < 2,$$ recalling that by Assumption \[as: utility\_noinfo\], $1 - p > 1/2$. The ratio of false negative rates is exactly $0$, as the false negative rate is $0$ when $q = 1$ and non-zero when $q \neq 1$. The false positive rate for accurate grades is $FPR_s(p,1) = \frac{p}{1-p}$. For noisy grades, $FPR_s(p,q)$ is increasing in $q$ by Lemma \[lem: monotonicity\_results\], and it must be the case that $FPR_s(p,q) \leq FPR_s(p,1)$. Further, $$FPR_s(p,q) \geq FPR_s(p,1-p) = \frac{2p(1-p) - p}{1-p-p} = \frac{p - 2p^2}{1-2p} = p$$ Hence, as $FPR_s(p,1) = \frac{p}{1-p}$ we have that $$\frac{FPR_s(p, 1)}{FPR_s(p, q)} \leq \frac{1}{1-p} < 2.$$ where the last inequality follows from $p < 1/2$.
\[lem: effect\_strategic\_fix\_acc\_g\] For a school with accurate grades, the impact on expected utility of introducing strategic signaling is $$\frac{U_s(p,1)}{U_r(p,1)} = 2.$$ The impact on the false positive rate is $$FPR_s(p,1) = \frac{p}{1-p},~FPR_r(p,1) = 0.$$ The impact on the false negative rate is $$FPR_s(p,1) = FNR_r(p,1) = 0.$$ The optimal signaling scheme doubles the expected utility of the school by increasing its false positive rate from $0$ to $\frac{p}{1-p}$, and keeping its false negative rate constant at $0$.
This follows immediately from $U_s(p,1) = 2p$, $FPR_s(p,1) = \frac{p}{1-p}$, $FNR_s(p,1) = 0$, $U_r(p,1) = p$, $FPR_r(p,1) = FNR(p,1) = 0$.
\[lem: effect\_strategic\_fix\_noisy\_g\] For a school with noisy grades, the impact on expected utility of introducing strategic signaling is $$1 \leq \frac{U_s(p,q)}{U_r(p,q)} \leq 2,$$ and is increasing in $q$.
The impact on the false positive rate is $$1 \leq \frac{FPR_s(p,q)}{FPR_r(p,q)} \leq +\infty,$$ and is increasing in $q \in [p-1,1]$. The impact on the false negative rate is $$\frac{1-2p}{1-p} \leq \frac{FNR_s(p,q)}{FNR_r(p,q)} \leq 1$$ and is decreasing in $q \in [p-1,1]$. Further, all above bounds are tight for some $q$.
For a revealing school with noisy grades, the expected utility $U_r(p,q) = p q + (1-p)(1-q) = q (2p -1) + (1-p)$ and the false positive rate $FPR_r(p,q) = 1-q$ are decreasing in $q$ (as $2p-1 <0$ by Assumption \[as: utility\_noinfo\]). By Lemma \[clm: min\_q\], we have that $q \geq 1-p$ and it must be that $$2p(1-p) = U_r(p,1-p) \geq U_r(p,q) \geq U_r(p,1) = p$$ For an strategically signaling school, the expected utility $U_s(p,q)$ is increasing in $q$ by Lemma \[lem: monotonicity\_results\], hence $$2p(1-p) = U_s(p,1-p) \leq U_s(p,q) \leq U_s(p,1) = 2p$$ The ratio of expected utilities is therefore increasing, and satisfies $$1 \leq \frac{U_s(p,q)}{U_r(p,q)} \leq 2.$$ The false positive rate $FPR_s(p,q)$ is increasing in $q$ also by Lemma \[lem: monotonicity\_results\], hence $\frac{FPR_s(p,q)}{FPR_n(p,q)}$ is increasing in $q$. As $FPR_s(p,1-p) = p$, $FPR_s(p,q) = p$, $FPR_s(p,1) = \frac{p}{1-p}$ and $FPR_r(p,1) = 0$, $$1 = \frac{FPR_s(p,1-p)}{FPR_r(p,1-p)} \leq \frac{FPR_s(p,q)}{FPR_n(p,q)} \leq \frac{FPR_s(p,1)}{FPR_r(p,1)} = +\infty.$$ $FNR_s(p,q) = (1-q) \frac{1-2p}{q-p}$ and $FNR_r(p,q) = 1-q$, hence the ratio of false negative rates for $q \neq 1$ is given by $$H(p,q) = \frac{FNR_s(p,q)}{FNR_r(p,q)} = \frac{1-2p}{q-p}$$ which is a decreasing function of $q$, and we have $$1 = H(p,1-p) \geq \frac{FNR_s(p,q)}{FNR_r(p,q)} \geq \lim_{q \to 1} H(p,q) = \frac{1-2p}{1-p}. \qedhere$$
False positive and negative rates – Model with standardized test {#app: false_rates_withexam}
================================================================
\[lem:revealing-fairness-exam\] In the presence of a standardized test, when a school is revealing, the false positive rate is given by $$\begin{aligned}
FPR_r(p,q,\delta) =& (1-q) (1-\delta)
+ \mathbbm{1} \left[ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0 \right] (1-q) \delta
\\&+ \mathbbm{1} \left[ u_{q,\delta}(0,1) \geq 0 \right] q (1-\delta) \end{aligned}$$ and the false negative rate by $$\begin{aligned}
FNR_r(p,q,\delta) =& (1-q) (1-\delta)
+ \mathbbm{1} \left[ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) < 0 \right] q (1-\delta)
\\&+ \mathbbm{1} \left[ u_{q,\delta}(0,1) < 0 \right] (1-q) \delta.\end{aligned}$$ For the special case of a revealing school with accurate grades (when $q = 1$), we have $$FPR_r(p,1,\delta) = FNR_r(p,1,\delta) = 0.$$
$$\begin{aligned}
FPR_r(p,q)
=& \Pr \left[g=1, s= 1 | t = 0 \right]
\\&+ \mathbbm{1} \left[ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0 \right] \Pr \left[g=1, s= 0 | t = 0 \right]
\\&+ \mathbbm{1} \left[ u_{q,\delta}(0,1) \geq 0 \right] \Pr \left[g=0, s= 1 | t = 0 \right]
\\=& (1-q) (1-\delta)
+ \mathbbm{1} \left[ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0 \right] (1-q) \delta
\\&+ \mathbbm{1} \left[ u_{q,\delta}(0,1) \geq 0 \right] q (1-\delta)\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
FNR_r(p,q) =& \Pr \left[g=0, s= 0 | t = 1 \right]
\\&+ \mathbbm{1} \left[ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) < 0 \right] \Pr \left[g=1, s= 0 | t = 1 \right]
\\&+ \mathbbm{1} \left[ u_{q,\delta}(0,1) < 0 \right] \Pr \left[g=0, s= 1 | t = 1 \right]
\\=& (1-q) (1-\delta)
+ \mathbbm{1} \left[ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) < 0 \right] q (1-\delta)
\\&+ \mathbbm{1} \left[ u_{q,\delta}(0,1) < 0 \right] (1-q) \delta.\end{aligned}$$ When $q = 1$, the university accepts a student if and only if his grade is $g = 1$, exactly all the high-type students get accepted, and it follows that $FPR(p,1,\delta) = 0 $, $FNR(p,1,\delta) = 0$.
\[signaling-fairness-exam\] In the presence of a standardized test, when a school signals optimally and $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) < 0$, the false positive and negative rates are given by $$\begin{aligned}
FPR_s(p,q,\delta) &= \Pr \left[s = 1 | t = 0 \right] = 1-\delta \\
FNR_s(p,q,\delta) &= \Pr \left[s = 0 | t = 1 \right] = 1-\delta.\end{aligned}$$ When a school signals optimally and $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0$, the false positive rate is given by $$\begin{aligned}
FPR_s(p,q,\delta)
&= (1 - q \delta) + q \delta \cdot \frac{p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta }{ (1-p) q \delta - p (1-q) (1-\delta) }\end{aligned}$$ and the false negative rate by $$\begin{aligned}
FNR_s(p,q,\delta)
&= (1-q)(1-\delta) \cdot \left( 1 - \frac{p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta }{ (1-p) q \delta - p (1-q) (1-\delta) } \right)\end{aligned}$$
For the special case of a strategic school with accurate grades (when $q = 1$), we have $$\begin{aligned}
FPR_s(p,1,\delta) = (1 - \delta) \frac{1}{1-p} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
FNR_s(p,1,\delta) = 0.\end{aligned}$$
When $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) < 0$, a student is accepted if and only if $s = 1$, and the false positive rate is given by $$\begin{aligned}
FPR_s(p,q,\delta) = \Pr \left[s = 1 | t = 0 \right] = 1-\delta\end{aligned}$$ and the false negative rate by $$\begin{aligned}
FNR_s(p,q,\delta) = \Pr \left[s = 0 | t = 1 \right] = 1-\delta.\end{aligned}$$ When $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0$, a student gets rejected with probability $\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 0]$ when $s=g=0$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
FPR_s(p,q,\delta)
=& (1 - \Pr \left[g=0,s=0 | t=0 \right])\\
&+ \Pr \left[g=0,s=0 | t=0 \right] \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 0]
\\=& (1 - q \delta) + q \delta \frac{p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta }{ (1-p) q \delta - p (1-q) (1-\delta) }\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
FNR_s(p,q,\delta)
&=\Pr \left[g=0,s=0 | t=1 \right] \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 0]
\\&= (1-q)(1-\delta) \left(1 - \frac{p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta }{ (1-p) q \delta - p (1-q) (1-\delta) }\right).\end{aligned}$$
For the special case when $q = 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
FPR_s(p,1,\delta)
&= (1 - q \delta) + q \delta \frac{p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta }{ (1-p) q \delta - p (1-q) (1-\delta) }
\\& = 1 - \delta + \delta \frac{p (1-\delta) }{ (1-p) \delta }
\\& = (1 - \delta) + (1- \delta) \frac{p}{1-p}
\\& = (1 - \delta) \frac{1}{1-p} \end{aligned}$$ and $$FNR_s(p,1,\delta) = 0. \qedhere$$
Missing Lemmas and Proofs - Model With standardized Test {#app: proofs_withexam}
========================================================
By Observation \[clm: min\_q\] and Assumption \[as: utility\_noinfo\], $q \geq 1-p > 1/2 > 1-q$. Therefore, $p q \delta - (1-p)(1-q) (1-\delta) \geq q \left( p \delta - (1-p) (1-\delta) \right)$, which is non-negative by Assumption \[as: util\_SAT\], and $p (1-q) (1-\delta) - (1-p) q \delta < (1-q) (p (1-\delta) - (1-p) \delta$, which is negative by Assumption \[as: util\_SAT\]. The rest of the proof follows from the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
u_{q,\delta}(1,1)
& = \frac{\Pr \left[t=1,g=1,s=1 \right]}{\Pr \left[g=1,s=1 \right]} - \frac{\Pr \left[t=0,g=1,s=1 \right]}{\Pr \left[g=1,s=1 \right]}
\\& = \frac{p q \delta - (1-p)(1-q) (1-\delta)}{\Pr \left[g=1,s=1 \right]}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
u_{q,\delta}(0,0)
& = \frac{\Pr \left[t=1,g=0,s=0 \right]}{\Pr \left[g=0,s=0 \right]} - \frac{\Pr \left[t=0,g=0,s=0 \right]}{\Pr \left[g=0,s=0 \right]}
\\& = \frac{p (1-q) (1-\delta) - (1-p) q \delta}{\Pr \left[g=0,s=0 \right]} \qedhere\end{aligned}$$
The revelation principle of Lemma \[clm: rev\_principle\] can be extended to the current setting via a nearly identical proof. Therefore, as before, we design $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ so that every student with signal $\sigma^+$ is accepted by the university, and every student with signal $\sigma^-$ is rejected. The school’s goal is then to maximize the probability of a student having signal $\sigma^+$, under the constraint that the university gets expected non-negative expected utility from students with signal $\sigma^+$, regardless of their score. We first consider the case in which $s = 1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr &\left[ t=1 | \sigma^+, s = 1 \right]
= \frac{\Pr \left[\sigma^+, s=1 | t=1\right] \Pr \left[t = 1 \right]}{\Pr \left[\sigma^+, s= 1\right]}
\\&=p \cdot \frac{q \delta \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1, s = 1] + (1-q) \delta \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 1]}{\Pr \left[\sigma^+, s= 1\right]}\end{aligned}$$ We also have that, by similar calculations: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr \left[ t=0 | \sigma^+, s = 1 \right] =& (1-p) \cdot \frac{(1-q) (1-\delta) \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1, s = 1]}{\Pr \left[\sigma^+, s= 1\right]}\\
&+ (1-p) \cdot\frac{q (1-\delta) \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 1]}{\Pr \left[\sigma^+, s= 1\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the university’s expected utility for accepting a student with $(\sigma^+, s=1)$ is non-negative if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
&p \left( q \delta \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1, s = 1] + (1-q) \delta \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 1]\right) \geq
\\&(1-p) \left((1-q) (1-\delta) \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1, s = 1] + q (1-\delta) \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 1] \right) ,\end{aligned}$$ which can be rewritten to give the constraint $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: cond1+}
\Pr&[\sigma^+ | g = 1, s = 1] \left( p q \delta - (1-p) (1-q) (1-\delta) \right) \nonumber
\\& \geq \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 1] \left( (1-p) q (1-\delta) - p (1-q) \delta \right). \end{aligned}$$ By Assumption \[as: util\_SAT\], $$\begin{aligned}
0
&\leq p \delta - (1-p) (1-\delta)
\\&= \left( p q \delta - (1-p) (1-q) (1-\delta)\right)
\\&- \left( (1-p) q (1-\delta) - p (1-q) \delta\right),\end{aligned}$$ and hence the constraint does not bind, and we are free to set $$\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1, s = 1] = \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 1] = 1.$$
We now consider the case in which the signal is $\sigma^+$ and the score is $s = 0$. Similar calculations to the $s = 1$ case show that the university’s expected utility for accepting a student with such a score and signal is non-negative iff $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: cond0+}
\Pr&[\sigma^+ | g = 1, s = 0] \left(p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta \right) \nonumber
\\& \geq \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 0] \left( (1-p) q \delta - p (1-q) (1-\delta) \right). \end{aligned}$$ Note that by Lemma \[lem: SAT+gradesconditions\], $ (1-p) q \delta - p (1-q) (1-\delta) \geq 0.$
We split up the case in which $s = 0$ into two sub-cases on $u_{q,\delta}(1,0)$. When $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0$, then $p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta \geq 0$.
Therefore, to maximize its expected utility, the school should set $$\begin{aligned}
&\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1, s = 0] =1,
\\& \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 0] = \min \left(1, \frac{p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta }{ (1-p) q \delta - p (1-q) (1-\delta) } \right) \end{aligned}$$ Because by Assumption \[as: util\_SAT\], $p (1-\delta) - (1-p) \delta < 0$, it must be the case that $$\frac{p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta }{ (1-p) q \delta - p (1-q) (1-\delta) } < 1,$$ and the school therefore optimizes its expected utility with $$\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 0] = \frac{p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta }{(1-p) q \delta - p (1-q) (1-\delta). }$$
When $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) <0$, then the left-hand side of Equation is non-positive. The right-hand side non-negative, so $$\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1, s = 0] = \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 0] = 0$$ is required for the inequality to hold.
By Lemma \[lem: SAT+gradesconditions\], $u_{q,\delta}(1,1) \geq 0$, and hence the university accepts students with $g=1,s=1$, which occurs with probability $p q \delta + (1-p)(1-q)(1-\delta)$. Similarly, $u_{q,\delta}(0,0) < 0$, so the university rejects students with $g=0,~s=0$. The case $g=0, ~s=1$ happens with probability $p (1-q) \delta + (1-p) q (1-\delta)$, and yields the school expected utility $1$ iff $u_{q,\delta}(0,1) \geq 0$ (i.e., the university accepts students with $g=0,~s=1$). Similarly, $g=1,~s=0$ happens with probability $p q (1-\delta) + (1-p) (1-q) \delta$ and yields the school expected utility $1$ iff $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0$.
The second part of the proof has two cases.
When $q = 1$ and $\delta \neq 1$, then $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) = p q (1-\delta) - (1-p)(1-q) \delta = p (1-\delta) \geq 0$. Also, $u_{q,\delta}(0,1) = p (1-q) \delta - (1-p) q (1-\delta) = - (1-p)(1-\delta) < 0$ (recalling that $1-p > 0$ by Assumption \[as: utility\_noinfo\] and that $1-\delta > 0$). Therefore, for $\delta \neq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
U_r(p,1,\delta)
=& p q \delta + (1-p)(1-q)(1-\delta) + p q (1-\delta) + (1-p)(1-q) \delta
\\=& p \delta + p (1-\delta)
\\=& p.\end{aligned}$$
When $q=1$ and $\delta = 1$, then $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) = p q (1-\delta) - (1-p)(1-q) \delta = p (1-\delta) \geq 0$. Also, $u_{q,\delta}(0,1) = p (1-q) \delta - (1-p) q (1-\delta) = 0$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
U_r(p,1,1)
=& p q \delta + (1-p)(1-q)(1-\delta)
\\&+ p q (1-\delta) + (1-p)(1-q) \delta
\\&+ p (1-q) \delta + (1-p) q (1-\delta) \\
=& p .\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof.
When $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) <0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
U_s(p,q,\delta)
=& \Pr \left[s = 1 \right]
\\ =& p \delta + (1-p) (1-\delta). \end{aligned}$$
When $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0$, $\Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1, s = 1] = \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 1, s = 0] = \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 1] = 1$, and we have $$\begin{aligned}
U_s&(p,q,\delta) \\
=& 1 - \Pr \left[g=0, s=0 \right] + \Pr \left[g=0, s=0 \right] \Pr[\sigma^+ | g = 0, s = 0]
\\=& \left(1 - p (1-q) (1-\delta) - (1-p)q\delta \right)
\\&+ \left( p (1-q) (1-\delta) + (1-p) q \delta \right) \frac{p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta }{ (1-p) q \delta - p (1-q) (1-\delta)} .\end{aligned}$$
When $q=1$, $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0$ (equivalently, $p(1-\delta) \geq 0)$, and the expected utility is $$\begin{aligned}
U_s(p,1,\delta) &= \left(1 - (1-p)\delta \right)+ \left((1-p) \delta \right) \frac{p (1-\delta)}{ (1-p) \delta} \\
& = 1 - (1-p) \delta + p (1-\delta)
\\&= 1 - \delta + p. \qedhere\end{aligned}$$
Relaxed assumption - Model with standardized test {#app: relaxed_assumption}
=================================================
In this section, we relax Assumption \[as: util\_SAT\] to instead make the following, more general, assumption:
\[as: relaxed\_assumption\] $u_{q,\delta}(0,0) < 0$ and $u_{q,\delta}(1,1) \geq 0$.
When this assumption does not hold because $u_{q,\delta}(0,0) \geq 0$, the university has non-negative expected utility for every combination of test score and grade, and therefore accepts every student independently of how the school signals. When this assumption does not hold because $u_{q,\delta}(1,1) < 0$, the university has negative expected utility for every combination of test score and grade, and does not accept any student. We now present the optimal signaling scheme for the school under this relaxed assumption.
\[thm:opt-signaling-exam-relaxed\] The optimal signaling scheme for a school with access to grades and a test score, under Assumption \[as: relaxed\_assumption\] is $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 1,s = 1 \right] &= 1\\
\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 0,s = 1 \right] &=
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if}\ u_{q,\delta}(0,1) \geq 0\\
\min \left(1, \frac{p q \delta - (1-p) (1-q) (1-\delta)}{ (1-p) q (1-\delta) - p (1-q) \delta} \right), & \text{if}\ u_{q,\delta}(0,1) < 0
\end{cases}\\
\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 1,s = 0 \right] &=
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if}\ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0 \\
0, & \text{if}\ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) < 0
\end{cases}\\
\Pr \left[\sigma^+ |~g = 0,s = 0 \right] &=
\begin{cases}
\min \left(1,\frac{p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta }{ (1-p) q \delta - p (1-q) (1-\delta) }\right), & \text{if}\ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) \geq 0\\
0, & \text{if}\ u_{q,\delta}(1,0) < 0
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
The proof follows the same steps as that of Theorem \[thm:opt-signaling-exam\], minus the simplification steps that rely on Assumption \[as: util\_SAT\].
Impact of standardized test {#app: ratio_utilities_with_exam}
===========================
Fix $p > 0$ and $q < 1$. For $$\delta > \max \left( \frac{pq}{(pq + (1-p)(1-q)},\frac{(1-p)q}{p(1-q) + (1-p) q}\right),$$ we have $$\frac{U_s(p,q,\delta)}{U_r(p,q,\delta)} = 1.$$
$p q (1-\delta) - (1-p) (1-q) \delta < 0$ and $p (1-q) \delta - (1-p) q (1-\delta) \geq 0$, hence $u_{q,\delta}(1,0) < 0$ and $u_{q,\delta}(0,1) \geq 0$. Therefore, a school’s expected utility for revealing is given by $$p q \delta + (1-p)(1-q) (1-\delta)
+ p (1-q) \delta + (1-p) q (1-\delta)
= p \delta + (1-p) (1-\delta)$$ This is exactly the expected utility of a school that is strategically signaling when $q = 1$, hence the ratio of utilities when strategic over revealing is $1$.
When the grades are accurate, i.e. $q=1$, $$1 \leq \frac{U_s(p,1,\delta)}{U_r(p,1,\delta)} \leq 2,$$
The expected utility from strategically reporting is $p + (1-p) (1-\delta) + p (1-\delta)$ by Lemma \[lem:signaling-util-exam\], while the expected utility for revealing is $p$ by Lemma \[lem:revealing-util-exam\]. Therefore, $$\frac{U_s(p,1,\delta)}{U_r(p,1,\delta)} = 2-\delta + \frac{1-p}{p} (1-\delta) \geq 1 .$$ By Assumption \[as: grades\], $ (1-p) (1-\delta) \leq p \delta$, hence $$\frac{U_s(p,1,\delta)}{U_r(p,1,\delta)} = 2-\delta + \frac{1-p}{p} (1-\delta) \leq 2 - \delta + \delta = 2.\qedhere$$
We have by Theorem \[thm: utility\_comparison\] that in the absence of standardized test, $$\frac{U_s(p,1)}{U_r(p,1)} = 2.$$ Forcing students to take a standardized test thus improves fairness between two schools with accurate grades.
[^1]: Microsoft Research NE and NYC. Email: [email protected]
[^2]: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Email: [email protected]. This work was funded in part by the HUJI Cyber Security Research Center in conjunction with the Israel National Cyber Directorate (INCD) in the Prime Minister’s Office, the Israeli Science Foundation, and by a DARPA Brandeis subcontract.
[^3]: California Institute of Technology. Email: [email protected]. Ziani’s research was supported in part by NSF grants CNS-1331343 and CNS-1518941, the Linde Graduate Fellowship at Caltech, and the inaugural PIMCO Graduate Fellowship at Caltech.
[^4]: In our simple model, the university does not have a fixed capacity, nor does it consider complementarities between students.
[^5]: The assumption that $q \geq 1/2$ is without loss of generality; when $q < 1/2$, one can set $q = 1-q, g_i = 1-g_i$ and all results carry through by symmetry.
[^6]: There is no notion here of students “applying” to the university or not; the university considers *all* students for admission.
[^7]: When indifferent, the university accepts the student.
[^8]: In fact, this condition is already ruled out by Assumption \[as: utility\_noinfo\].
[^9]: A similar observation in a somewhat different setting was made in work of Ostrovsky and Schwarz [@OS10].
[^10]: This is because the expected utility of the university from strategic schools without test scores is zero, and so can only increase. For revealing schools, the university gets strictly more information with test scores and hence more utility.
[^11]: The assumption that $\delta \geq 1/2$ is, as with our analogous assumption about the grades, without loss of generality.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using the Hubbard chain at quarter filling as a model system, we study the ground state properties of highly doped antiferromagnets. In particular, the Hubbard chain at quarter filling is unstable against $2k_F$- and $4k_F$-periodic potentials, leading to a large variety of charge and spin ordered ground states. Employing the density matrix renormalization group method, we compare the energy gain of the ground state induced by different periodic potentials. For interacting systems the lowest energy is found for a $2k_F$-periodic magnetic field, resulting in a band insulator with spin gap. For strong interaction, the $4k_F$-periodic potential leads to a half-filled Heisenberg chain and thus to a Mott insulating state without spin gap. This ground state is more stable than the band insulating state caused by any non-magnetic $2k_F$-periodic potential. Adding more electrons, a cluster-like ordering is preferred.'
author:
- 'C. Schuster and U. Schwingenschlögl'
title: 'One-dimensional Hubbard model at quarter filling on periodic potentials'
---
Hole doped antiferromagnets
===========================
The study of low-dimensional doped antiferromagnets was triggered by investigations of the phase diagram of high temperature superconductors. Upon doping, they show a transition from an antiferromagnetic to a superconducting state. On the other hand, the investigation of one-dimensional compounds is also an active field. A simple form of low doping in a Cu-chain is the replacement of a few Cu ions by non-magnetic ions like Zn. In this case, the system is well described by the Heisenberg model with some spins removed [@Eggert]. The charge and spin order of highly doped compounds, on the contrary, are not understood by far. A prototypical material revealing strongly doping dependent charge order and antiferromagnetism in a less than half-filled band is the spin chain compound (Ca,Sr)$_{14}$Cu$_{24}$O$_{41}$. This composite crystal contains two different structural components along the $c$-axis: Cu$_2$O$_3$ ladders and CuO$_2$ chains. Whereas the ladders contain only Cu$^{2+}$-ions, nearly all Cu$^{3+}$-ions are located on the chains [@Nuecker00]. Substitution of calcium on the strontium sites leads to a transfer of holes from the chains into the ladders. For the Ca-rich compounds one generally assumes one hole per formula unit on the ladders and five on the chains. Near the quarter-filled band antiferromagnetic order is established [@Nagata].
DFT-LDA calculations [@schwinud], using the ASW method [@ASW], reveal that the ladder and chain substructures can be treated individually. In particular, the density of states of the chains shows a partially filled valence band, as illustrated in Fig \[fig2\].
![(Color online) Partial Cu 3d density of states for the CuO$_2$-chains of Sr$_{14}$Cu$_{24}$O$_{41}$.[]{data-label="fig2"}](dos_chains.eps){width="50.00000%"}
The origin of antiferromagnetism in these compounds is still unclear, and the doping dependence of the charge order and spin gap is discussed controversially [@Klingeler]. Recent studies on the basis of the Heisenberg model show that a simple spin model is not appropriate to describe the magnetization [@Schnack], indicating the necessity of studying more advanced models, as e. g. the Hubbard model.
In this article we address the stability of the proposed charge order (cluster-like versus staggered) [@Kataev] in (Ca,Sr)$_{14}$Cu$_{24}$O$_{41}$, considering the competition between kinetic energy, interaction and periodic distortions, on the basis of the Hubbard model. Since no periodic lattice distortion – neither with two-site nor with four-site periodicity – is found in the crystal structure [@Gotoh] we consider only periodic potentials. Nevertheless, our results are relevant for all correlated materials with quarter filled bands. Thus we aim at understanding a whole class of materials on a common basis.
Periodic distortions in interacting chains
==========================================
Charge order – independent of magnetic ordering – in less than half-filled bands is found, for example, in organic charge transfer salts, like the Bechgaard salts (TMTSF)$_2$X, with X=PF$_6$, AsF$_6$, ClO$_4$, ReO$_4$, or Br, or their sulfur analogs (TMTTF)$_2$X. These systems, which consist of stacks of organic molecules forming weakly coupled one-dimensional chains, exhibit a large variety of low temperature phases [@Dumm; @Schwing01]. They have been studied using a purely electronic model, namely the extended Hubbard model with next-nearest-neighbor interaction. Recent results have been obtained by mean-field approaches [@Kobayashi] and exact diagonalization [@Clay]. On the other hand, charge order is often connected to a structural transition and hence to electron-phonon coupling. The coupling of a one-dimensional metal to an elastic lattice results in an instability towards a periodic lattice distortion commensurate to the band-filling, known as Peierls transition. Within a lattice model, the Peierls transition is captured by a modulated hopping term in the Hamiltonian of the non-interacting system [@SSH]. A periodic potential, instead of a modulated hopping, has similar effects on the electronic structure of the one-dimensional metal, leading to a band insulator.
The interplay of electron-lattice and electron-electron interaction is conveniently studied in the framework of the Hubbard model. With interaction, the Peierls and the so-called ionic model show different ground-state phase diagrams [@Fabrizio]. Many results are available for the half-filled Hubbard model with periodic hopping or potential, for which the transition from a band insulator to a Mott insulator has been studied in [@Maki; @Kampf; @Schoenhammer; @Fehskea; @Fehskeb]. On the other hand, away from half filling no insulator-insulator-transition is present, but a variety of ordering processes have to be taken into account [@Schmitteckert]. The stability of the different ground states of the quarter-filled Hubbard model with respect to a periodic potential has been investigated [@Penc; @Yoshioka] less extensively as compared to the half-filled model. The phase diagram of the quarter-filled Peierls-Hubbard model is discussed in [@Riera]. Hence, we restrict our calculations to the ionic potentials.
We access the stability regions of the ionic Hubbard model by introducing several potentials connected with different ordering processes of charge and spin degrees of freedom into the Hamiltonian. In particular, we investigate which potential leads to the largest energy gain, and analyze against which potential or order the system is most unstable, indicating which order will be established in nature. In our calculations, we concentrate on the ionic Hubbard model at quarter filling, for both weak and strong interaction. We determine the ground state and the ground state energy as a function of interaction, doping and potential strength, using the density matrix renormalization group method [@dmrg]. Thus, our calculations give detailed insights into the properties of hole-doped antiferromagnets.
Models
======
In the following section we first discuss the properties of non-interacting electrons on a chain with different periodic potentials and the phase diagram of the homogeneous Hubbard chain. In the last subsection we discuss some basic features of the periodic Hubbard model.
Peierls model
-------------
The Peierls model is the prototypical model to study the coupling of non-interacting electrons to the lattice. The Hamiltonian is given by $$H_{\rm Peierls}=-\sum^{N}_{i,\sigma}
t_i\left( c^+_{i,\sigma}c^{}_{i+1,\sigma} + {\rm h.~c.}\right)\; ,$$ where we consider a modulated hopping term with $t_i=t[1+u\cos(Qa\cdot i)]$. $N$ denotes the number of lattice sites and $a$ the lattice constant. In addition, $N_e$ is the number of electrons on the chain and $Q$ the wave vector of the periodic distortion. In case of a commensurate distortion we have $Q=2mk_F$, $m=1,2,\ldots$. The dimerized chain, $Q=\pi/a$, at half filling, $n=N_e/N=1$, was investigated by Su, Schrieffer, and Heeger (SSH) [@SSH]. Due to the periodic distortion a band gap, $\Delta=4ut$, opens at $k_\Delta=Q/2$. Since at half filling we have $k_\Delta=k_F$, the system is insulating. As is characteristic for a band insulator, the gaps for charge and spin excitations are identical. In the following, we concentrate on the quarter-filled band and $4a$-periodic distortions, because in case of the $2a$-periodic distortion the quarter-filled system is metallic, since $k_\Delta\neq k_F$.
To begin, we determine the energy bands and the energy gain due to a periodic modulation of the hopping parameter with $Q=\pi/2a$. For quarter filling, $k_F=\pi/4a$, this system shows the Peierls transition, since $Q=\pi/2a=2k_F$. The Fourier transformation of the hopping term yields, in analogy with the SSH-model, the expression $$H_{\rm Peierls}=\sum_k
\left(c^+_k \ c^+_{k+Q} \ c^+_{k+2Q} \ c^+_{k+3Q}
\right)
t\hat{h}_{\alpha\beta}
\left( \begin{array}{c} c_k \\ c_{k+Q} \\ c_{k+2Q} \\ c_{k+3Q}
\end{array}\right) \;,$$ where the matrix $\hat{h}_{\alpha\beta}$ is given by
$$\hat{h}_{\alpha\beta}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-2\cos{ka} &-u({\rm e}^{ika}+i{\rm e}^{-ika}) & & u({\rm e}^{ika}-i{\rm e}^{-ika}) \\
u(i{\rm e}^{ika}-{\rm e}^{-ika}) & -2\sin{ka}& -u({\rm e}^{-ika}+i{\rm e}^{ika})& \\
& u(i{\rm e}^{-ika}-{\rm e}^{ika}) &2\cos{ka} & u({\rm e}^{ika}+i{\rm e}^{-ika})\\
u({\rm e}^{-ika}+i{\rm e}^{ika})& &u({\rm e}^{-ika}-i{\rm e}^{ika}) &2\sin{ka}
\end{array}\right).$$
The eigenvalues of this matrix are $$\label{eq58}
\varepsilon(k) =\pm t\sqrt{2\left(1+2u^2\pm\sqrt{\cos^2{2ka}+4u^2(1+\sin^2{2k})}\right)},$$ compare [@Hida]. The four energy bands are separated by the energy gaps $$\Delta_1=4ut , \quad \Delta_2=2u^2t, \quad {\rm and} \quad \Delta_3=\Delta_1,$$ where $\Delta_1=\varepsilon_2(k=k_F)-\varepsilon_1(k=k_F)$ and $\Delta_2=\varepsilon_3(k=2k_F)-\varepsilon_2(k=2k_F)$. The energy gain of the fermions, for the quarter-filled case, obtained by summing up the contributions of all occupied states, is found to be $\propto u^2t\ln{u}$, as for half filling.
Ionic model
-----------
Another type of periodic distortion is given by local potentials, resulting in the so-called ionic model $$H_{\rm ionic}=-t\sum^{N}_{i,\sigma}
\left( c^+_{i,\sigma}c^{}_{i+1,\sigma} + {\rm h.~c.}\right)
+\sum^{N}_{i}W_i n_i
- \sum^{N}_{i} h_iS_i^z\;.$$ Again, for the half-filled band the same calculation as before can be performed for a periodic potential, with $\Delta_c=\Delta_s=2W$. In case of the ionic model for a quarter-filled system we compare several potentials, which correspond to different charge and spin patterns:
- First, we study a simple potential with $2k_F$($4a$)-period, given by $ W_i=W\cos(\pi i/2)$. Here, the charge order for zero hopping is given by 1/0.5/0/0.5 electrons per site, periodically continued. Spin order is not established.
- A modification of a) given by $W_i=W\cos(\pi i/2)+W\cos(\pi (i+1)/2)$, which leads to two occupied and two unoccupied sites (“cluster") [@Clay], i. e. a 1/1/0/0 charge order.
- A charge order with a 1/0/1/0 pattern, i. e. a $4k_F$($2a$)-periodic order, is forced by a potential with $W_i=W\cos(\pi i) $. With interaction we likewise expect magnetic ordering.
- In addition, a local magnetic field with $h_i=W\cos(\pi i/2)(n_{i,\uparrow}-n_{i,\downarrow})$ enforces a $\uparrow$/0/$\downarrow$/0 pattern. As in c), we expect a 2$k_F$($4a$)-period for the spins and correspondingly a $4k_F$($2a$)-period for the charges.
Diagonalizing the resulting Hamilton matrix, as described above, yields the dispersions
- d\) $\varepsilon(k)=\pm t\sqrt{2+w^2/2\pm\sqrt{4\cos^2(2k)+2w^2+w^4/4}}$,
- $\varepsilon(k)=\pm t\sqrt{2+w^2/2\pm\sqrt{4\cos^2(2k)+4w^2}}$,
- $\varepsilon(k)=\pm t\sqrt{w^2+4\cos^2k}$,
with $w=W/t$. Fig. \[fig-band\] shows the dispersion for potentials a) and c). In comparison to the Peierls model not only a gap opens at $k=Q/2$ but the lower and upper bands are shifted down and up, respectively. In case of a small perturbation, the dispersion is similar for the Peierls and the ionic model, as well as for potentials a) and b). Potential a) and d) are equivalent in the non-interacting case.
The energy gain in the quarter filled band is found to be about $-W^{1.65}$ in cases a), b), and d). For small $W$, the energy gain here is nearly the same in case a) and b), whereas it becomes weaker in case b) than in case a) at $W\approx 0.5t$. In case c), the energy gain is quadratic, $E(W)-E(0)=\frac{8}{3}W^2$. It mainly traces back to the band shift.
[![(Color online) One-particle energy $\varepsilon(k)$ versus momentum $k$, where $W=0.1t$ and the horizontal lines indicate the Fermi level of the half-filled and quarter-filled band. The straight line corresponds to the $Q=\pi/a$-periodic potential, the dashed line to the $Q=\pi/2a$-periodic potential. The reduction of the Brillouin zone of the clean model is obvious.[]{data-label="fig-band"}](band.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}]{}
Accordingly, the gaps are given by
- d\) $\Delta_1=W$, $\Delta_2=\sqrt{2}W$, $\Delta_3=W$;
- $\Delta_1\sim W$ for small $W$, $\Delta_1 \to \Delta_1^\infty$ for strong $W$, $\Delta_2=\sqrt{2}-W/2$, $\Delta_3=\Delta_1$;
- $\Delta_1=0$, $\Delta_2=W$, $\Delta_3=0$.
Hubbard model
-------------
The Hubbard model is known to capture the interplay between kinetic energy (delocalization) and interaction (localization) in electronic systems. The Hamiltonian is given by $$H_{\rm Hubb}= -\sum^{N}_{i,\sigma}
t_i\left( c^+_{i,\sigma}c^{}_{i+1,\sigma} + {\rm h.~c.}\right)
+ U\sum^{N}_{i}n_{i,\uparrow}n_{i,\downarrow} .$$ The Hubbard model in one dimension is exactly solvable by means of the Bethe ansatz [@Lieb]. Note that in one dimension another useful formulation of the Hubbard model is available on the basis of the bosonization technique. The low lying excitations of the non-interacting as well as the interacting fermions system are sound waves, i. e. the Fermi system can be described as a non-interacting Bose system, called a Luttinger liquid, showing spin-charge separation. In the clean case, the Hubbard model has three phases. For $U < 0$, the spin excitation spectrum has a gap and the low-lying charge excitations can be described by those of a Luttinger liquid. For $U> 0$ and away from half filling, spin and charge excitations are those of a Luttinger liquid. The last phase occurs for $U > 0$ and half filling, where the charge excitations have a gap and the spin excitations are of Luttinger type. A relevant $4k_F$-Umklapp scattering term, only present for half filling, is responsible for the Mott gap in the latter phase. The bosonization technique is adequate for metallic systems or in the weak coupling regime. It is useful to determine the phase boundary between metals and insulators but it is not suitable for distinguishing different insulating phases for intermediate or strong perturbations.
Periodic Hubbard model
----------------------
A commensurate periodic distortion – i. e. commensurate to the band filling – introduces an additional non-linear term in the bosonized Hamiltonian, which couples spin and charge degrees of freedom and destroys the integrability of the clean Hubbard model. In the half-filled case we therefore find a transition between two possible insulating phases, i. e. the band (Peierls) insulator ($W, ut \gg U$) with charge and spin gap of the same order and the Mott insulator ($ W, ut \ll U$) with a charge gap proportional to the interaction, but vanishing spin gap, where periodic distortion and interaction oppose each other. However, the transition is fundamentally different for the Peierls and the ionic Hubbard model [@Fabrizio; @Torio01]. In the Peierls model the transition between the two phases is smooth and continuous [@Mocanu], whereas a third phase – a spontaneous dimerized insulating phase – is found in the ionic Hubbard model. Within this phase, charge and spin gap are non-zero, and the dimerization operator has a non-zero expectation value. In fact, the extension of this phase is discussed controversially.
The situation in the quarter filled band is completely different. With interaction, no insulating phase is established, except for very strong interaction, where higher order terms of the Umklapp scattering can cause a Mott insulator on its own [@Yoshioka]. In the quarter-filled case with $2k_F$-periodic potential we expect from bosonization a transition from the Luttinger liquid to the band insulator in the non-interacting as well as in the interacting system. The interaction modifies the exponents of the gaps and the energy gain. Since they become smaller with increasing interaction, interaction stabilizes the band insulator. Here, the interplay between periodic distortion and interaction is weak, since the quarter filled model with interaction is still a metal. A similar situation is found for half filled spinless fermions for weak interaction, where the Umklapp scattering induces the insulator at finite interaction strength [@Schuster98]. In case of a $4k_F$-periodic potential Umklapp scattering becomes relevant [@Penc] due to the doubling of the unit cell or, equivalently, due to the reduction of the Brillouin zone, see the straight line in Fig. 1. In this case, the system undergoes a transition from the Luttinger liquid to a Mott insulating phase when the potential and the interaction are present. Potential and interaction hence cooperate rather than oppose each other as in the half filled ionic model.
An analysis of the ionic Hubbard model with another $2k_F$-periodic potential is given in [@Torio06]. The authors find the band insulator for weak interaction but strong potential. Our $4k_F$-periodic pattern, hence the Mott insulator, is obtained in their model in the limit of strong interaction. Both phases are separated by a bond ordered phase. Thus, the model potential used in [@Torio06] reveals the features of the half filled ionic Hubbard model. The analysis, however, concentrates on large $|U-W|$. In our case, the $4k_F$-periodic pattern is not a limit of the $2k_F$-periodic patterns.
In the following, we concentrate on the ionic Hubbard model at weak to intermediate potential strength and intermediate to strong interaction. In addition, we study the region of stability for each potential.
Numerical results for the ionic Hubbard model at quarter filling
================================================================
In the following we discuss the numerical data for the ground state energy, the charge and spin gap, and the spin-spin correlation function. The numerical results are obtained by the density matrix renormalization group method (DMRG), as implemented by Brune [@BruneDiss]. The DMRG is a quasi-exact numerical method to determine the ground state properties, i. e. the ground state and the ground state energy, of long one-dimensional (non-integrable) systems with reasonable accuracy [@dmrg]. Regarding different boundary conditions, it is useful to take into account the equivalence of fermion and spin models and to implement the spinless-fermion model in terms of an equivalent spin chain, and the Hubbard model as two coupled spin chains without perpendicular XY-coupling. Using the DMRG, it is possible to extend the tractable system lengths for the Hubbard chain to $N=60\ldots100$ sites. In our simulations we perform five lattice sweeps and keep 300 to 500 states per block. Correlation functions can be obtained within an error of 10$^{-6}$ in the Hubbard model when using open boundary conditions. A memory of about 700 MB is required.
Energy
------
First, we determine the ground state energy as a function of $W$ and $U$. The energy gain depends almost quadratically on the potential strength for all potential types, and is dominated by the band shift. The numerical data are depicted in Fig. \[fig EN\].
![(Color online) Energy gain per site versus square of the potential strength (both in units of $t$). We compare potentials a), b), c), and d). The number of sites varies between $N=28$ and $N=60$, where $[E(0)-E(W)]/N$ is almost independent of $N$. The interaction is $U=2t$ in the upper plot and $U=6t$ in the lower plot.[]{data-label="fig EN"}](Ep4U2.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}\
![(Color online) Energy gain per site versus square of the potential strength (both in units of $t$). We compare potentials a), b), c), and d). The number of sites varies between $N=28$ and $N=60$, where $[E(0)-E(W)]/N$ is almost independent of $N$. The interaction is $U=2t$ in the upper plot and $U=6t$ in the lower plot.[]{data-label="fig EN"}](Ep4U6.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
In case of a coupling to the charge density, $W_in_i$, the 2$k_F$-periodic potential is stabilized for small $U$ (case a)), and the 4$k_F$-periodic potential (case c)) for large $U$, as found for the Hubbard-Holstein model [@Riera99]. This energy gain is mainly due to the prefactors. A more detailed analysis of the algebraic behavior for $W\to 0$ shows that $E_a\propto W^{1.68}$ and $E_c\propto W^2$ if $U=2t$, but $E_a\propto W^{1.76}$ and $E_c\propto W^{1.76}$ if $U=10t$. In case a) the exponent increases with interaction, in case c) it decreases. For all interactions, however, term d), $h_iS^z_i$, is dominant. Of course, in a real system, a potential coupled to the density is much bigger than a magnetic field. It leads – like potential c) – to 4$k_F$-oscillations in the charge density and 2$k_F$-oscillations in the magnetization. In the non-interacting system the data points for potentials a) and d) lie nearly on top of each other (by use of open boundary conditions the exact equivalence of a) and d) is waived), but in the interacting system the energy gain due to potential d) grows faster with interaction than in all other cases. To be more specific, we find $E_d\propto W^{1.62}$ for $U=2t$ and $E_d\propto W^{1.44}$ for $U=6t$.
Charge and spin gap
-------------------
We note that the excitation gaps $$\Delta_c=\frac{1}{2}[E(N_e+1)+E(N_e-1)-2E(N_e)]$$ and $$\Delta_s=\frac{1}{2}[E(S^z=1)+E(S^z=-1)-2E(S^z=0)]$$ are calculated for finite systems only. An extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit, $\Delta=\Delta_0+f(N)$ with $f(N)\to 0 $ for $N\to \infty$, is not performed, for the following reasons: for small gap $\Delta_0$ the accuracy of the DMRG away from half filling is not accurate enough and for large $\Delta_0$ we have $f(N)\approx 0$ for the considered system sizes. The dependence of the excitation gaps on the potential strength is shown in Fig. \[fig-gap\]. In cases a), b) and d) we see that $\Delta_s\sim \Delta_c$, according to the band insulating state. An almost linear dependence on $W$, as for non-interacting particles, is recovered in the interacting system for the charge gap in cases a), b), and c). The saturation of the gaps in case b), as discussed in Sec. 3B, is obtained for the spin gap in the considered parameter regime. The influence of the interaction in the band insulating state can be summarized as follows. In case a) the charge gap becomes smaller with interaction, the spin gap even more. In case b) the charge gap increases with interaction for small $U$, but saturates for strong interaction. The spin gap decreases rapidly with interaction. In case d) the charge gap increases but does not saturate. The spin gap shows a maximum for intermediate interaction strength. For $U=10t$ it is even smaller than in the non-interacting system. On the contrary, we find for potential c) a linear increase of $\Delta_c$ with $U$ and $W$ as well as $\Delta_s(W, U, N) \sim 1/U, 1/W, 1/N\to 0$, indicating the Mott insulating state.
![(Color online) Charge and spin gap versus potential strength (both in units of $t$). In the upper plot we show $\Delta_c$ and in the lower $\Delta_s$, comparing potentials a), b), c), and d). The number of sites varies between $N=28$ and $N=60$ and the interaction strength is $U=6t$.[]{data-label="fig-gap"}](Dcp4U6.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}\
![(Color online) Charge and spin gap versus potential strength (both in units of $t$). In the upper plot we show $\Delta_c$ and in the lower $\Delta_s$, comparing potentials a), b), c), and d). The number of sites varies between $N=28$ and $N=60$ and the interaction strength is $U=6t$.[]{data-label="fig-gap"}](Dsp4U6.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Due to the finite system size, we are not able to obtain exponents for small $W$. As a consequence, a comparison with bosonization or the energy data, see Section A, is not possible. To conclude, for strong interaction and small potential we find a large charge gap but a small spin gap.
Correlation Function
--------------------
In order to calculate the spin-spin correlation function $\langle S^z_iS^z_j\rangle$ within DMRG we again use open boundary conditions and the Parzen filter function [@Kuehner] to reduce the Friedel oscillations. In the Mott insulating regime, the Friedel oscillations in the spin sector are long ranged, but decay fast in spin gap systems [@Cs04]. The main question concerns the correspondence of the spin-spin correlation functions of the $2a$-periodic potential (case c)) and the Heisenberg model. For comparison, we calculate the spin-spin correlation function of the half-filled Hubbard model, which can be mapped onto a Heisenberg chain in case of strong interaction. In the Heisenberg model we have $$\langle S^z_iS^z_0\rangle = \frac{1}{4\pi (a\cdot i)^2} +\frac{a_{2k_F}\cos(2k_Fa\cdot i)}{a\cdot i}.$$
In gapped systems, the spin-spin correlation functions reflect the behavior of the energy gaps. Thus, the spin-spin correlation function decreases exponentially in cases a) and b), which show a spin gap without spin order. In case d) the spins are fixed by the potential $h_i$. The exponentially decaying part is hard to extract from the mean magnetization in the numerical data due to the incomplete suppression of the boundary oscillations.
In the Mott insulating regime, however, the linear decrease of the spin-spin correlation function with distance is obtained already for small potential $W$. For better comparison with the data of the half-filled Hubbard chain, we show data for $W=t$ in Fig. \[fig-corr\]. Obviously, the quarter-filled Hubbard chain with 4k$_F$-periodic distortion can be mapped onto the Heisenberg model, too.
![(Color online) Spin-spin correlation function $\langle S^z_iS^z_{\rm 31}\rangle$ versus site $i$. We compare the half-filled Hubbard chain (straight line; which is equivalent to a Heisenberg chain), with the quarter-filled Hubbard chain on a $4k_F$-periodic potential (long-dashed line, $W=t$; equivalent to a half-filled Heisenberg chain), and the quarter-filled Hubbard chain in a $2k_F$-periodic magnetic field (short-dashed line, $W=0.1t$; equivalent to a half-filled Ising chain). In all data sets the interaction is $U=5t$.[]{data-label="fig-corr"}](szxheis.eps){width="50.00000%"}
We note that in case d) already a weak potential – connected with a small spin gap – leads to significant structures in $\langle S^z_iS^z_j\rangle$, whereas in case c) the potential has to be much stronger to yield effects of similar size. The increase of $S(q)\propto q$ appears both in the half-filled Hubbard chain and in the quarter-filled Hubbard chain with $4k_F$-periodic potential. $S(q)$ has a sharp maximum at $q=\pi/2$ in case d).
Summary
=======
In summary, we have studied the effects of periodic potentials on a chain. In particular, we have considered the one-dimensional Hubbard model at quarter filling. We have compared periodic potentials yielding different types of behavior: a) a 2$k_F$-periodic potential leading to a band insulator, b) a 2$k_F$-periodic potential leading to a band insulator with cluster-like arrangements of the charges, c) a 4$k_F$-periodic potential leading to a Mott insulator with antiferromagnetic alignment of Heisenberg type spins on next-nearest neighbor sites, and d) a 2$k_F$-periodic magnetic field leading to a band insulator with antiferromagnetic alignment of Ising type spins. Cases c) and d) reveal the same charge and spin distribution but different spin excitations. In the Heisenberg case the spin excitations are gapless, whereas in the Ising case they are gapped.
In non-interacting systems, we find $E_a=E_d>E_b>E_c$, thus the band insulator. The charge distribution is quite homogeneous, and the cluster like arrangement is not minimal in energy. Turning on the interaction, potential d) results in the largest energy gain, while the order of the remaining potentials depends on both the potential strength and the interaction. The interaction strongly supports the spin order, where double occupancy is suppressed.
In the following discussion we rely on the potentials a) to c), where the spin-order, if present, is a result of the charge order. For weak interaction and weak potential, we recover the behavior of the non-interacting system, with $E_a>E_b>E_c$. Turning to intermediate values ($U\approx 3t$, $W\approx t$ ), the cluster-like arrangement of potential b) gains more energy than the homogeneous distribution of case a), $E_b>E_a>E_c$. For strong $W\to t$, also a 4$k_F$ pattern is favored against the homogeneous case, $E_b>E_c>E_a$. Thus, for small or intermediate interaction and potential, the gain of energy due to the hopping is stronger than the effects of the repulsive interaction or the underlying potential. With increasing potential, however, the effects of the potential dominates.
On the other hand, regarding a weak potential but increasing interaction, we find that a pattern related to potential a) is established only at small interaction. The cluster-like arrangement is formed at intermediate interaction ($U\approx 3-5t$), but at strong interaction the $4k_F$-periodic pattern dominates. Concerning the spin chain compound (Ca,Sr)$_{14}$Cu$_{24}$O$_{41}$, we have applied the potential only in order to clarify the leading instability of the system. For comparison with a real material which shows no lattice effects, the limit $W\to 0$ is relevant. In addition, for copper oxides usually a correlation parameter of $U\approx 8 eV$ [@Anisimov] is assumed. Together with the band width of about 1 eV, see Fig. 1, we have $U > 15t$. In this parameter region, we find – neglecting the magnetic field – the 4$k_F$-periodic charge pattern with antiferromagnetism to be the most probable ground state. The energetic order found for weak potentials extends to strong potentials. For strong interaction, we always have $E_c>E_b>E_a$. The tendency of the repulsive interaction to separate the charges dominates the phase diagram in this region. The influence of the potential is weaker, leading to a preference of the cluster over the homogeneous distribution.
Finally, we remark that adding electrons stabilizes the cluster formation. This observation likewise agrees with experimental results, obtained for the (Ca,La)$_{14}$Cu$_{24}$O$_{41}$ series, where the cluster size grows on additional charge. Therefore we conclude, that the antiferromagnetism is due to the band filling, thus a commensurability effect.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
---------------
We thank U. Eckern for helpful discussions, and P. Brune for providing the DMRG code. Financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within SPP 1073 and SFB 484 is acknowledged.
[10]{} S. Eggert, I. Affleck, and M. D. P. Horton, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 47202 (2002).
N. Nücker, M. Merz, C. A. Kuntscher, S. Gerhold, S. Schuppler, R. Neudert, M. S. Golden, J. Fink, D. Schild, S. Stadler, V. Chakarian, J. Freeland, Y. U. Idzerda, K. Conder, M. Uehara, T. Nagata, J. Goto, J. Akimitsu, N. Motoyama, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, U. Ammerahl, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 14384 (2000).
T. Nagata, H. Fujino, J. Akimitsu, M. Nishi, K. Kakurai, S. Katano, M. Hiroi, M. Sera, and N. Kobayashi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**68**]{}, 2206 (1999).
U. Schwingenschlögl and C. Schuster (unpublished).
V. Eyert, Int. J. Quantum Chem. [**77**]{}, 1007 (2000).
R. Klingeler, N. Tristan, B. Büchner, M. Hucker, U. Ammerahl, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 184406 (2005).
R. Klingeler, B. Büchner, K.-Y. Choi, V. Kataev, U. Ammerahl, A. Revcolevschi, and J. Schnack, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 014426 (2006).
V. Kataev, K.-Y. Choi, M. Grüninger, U. Ammerahl, B. Büchner, A. Freimuth, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 104422 (2001).
Y. Gotoh, I. Yamaguchi, Y. Takahashi, J. Akimoto, M. Goto, M. Onoda, H. Fujino, T. Nagata, and J. Akimitsu, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 224108 (2003).
M. Dumm, A. Loidl, B. W. Fravel, K. P. Starkey, L. K. Montgomery, and M. Dressel, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 511 (2000).
E. Z. Kurmaev, A. Moewes, U. Schwingenschlögl, R. Claessen, M. I. Katsnelson, H. Kobayashi, S. Kagoshima, Y. Misaki, D. L. Ederer, K. Endo, and M. Yanagihara, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 233107 (2001).
N. Kobayashi, M. Ogata, and K. Yonemitsu, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**67**]{}, 1098 (1998).
R. T. Clay, S. Mazumdar, and D. K. Campbell, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 115121 (2003).
W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Phys. Rev. B [**22**]{}, 2099 (1980).
E. H. Lieb and F. Y. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**20**]{}, 2435 (1968).
M. Fabrizio, A. O. Gogolin, and A. A. Nersesyan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 2014 (1999).
M. E. Torio, A. A. Aligia, and H. A. Ceccatto, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 121105(R) (2001).
M. Dzierzawa and C. Mocanu, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**17**]{}, 2663 (2005).
M. E. Torio, A. A. Aligia, G. I. Japaridze, and B. Normand, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 115109 (2006).
D. Baeriswyl and K. Maki, Phys. Rev. B [**31**]{}, 6633 (1985).
A. P. Kampf, M. Sekania, G. I. Japaridze, and P. Brune, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**15**]{}, 5895 (2003).
S. R. Manmana, V. Meden, R. M. Noack, and K. Schönhammer, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 155115 (2004).
H. Fehske, A. P. Kampf, M. Sekania, and G. Wellein, Eur. Phys. J. B [**31**]{}, 11 (2003).
H. Fehske, G. Wellein, G. Hager, A. Weisse, and A. R. Bishop, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 165115 (2004).
P. Schmitteckert and R. Werner, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 195115 (2004).
H. Yoshioka, M. Tsuchiizu, and Y. Suzumura, J. Phys. Soc. Japan [**70**]{}, 762 (2001).
C. Schuster and U. Eckern, Eur. Phys. J. B [**5**]{}, 395 (1998).
K. Penc and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 11429 (1994).
J. Riera and D. Poilblanc, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, R16243 (2000).
I. Peschel, X. Wang, M. Kaulke, and K. Hallberg, [*Density-Matrix Renormalization: A New Numerical Method in Physics*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 528 (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1999).
K. Hida, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 8268 (1992).
P. Brune, Dissertation, Universität Augsburg (Shaker Verlag, Aachen, 2001).
J. Riera and D. Poilblanc, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 2667 (1999).
T. D. Kühner and S. R. White, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 335 (1999).
C. Schuster and P. Brune, phys. stat. sol. b [**241**]{}, 2043 (2004).
V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 943 (1991).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Masahiro [IMACHI]{} [^1]\
Shouhei [KANOU]{} [^2] and Hiroshi [YONEYAMA]{} [^3]
title: 'Two dimensional $CP^{2}$ Model with $\theta$-term and Topological Charge Distributions '
---
\#1[$\underline{ \hbox{#1}}$]{} =‘ \#1\#2 (\#1) (\#1) (\#1) (\#1)[$${\overline{\underline{ \rm Fig.{\ \ #1}}}}$$]{} (\#1)[$${\overline{\underline{
\rm Table\ \ \uppercase\expandafter{ \romannumeral#1}}}}$$]{} c ł c ł 1[N\_[f\_1]{}]{} 2 [N\_[f\_2]{}]{} (\#1) (\#1)
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank R. Burkhalter for stimulating discussions.
Integration Measure
===================
[^1]: E-mail address:[email protected]
[^2]: E-mail address: kanou$\underline{~}[email protected]
[^3]: E-mail address:[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Consider a random graph, having a pre-specified degree distribution $F$ but other than that being uniformly distributed, describing the social structure (friendship) in a large community. Suppose one individual in the community is externally infected by an infectious disease and that the disease has its course by assuming that infected individuals infect their not yet infected friends independently with probability $p$. For this situation the paper determines $R_0$ and $\tau_0$, the basic reproduction number and the asymptotic final size in case of a major outbreak. Further, the paper looks at some different local vaccination strategies where individuals are chosen randomly and vaccinated, or friends of the selected individuals are vaccinated, prior to the introduction of the disease. For the studied vaccination strategies the paper determines $R_v$: the reproduction number, and $\tau_v$: the asymptotic final proportion infected in case of a major outbreak, after vaccinating a fraction $v$.'
address:
- 'Tom Britton, Department of Mathematics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden.'
- 'Svante Janson, Department of Mathematics, Uppsala University, P.O. Box 480, SE-75106 Uppsala, Sweden.'
- 'Anders Martin-Löf, Department of Mathematics, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden.'
author:
- 'Tom Britton, Svante Janson and Anders Martin-Löf'
date: 'January 25, 2007'
title: 'Graphs with specified degree distributions, simple epidemics and local vaccination strategies'
---
Introduction
============
Simple undirected random graphs can be used to describe the social network in a large community (e.g. [@s00]), vertices corresponding to individuals and edges to some type of social relation, from now on denoted friendship. Given such a graph, a model for the spread of the disease may be defined, where individuals at first are susceptible but may then become infected by a friend. An infected individual has the potential to spread the disease to its not yet infected friends before it recovers and becomes immune. The final outbreak, both its size and who gets infected, depends on properties of the social graph as well as on properties of disease transmission. In order to prevent an outbreak it is possible to vaccinate, or immunize in some other way, individuals prior to arrival of the disease. Who and how many that are to be vaccinated specifies the vaccination strategy.
The present paper studies questions arising from such modeling. In particular, we consider random graphs where the degree distribution (the number of friends) follows some pre-specified distribution $F$, typically having heavy tails, but where the random graph $G$ is otherwise uniformly distributed. The epidemic model is the simplest possible model for a susceptible-infectious-removed (SIR) disease (e.g. [@ab00]). One randomly selected individual is initially externally infected. Any individual who becomes infected infects each of his/her not yet infected friends independently with probability $p$, and after that the individual recovers and becomes immune, a state called removed. For this graph and epidemic model we study different vaccination strategies: the uniform strategy and the acquaintance strategy [@chb03]. In both strategies individuals are chosen randomly from the community. In the uniform strategy the selected individuals are vaccinated and in the acquaintance strategy a randomly chosen friend of the selected individual is vaccinated. Both vaccination strategies are local in the sense that the global social network need not be known in order to perform the strategy. We also study a vaccination strategy where, instead of selecting individuals at random, friendships are selected and one or two of the corresponding friends get vaccinated.
As the population size $n$ tends to infinity, we prove that the initial phase of the epidemic may be approximated by a suitable branching process. The largest eigenvalue of the branching process, often denoted $R_0$ and called the basic reproduction number when applied to epidemics [@ab00], determines whether a major outbreak can occur or not: if $R_0\le
1$ only minor outbreaks can occur whereas if $R_0>1$ outbreaks of order $O(n)$ can also occur with positive probability. In case of a major outbreak the total number of individuals infected during the outbreak, the final size, is shown to satisfy a law of large number. The corresponding (random) proportion is shown to converge in probability to a deterministic limit $\tau_0$. Similar results are obtained when a vaccination strategy with vaccination coverage $v$ has been performed prior to disease introduction. In this situation the strategy-specific reproduction number $R_v$, and the major outbreak size $\tau_v$, are determined. From this it is possible to determine the (strategy-specific) critical vaccination coverage $v_c$ which determines the necessary proportion to vaccinate in order to surely prevent a major outbreak, so $v_c=\inf_v \{v; R_v\le 1\}$.
Stochastic epidemic models on networks with pre-specified degree distributios have mainly been studied in the physics literature (e.g. [@mn00], [@nsw01], [@chb03]), Andersson [@a99] being one exception. Some of the problems studied in the present paper have been analysed before whereas others have not, in particular the final size proportion $\tau_v$ as a function of $v$. Beside contributing with some new results another aim of the paper is to give formal proofs to results which have previously only been obtained heuristically.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In [Section \[Smodels\]]{} we define the models for the random graph, the epidemic and the vaccination strategies. In [Section \[Sresults\]]{} we present the main results, motivate them with some heuristics and give some examples and illustrations. The proofs are given in Sections [\[Sgw\] and \[Spf\]]{}.
Models {#Smodels}
======
Graphs {#SSgraphs}
------
Let $G$ denote a random *multigraph*, allowing for multiple edges and loops, and let $n=|G|$ denote the number of vertices of $G$, [i.e.=1000]{} the population size. Later we shall consider limits as [${n\to\infty}$]{}. We define our random multigraph as follows. Let $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and let $(d_i)_1^n=(d_i{^{(n)}})_1^n$ be a sequence of non-negative integers such that ${\sum_{i=1}^n}d_i$ is even. We define a *random multigraph with given degree sequence $(d_i)_1^n$*, denoted by [$G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{}, by the configuration model (see [e.g.=1000]{} [@bollobas]): take a set of $d_i$ half-edges for each vertex $i$, and combine the half-edges into pairs by a uniformly random matching of the set of all half-edges.
Note that [$G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{} does not have exactly the uniform distribution over all multigraphs with the given degree sequence; there is a weight with a factor $1/j!$ for every edge of multiplicity $j$, and a factor $1/2$ for every loop, see [@JKLP §1]. However, conditioned on the multigraph being a (simple) graph, we obtain a uniformly distributed random graph with the given degree sequence, which we denote by [$G(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{}. It is also worth mentioning that the distribution of [$G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{} is the same as the one obtained by sampling the edges as ordered pairs of vertices uniformly with replacement, and then conditioning on the vertex degrees being correct.
Let us write $2m{:=}{\sum_{i=1}^n}d_i$, so that $m=m(n)$ is the number of edges in the multigraph [$G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{}. We assume that we are given $(d_i)_1^n$ satisfying the following regularity conditions, [cf.=1000]{} Molloy and Reed [@MR1; @MR2].
\[C1\] For each $n$, $(d_i)_1^n=(d_i{^{(n)}})_1^n$ is a sequence of non-negative integers such that ${\sum_{i=1}^n}d_i$ is even and, for some probability distribution $(p_j)_{j=0}^\infty$ independent of $n$, and with $n_j{:=}\#{\ensuremath{\{i:d_i=j\}}}$,
$n_j/n\to p_j$ for every $j\ge0$ as [${n\to\infty}$]{};
$\mu{:=}\sum_j j p_j\in(0,\infty)$;
$2m/n\to\mu$ as [${n\to\infty}$]{}.
$p_2<1$.
\[Runiform\] Note that $2m=\sum_i d_i = \sum_j j n_j$. Thus, [Condition \[C1\]]{} implies that the sum $\sum_j jn_j/n$ converges uniformly for $n\ge1$, [i.e.=1000]{}$$\label{unif1}
\lim_{J\to\infty} \sup_n \sum_{j>J} j n_j/n =0.$$ Conversely, together with (i) and (ii) implies (iii). (This follows from, [e.g.=1000]{}, [@Gut Theorem 5.5.4], taking $X_n$ to be the degree of a random vertex.)
Note that our condition is slightly weaker than the one in Molloy and Reed [@MR1; @MR2]; they also assume (in an equivalent formulation) that if $\sum_j j^2 p_j<\infty$, then the sums $\sum_j j^2 n_j/n$ converge uniformly; moreover they assume that $j^2 n_j/n\to j^2 p_j$ uniformly.
[Condition \[C1\]]{} is all we need to study the random multigraph [$G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{}. In order to treat the random simple graph [$G(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{}, which is our main model, we need an additional assumption.
\[C2\] $\sum_i d_i^2=O(n)$.
Note that $\sum_i d_i^2=\sum_j j^2n_j$, so Conditions [\[C1\] and \[C2\]]{} imply, by Fatou’s lemma, that $\sum_j j^2p_j<\infty$; in other words, the asymptotic degree distribution has finite variance.
When Conditions [\[C1\] and \[C2\]]{} hold, the probability that [$G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{} is a simple graph is bounded away from 0, see [Subsection \[SSsimple\]]{} for details, and thus all results that can be stated in terms of convergence in probability for [$G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{} transfer to the random simple graph [$G(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{} too.
Alternative graph models
------------------------
We will in the remainder of the paper consider [$G(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{} as our underlying graph model, but we believe that similar results hold for other random graph models too, and that they could be proved by suitable modifications of the branching process arguments below. Good candidates are the classical random graphs [$G(n,p)$]{} and [$G(n,m)$]{}, with $p=\mu/n$ and $m=n\mu/2$ (rounded to an integer), respectively, and random graphs of the general type ${{\ensuremath{G(n,{\kappa})}}}$ defined in [@SJ178]. We will not pursue this here, and leave such attempts to modify the proofs to the interested reader, but we will discuss one interesting case (including [$G(n,p)$]{}) where the result easily follow from the results proved below for [$G(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{}.
This example is a random graph defined by Britton, Deijfen and Martin-Löf [@BrittonDML Section 3], see also [@SJ178 Subsection 16.4], as follows. Let $W$ be a non-negative random variable with finite expectation $\mu_W{:=}{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}W$. We first assign random weights $W_i$, $i=1,\dots,n$ to the vertices; these weights are [i.i.d.=1000]{} with the same distribution as $W$. Secondly, given ${\ensuremath{\{W_i\}}}_1^n$, we draw an edge between vertices $i$ and $j$ with probability $$\label{pij}
{p_{ij}}{:=}\frac{W_iW_j}{n+W_iW_j};$$ this is done independently (conditioned on ${\ensuremath{\{W_i\}}}$) for all pairs [$\{i,j\}$]{} with $1\le i<j\le n$. We denote this random graph by [$G_W(n)$]{}. It is easily seen [@BrittonDML] that implies that all graphs with a given degree sequence $(d_i)_1^n$ have the same probability. Hence, if we denote the (random) vertex degrees by $D_1,\dots,D_n$, then conditioned on $D_i=d_i$, $i=1,\dots,n$, we have a random graph [$G(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{}. Moreover, it is not difficult to verify that [Condition \[C1\]]{} holds in probability, with $(p_j)_0^\infty$ the mixed Poisson distribution ${\operatorname{Po}}(\mu_WW)$ and $\mu=\mu_W^2$, see [@BrittonDML Theorem 3.1] and [@SJ178 Theorem 3.13]; in other words, $n_j/n{\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}p_j$ and $2m/n=n^{-1}\sum_id_i{\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}\mu$. Assume from now on that ${\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}W^2<\infty$; it may then be shown by similar arguments that $n^{-1}\sum_id_i^2{\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}\mu_w^2({\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}W^2+1)$. Using the Skorohod coupling theorem, see [e.g.=1000]{} [@Kallenberg Theorem 4.30]), we can assume that these limits hold a.s.; hence Conditions [\[C1\] and \[C2\]]{} hold a.s. Consequently, by conditioning on $(D_1,\dots,D_n)$, we can apply the results proved in the present paper for [$G(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{}, and it follows that the theorems below hold for the random graph [$G_W(n)$]{} too, with $(p_j)$ and $\mu$ as above.
With suitable couplings, using for example $(1+n^{-1/2})W_i$ for upper bounds, it is easy to see that this remains true if is modified to $$\label{pij1}
{p_{ij}}{:=}\min{\Bigl(\frac{W_iW_j}{n},1\Bigr)}.$$ Random graphs defined by this definition and minor variations of it have been studied by several authors, see [@SJ178 Subsection 16.4] and the references given there. Note that the special (deterministic) case $W=\sqrt\mu$ for a constant $\mu>0$ gives the classical random graph $G(n,\mu/n)$. The results in this paper thus holds for $G(n,\mu/n)$ too, with $(p_j)$ a ${\operatorname{Po}}(\mu)$ distribution; in other words, with $D$ defined in [Section \[Sresults\]]{}, $D\sim{\operatorname{Po}}(\mu)$.
Epidemic model
--------------
We consider an infectious disease that spreads along the edges of a graph $G$. We will in this paper assume that $G={\ensuremath{G(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}$ is the random graph defined above, where we condition the graph [$G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{} on being simple. The vertices of $G$ are the individuals in the population, and the edges represent friendships through which infection might spread.
The disease has its course in the following way. Initially, one randomly chosen individual (vertex) is infected from the outside. This individual then spreads the disease to each of its friends independently and with the same probability $p$. Those who get infected make out the first generation infected in the epidemic. These individuals then do the same thing to their not yet infected friends thus infecting a second generation, and so forth. Note that an individual can only get infected once – we then consider such an individual either recovered and immune (or dead). This epidemic continues until there are no new infections in a generation, when it stops. Since the population is finite this happens after a finite number of generations ($\le n$, where $n=|G|$ is the size of the population). The individuals who get infected during the course of the epidemic make up the total outbreak, and the number of such individuals is called the final size of the epidemic.
Note that each edge is a possible path of infection at most once, namely when the first of its endpoints has been infected. Hence we may just as well determine in advance for every edge in $G$ whether it will spread the disease or not, provided that one of the endpoints gets infected. Equivalently, we may consider the graph $G_p$ obtained by randomly deleting edges from $G$, with each edge kept with probability $p$, independently of the others. The final size of the epidemic is thus the size of the component of $G_p$ containing the initially infected individual.
Vaccination strategies
----------------------
Assume now that a perfect vaccine is available. By this we mean that an individual who is vaccinated is completely protected from ([i.e.=1000]{}, immune to) the disease and is not able to spread the disease further. We assume that a part of the population is vaccinated before the epidemic starts, or as soon as the first individual is infected. The epidemic progresses as defined above, with the only difference that infected individuals can only infect unvaccinated friends.
Note that for the study of the epidemic in the vaccinated population, we may simply remove all vaccinated individuals from $G$ (and edges connected to these individuals). If we let $G{_{{\mathsf{v}}}}$ denote the remaining graph, and we assume that the initially infected individual $x$ is not vaccinated, the final size of the epidemic is thus the size of the component of $G{_{{\mathsf{v}}; p}}{:=}(G{_{{\mathsf{v}}}})_p$ that contains $x$. We thus have to study the combined effect on $G$ of vertex deletion by the vaccination and edge deletion by the randomness of infection.
The goal is to contain the disease, so that the final size of the epidemic is small, and it is preferable to do this with a rather small number of vaccinations. For this we look at different local vaccination strategies. The first two strategies are local in the sense that they require no global knowledge of the social network $G$ (which is rarely available in applications, [@n03 Section 8.2]) and the latter two selects friendhsips rather than individuals at random which may also be thought of needing only local information. We let $V$ denote the (usually random) number of vaccinations.
### Uniform vaccination
Let us assume that we sample a fraction $c\in[0,1]$ chosen uniformly in the population without replacement and that this fraction is immunized, so the fraction $v$ being immunized satisfies $v=c$. This vaccination strategy is the most commonly studied vaccination strategy due to its simplicity [@n03 Section 8.2].
More precisely, for convenience, we assume that each individual is vaccinated with a given probability $v$, independently of each other. The number $V$ of vaccinations is thus ${\operatorname{Bi}}(n,v)$, and $V/n{\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}v$ as [${n\to\infty}$]{} (with $v$ fixed). We denote the remaining graph of unvaccinated individuals by $G{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v}}$; this is thus obtained from $G$ by random vertex deletions. Remember that our main concern is with the graph $G{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}=(G{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v}})_p$; this is obtained from $G$ by random vertex and edge deletions, independently for all vertices and edges. (In this case, it does not matter whether we delete edges or vertices first.)
### Acquaintance vaccination
It is intuitively clear that a better vaccination strategy would be to vaccinate the individuals with highest degrees (most friends) since this would reduce potential spread the most. However, for this targeted vaccination strategy to be achievable the whole social graph (or at least the degrees of all individuals) would have to be known, and this is rarely the case [@n03 Section 8.2]. A different strategy aiming at vaccinating individuals with high degree, but still only using local graph-knowledge from selected individuals, proposed by Cohen et al. [@chb03], goes under the name *acquaintance vaccination*. In this vaccination strategy a fraction $c$ of individuals are sampled, and for each sampled individual one of its friends, chosen randomly among all friends, is vaccinated. Of course it may happen that some individuals are chosen more than once for immunization (being selected as friends of more than one individual) so the fraction $v=v(c)$ actually immunized is smaller than $c$. This vaccination strategy has two slightly different variants depending on whether the “fraction” $c$ is chosen with or without replacement. We will use the version with replacement. For this case the “fraction” $c$ may in fact exceed 1 without having everyone vaccinated (individuals who are selected more than once are asked for friends independently each time and friends not yet immunized are vaccinated). To be precise, we let the number of individuals sampled be Poisson distributed ${\operatorname{Po}}(cn)$, with $c\in[0,\infty)$. Equivalently, each individual is sampled ${\operatorname{Po}}(c)$ times, and each time reports a randomly chosen friend. Again, for simplicity, we assume that each individual does this with replacement. Consequently, an individual with degree $d$ will report each of its friends ${\operatorname{Po}}(c/d)$ times, and these random numbers are all independent. (An individual that is sampled but has no friends is ignored. An individual is only vaccinated once, even if he or she is reported several times.)
For any initial graph $G$ and $0\le c<\infty$, we denote the remaining graph of unvaccinated individuals by $G{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c}}$. We further write $G{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}=(G{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c}})_p$ for the graph obtained by additional edge deletions. (For acquaintance vaccination, the order of the deletions is important, since the vaccination strategy uses all edges, without knowing whether they may be selected to transmit the disease or not.)
### Edgewise vaccination
In some situations it may be possible to observe, or at least sample, the edges representing friendships. If this is the case, another reasonable vaccination strategy is to sample a number of the edges and then either vaccinate both endpoints or one (randomly selected) endpoint; we denote these two versions by ${\mathsf{E1}}$ and ${\mathsf{E2}}$.
For ${\mathsf{E2}}$, we assume that we sample each edge with probability $1-\alpha$, where $\alpha\in(0,1]$ is a fixed number. (Equivalently, we sample ${\operatorname{Po}}(cm)$ edges with replacement, with $\alpha =e^{-c}$.) For ${\mathsf{E1}}$, we assume for simplicity that we sample ${\operatorname{Po}}(2cm)$ edges with replacement; thus each end of each edge is sampled with probability $1-\alpha =1-e^{-c}$, independently of all other edge ends. Hence, for both versions, a vertex with degree $d$ is unvaccinated with probability $\alpha^d$, and for ${\mathsf{E1}}$, this is independent of all other vertices.
For an initial graph $G$ and $0< \alpha\le1$, we denote the remaining graph of unvaccinated individuals by $G{^{{^{{\mathsf{E1}}}}}_{\alpha}}$ and $G{^{{^{{\mathsf{E2}}}}}_{\alpha}}$, for the two versions. We further write, for $j=1,2$, $G{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}=(G{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha }})_p$ for the graph obtained by additional edge deletions.
Main results {#Sresults}
============
We now state our main results together with heuristic motivations. We assume that the underlying graph is the random graph ${\ensuremath{G(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}$ and that Conditions [\[C1\] and \[C2\]]{} hold. Complete proofs are given in Section \[Spf\].
Original epidemic model {#SSomodel}
-----------------------
Assume that $n$, the number of nodes, is large. The regularity assumption on the degrees of the graph ([Condition \[C1\]]{}) implies that no separate node will contain a large fraction of all edges, see . This in turn implies that self loops, multiple edges and short cycles will be rare.
The epidemic starts by a randomly selected individual being infected from outside, so this individual has (approximately) the degree distribution $(p_j)_{j=0}^\infty$. The friends of this individual, or of any individual, have the size biased degree distribution $(\tilde p_j)_{j=0}^\infty$, where $$\tilde p_j=jp_j/\sum_kkp_k.\label{ptilde}$$ Let $D$ and ${\tilde D}$ be random variables having these degree distributions respectively. Then, given that $D=d$, the number of individuals that the initially infected infects is ${\operatorname{Bi}}(d,p)$, and the unconditional distribution is hence mixed binomial ${\operatorname{MixBi}}(D,p)$. Those then infected, as well as infecteds in the following generations, have degree distribution $(\tilde
p_j)_{j=0}^\infty$. Given that ${\tilde D}=\tilde d$, the number of individuals an infected individual infects in the next generation has distribution ${\operatorname{Bi}}(\tilde d-1,p)$. This follows because the infected was infected by one of his friends (which cannot get reinfected) and, since short cycles are rare, it is very unlikely that any of the remaining $\tilde d-1$ friends have already been infected. Unconditionally, the number infected in the next generation is hence ${\operatorname{MixBi}}({\tilde D}-1,
p)$. Further, the property that short cycles are unlikely implies that the number of infections caused by different individuals are (approximately) independent random variables.
The above paragraph motivates why the early stages of the epidemic may be approximated by a branching process (e.g. [@AN]), as is common for epidemic models (e.g. [@ab00]), and where “giving birth” corresponds to infecting someone. The branching process is a simple Galton–Watson process starting with one ancestor having off-spring distribution $X\sim
{\operatorname{MixBi}}(D,p)$ and the following generations have off-spring distribution $\tilde X\sim {\operatorname{MixBi}}({\tilde D}-1,p)$. The mean of this latter off-spring distribution plays an important role in branching process theory and also in in epidemic theory where it is denoted $R_0$ and denoted the basic reproduction number. We get the following, using , $$\begin{split}
R_0={\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}(\tilde X)=p{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({\tilde D}-1)
=p{\left(\frac{\sum_jj^2p_j}{\mu}-1\right)}
=p\left(\mu+\frac{{\operatorname{Var}}(D)-\mu}{\mu}\right),\label{R_0}
\end{split}$$ where $\mu={\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}(D)=\sum_kkp_k$ and ${\operatorname{Var}}(D)=\sum_jj^2p_j - \mu^2$ (a very related expression is obtained in [@a99]). The branching process is subcritical, critical or supercritical depending on whether $R_0<1$, $R_0=1$ or $R_0>1$. For the epidemic, this means a major outbreak infecting a non-negligible fraction of the community, is possible if and only if $R_0>1$. Note that, for fixed $\mu$, $R_0$ is increasing in ${\operatorname{Var}}(D)$, so the more variance in the degree distribution, the higher $R_0$, and if the degree distribution has infinite variance then $R_0=\infty$ (a case not treated in the present manuscript due to Condition \[C2\]).
The probability $\pi$ that the branching process dies out is derived in the standard way as follows. First, we derive the probability $\tilde \pi$ that a branching process with all individuals having off-spring distribution $\tilde X$ dies out. This is obtained by conditioning on the number of individuals born in the first generation: for the branching process to die out, all branching processes initiated by the individuals of the first generation must die out, i.e.$$\tilde \pi=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \tilde \pi^k{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(\tilde X=k).$$ Let $f_{\tilde X}(\cdot)$ denote the probability generating function for $\tilde X$, and $f_{ D}(\cdot)$ the probability generating function of the original degree distribution $D$. Then we see that $\tilde \pi$ is a solution to the equation $f_{\tilde X}(t)=t$, and it is known from branching process theory (e.g. [@AN Theorem I.5.1]) that it is the smallest non-negative such solution. The fact that $\tilde X$ is ${\operatorname{MixBi}}(\tilde
D-1,p)$ implies that $$f_{\tilde X}(t)={\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}(t^{\tilde X})={\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}(t^{\tilde X}|\tilde
D))={\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}((pt+1-p)^{{\tilde D}-1})={\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}((1-p(1-t))^{{\tilde D}-1}).$$ Further, $${\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}(a^{{\tilde D}-1})=\sum_ka^{k-1}\frac{kp_k}{\mu}=
\frac{d}{da}\sum_ka^k\frac{p_k}{\mu}=\frac{d}{da} \frac{f_D(a)}{\mu }
=\frac{f_D'(a)}{\mu}=\frac{f_D'(a)}{f_D'(1)}.$$ In terms of $f_{ D}(\cdot)$ the probability $\tilde \pi$ that the branching process dies out is hence the smallest non-negative solution to $$\frac{f_D'(1-p(1-\tilde \pi))}{f_D'(1)}=\tilde \pi.\label{tildepi}$$
The probability $\pi$ that the branching process, in which the ancestor has different off-spring distribution $X$, dies out, is obtained from $\tilde \pi$ by conditioning on the number of off-spring of the ancestor: $$\begin{split}
\pi&=\sum_k\tilde \pi^k{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(X=k)={\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}(\tilde \pi^X)={\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}(\tilde
\pi^X|D))={\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}((p\tilde \pi+1-p)^D)
\\&
=f_D(1-p(1-\tilde \pi)).\label{pi}
\end{split}$$
We now look at the final size of the epidemic in case it takes off, corresponding to the case that the branching process grows beyond all limits. We do this by considering the epidemic from a graph representation. The social structure was represented by a random graph $G$. If this graph is thinned by removing each edge independently with probability $1-p$ we get a thinned graph denoted $G_p$. Edges in $G_p$ represent potential spread of infection: if one of the nodes get infected from elsewhere, its neighbour will get infected. As a consequence, the final outbreak of the epidemic will consist of all nodes in $G_p$ that are connected to the initially infected. From random graph theory it is known that if $R_0>1$ there will be exactly one connected component of order $n$, the giant component, and all remaining connected components will be of smaller order. If $R_0\le 1$ there will be no giant component. The initially infected was chosen uniformly in the community so it will belong to the giant component with a probability that equals the relative size of the giant component. On the other hand, the initially infected belongs to the giant component if and only if its branching process of new infections grows beyond all limits, and we know from before that this happens with probability $1- \pi$ defined in equation (\[pi\]). From this it follows that the asymptotic final proportion infected, $\tau$, equals $1- \pi$. So, $\tau$ is both the probability of a major outbreak, and the relative size of the outbreak in case a major outbreak occurs.
The above arguments motivate the following theorem, which is proven in Section \[Spf\], and where $Z_n$ denotes the final number infected in the epidemic.
\[T0\] If $R_0\le 1$ then $Z_n/n{\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}0$. If $R_0>1$, then $Z_n/n$ converges to a two-point distribution $Z$ for which ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(Z=0)=\pi$ and ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(Z=\tau)=\tau$, where $\pi$ is defined by and and $\tau =1-\pi$.
Uniform vaccination {#SSumodel}
-------------------
Prior to arrival of the infectious disease, each individual is vaccinated independently and with the same probability $v$ which implies that the total number of vaccinated $V$ is ${\operatorname{Bi}}(n,v)$, and from the law of large number the random proportion vaccinated $V/n{\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}v$.
Vaccinated individuals, and edges connecting to them, can be removed from the graph since there will be no spreading between these individuals and their friends in either direction. As a consequence, an individual who originally had $d$ friends now has ${\operatorname{Bi}}(d,1-v)$ unvaccinated friends. If an individual gets infected during the early stages of the epidemic he will infect each of his unvaccinated friends independently with probability $p$. Given that the initially infected has degree $d$ he will hence infect ${\operatorname{Bi}}(d,p(1-v))$ friends, so without the conditioning he will infect a mixed binomial number $X_v\sim
{\operatorname{MixBi}}(D,p(1-v))$. Similarly, during the early stages an infected individual with degree $d$ will infect ${\operatorname{Bi}}(d-1,p(1-v))$, and unconditionally an individual has degree distribution $\{\tilde p_k\}$, so the unconditional number he will infect $\tilde X_v$ will be $ {\operatorname{MixBi}}(\tilde
D-1, p(1-v))$.
It is seen that we have the same type of distributions as in the case without vaccination. As a consequence, all results for the case with uniform vaccination can be obtained from the case without vaccination simply by replacing $p$ by $p(1-v)$. We hence have that the reproduction number $R{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ after vaccinating a fraction $v$ chosen uniformly satisfies $$R{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}={\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{\tilde X}}_v)=(1-v)R_0
=p(1-v)\left(\mu+\frac{{\operatorname{Var}}(D)-\mu }{\mu}\right).\label{R_vU}$$ The probability $\tilde \pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ that the epidemic never takes off, assuming the initially infected has $\tilde X_v$ unvaccinated friends, is the smallest solution to $$\frac{f_D'{\bigl(1-p(1-v)(1-\tilde \pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}})\bigr)}}{f_D'(1)}=\tilde \pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}.\label{tildepi_vU}$$ The probability $\pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ that the epidemic never takes off if the initially infected is selected randomly among the unvaccinated is given by $$\pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}=f_D{\bigl(1-p(1-v)(1-\tilde \pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}))\bigr)},\label{pi_vU}$$ where $\tilde \pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ is the smallest solution to (\[tildepi\_vU\]). Finally, the final size is determined from the probability of a major outbreak as before. This means that the final proportion infected (among the unvaccinated!) will converge to $1-\pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ in case of a major outbreak. We have the following corollary, where $Z_n{^{{\mathsf{U}}}}(v)$ denotes the final number infected in the epidemic where each individual was vaccinated independently with probability $v$ ($0\le
v<1$) prior to the outbreak, and where the initially infected was chosen randomly among the unvaccinated.
\[TU\] If $R{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}\le 1$, then $Z_n{^{{\mathsf{U}}}}(v)/((1-v)n){\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}0$. If $R{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}>1$, then $Z_n{^{{\mathsf{U}}}}(v)/((1-v)n)$ converges to a two-point distribution $Z{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ for which ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(Z{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}=0)=\pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ and ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(Z{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}=\tau{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}})=\tau{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$, where $\pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ is defined by and and $\tau{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}=1-\pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$.
Acquaintance vaccination {#SSamodel}
------------------------
Recall that each individual is sampled, independently, a ${\operatorname{Po}}(c)$ number of times, where $0\le c<\infty$, so in total ${\operatorname{Po}}(nc)$ individuals are sampled. Each time an individual is sampled a randomly chosen friend of the individual is selected and vaccinated (unless it already was vaccinated). The effect of this strategy is that vaccinated individuals have the size biased degree distribution $(\tilde p_j)_{j=0}^\infty$, where $\tilde p_j=jp_j/\sum_kkp_k$ rather than the original degree distribution $\{ p_k\}$ for uniformly selected individuals. The proportion vaccinated $v=v(c)$ is obtained as follows. An individual avoids being vaccinated if he is not vaccinated “through” any of its friends. The friends of the individual have independent degree distributions $(\tilde
p_j)_{j=0}^\infty$, and the probability of not being vaccinated “through” an individual with degree $k$ is $e^{-c/k}$. It follows that the probability to avoid being vaccinated from one friend equals $${\alpha}={\alpha}(c)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty e^{-c/k}\tilde p_k =\sum_{k=1}^\infty
e^{-c/k}\frac{kp_k}{\mu}.\label{alpha}$$ (Note that $\alpha$ has the same interpretation as for $\alpha$ introduced for the edgewise strategies, but it is a different function of $c$.) If the individual in question has $j$ friends it hence avoids being vaccinated with probability ${\alpha}^j$. The proportion $1-v(c)$ not being vaccinated equals the probability that a randomly selected individual is *not* vaccinated, which hence equals $$\label{v_A}
1-v(c)=\sum_{j=0}^\infty {\alpha}^jp_j=f_D({\alpha}),$$ where as before $f_D(\cdot )$ is the probability generating function of a random variable $D$ having distribution $(p_j)_{j=0}^\infty$.
Note that in this model, given the graph, individuals are vaccinated independently of each other (although with different probabilities). It follows easily that the actual (random) number $V$ of vaccinated persons satisfy $$\label{V_A}
V/n {\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}v(c)
\qquad \text{as {\ensuremath{{n\to\infty}}}}.$$ Hence we will ignore the randomness in $V$ and regard $v(c)$ given by as the proportion of vaccinated persons.
We now approximate the initial stages of an epidemic, occurring in a community having been vaccinated according to the acquaintance strategy, with a suitable branching process. To find “the right” branching process approximation is harder for the acquaintance strategy because the vaccination status of an individual depends on the degrees of its friends. We therefore introduce some convenient terminology.
We say that *transmission may take place* through an edge, and through its two half-edges, if it is one of the edges in $G_p$, i.e., one of the randomly selected edges which will spread the disease if one of its endpoints is infected. (Recall that we may assume this random selection to take place before the start of the infection.) Further, there is a natural correspondence between half-edges and *directed* edges, with a half-edge corresponding to the edge it is part of, directed so that the it begins with this half-edge. We say that a directed edge, or the corresponding half-edge, is *used for vaccination*, if the person at the start of the edge is selected and names the person at the end of the edge, who thus gets vaccinated.
It turns out that a suitable “individual” in the branching process is an unvaccinated person *together* with a directed edge from this person such that transmission may take place through the edge but it is not used for vaccination. It is worth noting that a person may be part of several “individuals” in the branching process (if the person was not vaccinated and has several friends such that the connecting edges satisfy the conditions above). See Figure \[acq-br\] for an illustration of an individual (a) and situations where the individual “gives birth” to one (b) and 0 (c) individuals.
**![a) An illustration of an “individual” in the branching process. In b) the left “individual” has one off-spring (the up-going edge constitutes no individual since there is no transmission and the down-going no individual since the friend was sampled and named the individual below for vaccintation. In c) no individual is born since the friend was vaccinated (being named by some other friend).[]{data-label="acq-br"}](br-ind.eps "fig:"){width="12.0cm" height="4.5cm"}**
In order to analyse the corresponding branching process we have to determine the distribution of how many new “individuals” one “individual” will infect during the early stages of the epidemic assuming a large population (large $n$). We know that the “individual” contains an unvaccinated person, so the edge in the “individual” has not been used for vaccination backwards, [i.e.=1000]{} in the opposite direction. As a consequence, we have to condition on this, and then the node at the other end of the edge has degree $K=k$ with probability $$\label{pfriend}
{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(K=k)=\frac{\tilde p_ke^{-c/k}}{\sum_{j=1}^\infty \tilde
p_je^{-c/j}}=\frac{\tilde p_ke^{-c/k}}{{\alpha}}, \quad k=1,2,\ldots,$$ i.e. the size biased degree distribution conditional on not having vaccinated backwards. In order for this friend to create new “individuals”, it must not have been vaccinated by any of his other $k-1$ friends (by assumption it was not vaccinated from our original individual). This happens with probability ${\alpha}^{k-1}$. Each of the friend’s remaining $k-1$ edges will be *open* (i.e., transmission may take place but it is not used for vaccination) *independently*, each open with probability $pe^{-c/k}$. The number of open edges (equal to the number of new “individuals”) is hence ${\operatorname{Bi}}(k-1,pe^{-c/k})$. If the friend is vaccinated (probability $1-{\alpha}^{k-1}$) no new individuals are born. The unconditional number $Y$ of new “individuals” an individual “gives birth” to, i.e. the off-spring distribution of the approximating branching process, can be obtained by conditioning on the number of friends our friend has and recalling that 0 individuals are born whenever the friend is vaccinated or if the binomial variable equals 0: $$\label{aoff}
\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(Y=0)&= \sum_{k= 1}^\infty \left( (1-{\alpha}^{k-1})
+ {\alpha}^{k-1}(1-pe^{-c/k})^{k-1}\right)\frac{\tilde p_ke^{-c/k}}{{\alpha}} ,
\\
{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(Y=j)
&= \sum_{k= j+1}^\infty {\alpha}^{k-1}\binom{k-1}{j}
(pe^{-c/k})^j(1-pe^{-c/k})^{k-1-j}\frac{\tilde p_ke^{-c/k}}{{\alpha}},\quad j\ge 1.
\end{aligned}$$ This off-spring distribution determines both $R{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$, the probability of a major outbreak, and the final size in case of a major outbreak. For instance, the reproduction number is the mean of this distribution, and this mean is obtained by first conditioning on the degree of the node in question. Given that the degree equals $k$, the average number of off-spring equals ${\alpha}^{k-1}(k-1)pe^{-c/k}$, which gives the following reproduction number: $$R{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}={\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}(Y)
=
\sum_{k\ge 1} {\alpha}^{k-1}(k-1)pe^{-c/k}\frac{\tilde
p_ke^{-c/k}}{{\alpha}} =p\sum_{k\ge 1}(k-1) {\alpha}^{k-2}e^{-2c/k}\tilde p_k
\label{R_vA}$$ (cf. [@chb03]). Let $f_Y (a)={\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}(a^Y)$ be the probability generating function of this off-spring distribution. If the epidemic starts by one “individual”, [i.e.=1000]{} one person with one open directed edge, then the probability $\tilde \pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$ that the epidemic never takes off is the smallest solution to the equation $$\tilde \pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}=f_Y (\tilde \pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}).\label{tildepi_vA}$$ If we start with one infected person that is unvaccinated and has degree $j$, then each of its $j$ half-edges is open with probability $pe^{-c/j}$, and the probability that a given half-edge does not start a large epidemic is $1-pe^{-c/j}+pe^{-c/j}\tilde\pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$, so the probability that the epidemic never takes off equals $(1-pe^{-c/j}(1-\tilde\pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}))^j$, for $j\ge 1$, and 1 for $j=0$.
If instead the initially infected is chosen randomly among the unvaccinated as we assume, then the probability that it has degree $j$ is $p_j {\alpha}^j/\sum_j p_j {\alpha}^j$, [cf.=1000]{} , and thus the probability that the epidemic never takes off equals $$\label{pi_vA}
\pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}=
\frac{p_0+\sum_{j\ge 1} p_j {\alpha}^j{\bigl(1-pe^{-c/j}(1-\tilde \pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}})\bigr)}^j}
{\sum_j p_j {\alpha}^j}
.$$ Finally, using the same reasoning as before, the limiting proportion infected in case of a major outbreak equals $\tau{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}=1- \pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$. We summarize our results in the following theorem, proved in [Section \[Spf\]]{}, where $Z_n{^{{\mathsf{A}}}}{(c)}$ denotes the final number infected in the epidemic where vaccination is done prior to the outbreak according to the acquaintance vaccination strategy. Recall that $0\le c<\infty$ and that $v(c)$, the proportion of the population vaccinated, is given by with ${\alpha}={\alpha}(c)$ given by .
\[TA\] $Z_n{^{{\mathsf{A}}}}{(c)}/{\bigl((1-v(c))n\bigr)}{\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}0$ if $R{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}\le 1$, where $R{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$ is defined by . If $R{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}>1$, then $Z_n{^{{\mathsf{A}}}}{(c)}/{\bigl((1-v(c))n\bigr)}$ converges to a two-point distribution $Z{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$ for which ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}{\bigl(Z{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}=0\bigr)}=\pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$ and ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}{\bigl(Z{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}=\tau{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}\bigr)}=\tau{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$, where $\pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$ is defined by and , and $\tau{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}=1-\pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$.
Edgewise vaccination {#SSemodel}
--------------------
Recall that, for both ${\mathsf{E1}}$ and ${\mathsf{E2}}$, a person with $d$ friends is unvaccinated with probability ${\alpha}^d$ (here ${\alpha}$ has the same meaning in the previous subsection, but it can be treated as a free parameter). Thus, $${\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}V = n\sum_d p_d(1-{\alpha}^d) +o(n)$$ and a simple variance estimate shows that the vaccinated proportion $$\label{v_E}
V/n {\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}v({\alpha}):=\sum_d p_d(1-{\alpha}^d),$$ just as for acquaintance vaccination, see and .
We define open (directed) edges as for acquaintance vaccination, and argue as there with the following modifications. The other endpoint of an open edge has just the size-biased distribution $({\tilde p}_k)$. If this vertex, $y$ say, has degree $k$, it is unvaccinated with probability ${\alpha}^{k-1}$, and in that case, the number of new open edges originating at $y$ is ${\operatorname{Bi}}(k-1,p{\alpha})$ for ${\mathsf{E1}}$ and ${\operatorname{Bi}}(k-1,p)$ for ${\mathsf{E2}}$. The difference between the two versions is because we already know that these edges do not vaccinate $y$, and for ${\mathsf{E2}}$, this implies that they do not vaccinate their other endpoint either, while for ${\mathsf{E1}}$ that is an independent event with probability ${\alpha}$.
We thus have the offspring distributions for ${\mathsf{E1}}$ and ${\mathsf{E2}}$, [cf.=1000]{} , $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(Y_1=j)
&= \sum_{k= j+1}^\infty {\tilde p}_k {\alpha}^{k-1}\binom{k-1}{j}
(p{\alpha})^j(1-p{\alpha})^{k-1-j}, &&\quad j\ge 1,
\\
{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(Y_2=j)
&= \sum_{k= j+1}^\infty {\tilde p}_k {\alpha}^{k-1}\binom{k-1}{j}
p^j(1-p)^{k-1-j}, && \quad j\ge 1;
\end{aligned}$$ we leave the formulas for ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(Y_1=0)$ and ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(Y_2=0)$ to the reader.
This gives the reproduction numbers $$\label{R_vE}
\begin{aligned}
R{^{{^{{\mathsf{E1}}}}}_{\alpha; p}}&
={\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}(Y_1)
=
\sum_{k\ge 1}{\tilde p}_k {\alpha}^{k-1}(k-1)p{\alpha}=p\sum_{k}(k-1){\tilde p}_k {\alpha}^{k},
\\
R{^{{^{{\mathsf{E2}}}}}_{\alpha ; p}}&
={\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}(Y_2)
=
\sum_{k\ge 1}{\tilde p}_k {\alpha}^{k-1}(k-1)p
=p\sum_{k}(k-1){\tilde p}_k {\alpha}^{k-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $R{^{{^{{\mathsf{E1}}}}}_{\alpha; p}}={\alpha}R{^{{^{{\mathsf{E2}}}}}_{\alpha ; p}}<R{^{{^{{\mathsf{E2}}}}}_{\alpha ; p}}$, which shows that, with the same number of vaccinations, ${\mathsf{E1}}$ is a better strategy than ${\mathsf{E2}}$. In particular, the critical critical vaccination coverage $v_c$ is smaller for ${\mathsf{E1}}$ than for ${\mathsf{E2}}$. An intuitive explanation to why ${\mathsf{E2}}$ is not as efficient as ${\mathsf{E1}}$ is that in ${\mathsf{E2}}$ both individuals of selected friendships are vaccinated, and since an individual is partly protected by friends getting vaccinated the second vaccination is less “efficient”.
We let ${\tilde \pi}{^{{^{{\mathsf{E1}}}}}_{\alpha; p}}$ and ${\tilde \pi}{^{{^{{\mathsf{E2}}}}}_{\alpha ; p}}$ be the probabilities that the Galton–Watson processes with offspring distributions $Y_1$ and $Y_2$, respectively, starting with one individual, die out; they are thus the smallest positive solutions to $t=f_{Y_1}(t)$ and $t=f_{Y_2}(t)$, where $f_{Y_1}$ and $f_{Y_2}$ are the corresponding probability generating functions.
If we start with one unvaccinated person $x$ with degree $d$, the number of open edges from $x$ is ${\operatorname{Bi}}(d,p{\alpha})$ for ${\mathsf{E1}}$ and ${\operatorname{Bi}}(d,p)$ for ${\mathsf{E2}}$, for the same reason as for the number of new edges above. The probability that the epidemic never takes off is thus $(1-p{\alpha}+p{\alpha}{\tilde \pi}{^{{^{{\mathsf{E1}}}}}_{\alpha; p}})^d$ for ${\mathsf{E1}}$ and $(1-p+p{\tilde \pi}{^{{^{{\mathsf{E2}}}}}_{\alpha ; p}})^d$ for ${\mathsf{E2}}$.
If the initially infected is chosen randomly among the unvaccinated, we thus find the probabilities that the epidemic never takes off $$\label{pi_vE}
\begin{aligned}
\pi{^{{^{{\mathsf{E1}}}}}_{\alpha; p}}&= \frac{\sum_j p_j {\alpha}^j{\bigl(1-p{\alpha}(1-{\tilde \pi}{^{{^{{\mathsf{E1}}}}}_{\alpha; p}})\bigr)}^j}
{\sum_j p_j {\alpha}^j} =
\frac{f_D{\bigl({\alpha}{\bigl(1-p{\alpha}(1-{\tilde \pi}{^{{^{{\mathsf{E1}}}}}_{\alpha; p}})\bigr)}\bigr)}} {f_D({\alpha})},
\\
\pi{^{{^{{\mathsf{E2}}}}}_{\alpha ; p}}&= \frac{\sum_j p_j {\alpha}^j{\bigl(1-p(1-{\tilde \pi}{^{{^{{\mathsf{E2}}}}}_{\alpha ; p}})\bigr)}^j}
{\sum_j p_j {\alpha}^j} =
\frac{f_D{\bigl({\alpha}{\bigl(1-p(1-{\tilde \pi}{^{{^{{\mathsf{E2}}}}}_{\alpha ; p}})\bigr)}\bigr)}} {f_D({\alpha})} .
\end{aligned}$$
We summarize our results as before, letting $Z_n{^{{\mathsf{E1}}}}({\alpha})$ and $Z_n{^{{\mathsf{E2}}}}({\alpha})$ denote the final numbers infected in the epidemic for the two strategies. Recall that $v({\alpha})$ is given by .
\[TE\] For $j=1,2$, $Z_n{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}({\alpha})/{\bigl((1-v({\alpha}))n\bigr)}{\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}0$ if $R{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}\le 1$, where $R{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}$ is defined by . If $R{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}>1$, then $Z_n{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}({\alpha})/{\bigl((1-v({\alpha}))n\bigr)}$ converges to a two-point distribution $Z{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}$ for which ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}{\bigl(Z{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}=0\bigr)}=\pi{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}$ and ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}{\bigl(Z{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}=\tau{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}\bigr)}=\tau{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}$, where $\pi{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}$ is defined by , and $\tau{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}=1-\pi{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}$.
Examples {#Ex}
--------
We now compare the performance of the different vaccination strategies on two examples. In the first example we have chosen the degree distribution to be Poisson distributed with mean $\lambda
=6$, and the transmission probability to equal $p=0.5$. Using we conclude that this implies that $R_0=3$. The assumption of Poisson distributed degree means that this applies to the simple $G(n,p=6/n)$ graph with transmission probability $p=0.5$; in the epidemic literature this model is knowns as the Reed-Frost model (e.g. [@ab00]). In Figure \[tau-Po\] we show $\tau$, the final proportion infected among unvaccinated in case of a major outbreak, as a function of the vaccination coverage $v$, for the 4 different vaccination strategies treated.
**![Final proportion infected $\tau$ as a function of the vaccination coverage $v$ for four vaccination strategies: uniform (—), acquaintance ($\cdots$), ${\mathsf{E1}}$ (- - -) and ${\mathsf{E2}}$ ($-\cdot -\cdot -$). The degree distribution is ${\operatorname{Po}}(6)$ and transmission probability $p=0.5$.[]{data-label="tau-Po"}](tau-poi.eps "fig:"){width="13.0cm" height="10cm"}**
It is seen that the acquaintance and edgewise ${\mathsf{E1}}$ strategies perform best in the sense that, for a fixed proportion vaccinated, the proportion $\tau$ getting infected in case of a major outbreak is smallest for these two strategies. As a consequence, the critical vaccination coverage, $v_c=\inf_v \{v; R_v\le 1\}$, is also smallest for these two strategies. There is no unique ordering of the two strategies – the acquaintance strategy is slightly better for small vaccination coverages and ${\mathsf{E1}}$ is slightly better for higher vaccination coverages and hence also has slightly smaller $v_c$. The edgewise strategy ${\mathsf{E2}}$ is not as good as these two strategies but still better than the uniform vaccination coverage. (Indeed, ${\mathsf{E2}}$ is always less efficient than ${\mathsf{E1}}$, see above.) Acquaintance, ${\mathsf{E1}}$ and ${\mathsf{E2}}$ all perform better than the uniform strategy, the reason being that they tend to find individuals with high degrees. For the parameter choices of this example, the critical vaccination coverages equal $v_c\approx 0.56$ for the acquaintence and ${\mathsf{E1}}$ strategies, $v_c\approx 0.61$ for ${\mathsf{E2}}$ and $v_c\approx 0.67$ for the uniform vaccination strategy.
In the second example (illustrated in Figure \[tau-heavy\]) we chose a more heavy tailed degree distribution having $p_d\propto
d^{-3.5}$ (in the computations it was truncated at $d=200$). The initial values were modified such that $E(D)\approx 6$ to make it more comparable to the previous example, with a resulting variance equal to 18.9. The transmission parameters was set $p=0.5$ as before. Using we hence see that $R_0\approx 4.1$.
**![Final proportion infected as a function of the vaccination coverage for four vaccination strategies: uniform (—), acquaintance ($\cdots$), ${\mathsf{E1}}$ (- - -) and ${\mathsf{E2}}$ ($-\cdot -\cdot -$.) The degree distribution is heavy-tailed ($p_d\propto d^{-3.5}$) with mean $E(D)\approx 6$ and $p=0.5$.[]{data-label="tau-heavy"}](tau-heavy.eps "fig:"){width="13.0cm" height="10cm"}**
In the figure we see the same type of pattern as in the previous example. However, the difference between the strategies is more pronounced with $v_c\approx 0.50$ for the acquaintence and ${\mathsf{E1}}$ strategies, $v_c\approx 0.55$ for ${\mathsf{E2}}$ and $v_c\approx 0.75$ for the uniform vaccination strategy. In other words, if the uniform strategy is applied in these two examples we have to vaccinate *more* individuals if the degree distribution is heavy-tailed, but if any of the other strategies is performed, the heavy-tailed degree distribution require *less* vaccinations to surely prevent an outbreak. Another minor difference from the previous example is that, for the present heavy-tailed distribution, the acquaintance strategy is (slightly) better than ${\mathsf{E1}}$ for all vaccination coverages and hence also has a smaller critical vaccination coverage. However, the difference between the two strategies is negligible.
Note that all $\tau$’s in both examples denote the proportion of infected among the unvaccinated (in case of an outbreak) and can hence be thought of as an indirect protection from those getting vaccinated. Of course, by assumption, all vaccinated are also protected from getting infected.
Preliminaries on branching processes {#Sgw}
====================================
As said above, our method is based on comparison with branching processes, more precisely Galton–Watson processes, see [e.g.=1000]{} [@AN] for definitions and basic facts. If ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}}$ is a Galton–Watson process started with 1 initial particle, we let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}$ denote the same branching process with $d$ initial particles, [i.e.=1000]{} the union of $d$ independent copies of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}}$. Further, for any Galton–Watson process ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}}$, we let $|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}}|$ denote its total progeny, [i.e.=1000]{} the total number of particles in all generations, and we let $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}})$ be the survival probability of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}}$, [i.e.=1000]{} $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}}){:=}{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}}|=\infty)$. Note that if ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}}$ starts with 1 particle, then $$\label{erika}
\rho({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}})=1-{\bigl(1-\rho({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}})\bigr)}^d,$$ since ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}$ dies out if and only if all $d$ copies of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}}$ in it do. We will need the following simple continuity result, which presumably is well known although we have failed to find a reference.
\[Lgw\] Let $X_\nu$ and $X$ be non-negative integer-valued random variables, and let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}_{\nu}^d}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}$ be the corresponding Galton–Watson processes with offspring distributions $X_\nu$ and $X$, starting with $d$ particles. If $X_\nu{\overset{\mathrm{d}}{\to}}X$ as [${n\to\infty}$]{}, and ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(X=1)<1$, then $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}_{\nu}^d}})\to\rho({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}})$, for every fixed $d\ge0$.
By , it suffices to show this for $d=1$, and we then drop the superscript 1.
Consider the probability generating functions $f_X(t){:=}{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}t^X$ and $f_{X_\nu}(t){:=}{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}t^{X_\nu}$ for $0\le t\le1$. It is well-known, see [e.g.=1000]{} [@AN Theorem I.5.1], that the extinction probability $q{:=}1-\rho({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}})$ is the smallest root in $[0,1]$ of $f_X(q)=q$. It follows easily, since we have excluded the possibility $f_X(t)\equiv t$, that if $0\le t<q$, then $f_X(t)>t$, and if $q<t<1 $, then $f_X(t)<t$.
Since $X_\nu{\overset{\mathrm{d}}{\to}}X$, we have $f_{X_\nu}(t)\to f_X(t)$ for every $t\in[0,1]$. Hence, if $0\le t<q$, then $f_{X_\nu}(t)>t$ for large $n$, and thus $q_\nu{:=}1-\rho({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}_{\nu}}})>t$. Similarly, if $q<t<1$, then, for large $n$, $f_{X_\nu}(t)<t$ and thus $q_\nu<t$. It follows that $q_\nu\to q$ as [${n\to\infty}$]{}.
\[Rgw\] The case ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(X=1)=1$, [i.e.=1000]{} $X=1$ [a.s.=1000]{}, really is an exception. If we let $X_\nu\sim{\operatorname{Be}}(1-\nu{^{-1}})$, we have $X_\nu{\overset{\mathrm{d}}{\to}}X=1$, but $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}_{\nu}}})=0$ for every $\nu$ while $\rho({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}})=1$.
The giant component {#Spf}
===================
Our ultimate goal is to describe the large component(s) of ${\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{_{{\mathsf{v}}; p}}$ and ${\ensuremath{G(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{_{{\mathsf{v}}; p}}$, where ${\mathsf{v}}$ is one of the vaccination strategies defined above. The basic strategy will be to relate the neighbourhoods of a vertex to a branching process. We do this for [$G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{}, which is technically easier to handle; as explained in [Subsection \[SSsimple\]]{}, the results then transfer to [$G(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{} too, provided [Condition \[C2\]]{} holds. We first do the argument in detail in the simplest case, [viz.=1000]{} ${\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}$ without edge deletion (i.e. $p=1$) or vaccination and prove our main results concerning the existence, size and uniqueness of the giant component. We use and adapt the method in Bollobás, Janson and Riordan [@SJ178] (for a different random graph model). This will provide a new proof of the results by Molloy and Reed [@MR1; @MR2] (under our slightly weaker condition). We will then describe the modifications needed to make the results valid also when there is edge deletion or vaccination.
We say that an event holds *with high probability* ([[whp]{}]{}), if it holds with probability tending to 1 as $n\to\infty$. We shall use $o_p$ in the standard way (see [e.g.=1000]{} Janson, [Ł]{}uczak and Ruciński [@JLR]); for example, if $(X_n)$ is a sequence of random variables, then $X_n=o_p(1)$ means that $X_n {\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}0$. We shall often use the basic fact that, if $a\in{\mathbb R}$, then $X_n{\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}a$ if and only if, for every $\varepsilon >0$, the relations $X_n>a-{\varepsilon}$ and $X_n<a+{\varepsilon}$ hold [[whp]{}]{}. All unspecified limits are taken as [${n\to\infty}$]{}, while $p$ and the vaccination parameters $v$ or $c$ are kept fixed.
We denote the orders of the components of a graph $G$ by $C_1(G)\ge C_2(G) \ge\dots$, with $C_j(G)=0$ if $G$ has fewer than $j$ components. We let ${{\ensuremath{N_{k}}}}(G)$ denote the total number of vertices in components of order $k$, and write ${{\ensuremath{N_{\ge k}}}}(G)$ for $\sum_{j\ge k}{\ensuremath{N_{j}}}(G)$, the number of vertices in components of order at least $k$. Similarly, we let ${{\ensuremath{N_{k,d}}}}(G)$ and ${{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge k,d}}}}}(G)$ denote the number of such vertices that have degree $d$.
Our results are typically of the form $C_1(G_n)=\tau n+o_p(n)$ and $C_2(G_n)=o_p(n)$ for some number $\tau\ge0$ (or, equivalently, $C_1(G_n)/n{\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}\tau$ and $C_2(G_n)/n{\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}0$). Hence, if $\tau>0$, then there is exactly one “giant” component, and all other components are much smaller. In our epidemic setting, this means that if $\tau=0$, then every epidemic will be “small”, [i.e.=1000]{} $o(n)$, while if $\tau>0$, then the epidemic is large with probability $\tau$ (allowing the case that the initially infected person is vaccinated and thus never becomes ill), and in that case, a fraction $\tau$ of the population will be infected. ($\tau$ thus has a double role.)
${\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}$, with $p=1$ and no vaccination
----------------------------------------------------------------
As said above, we will use a branching process approximation. The particles in the branching process correspond to free (not yet paired) half-edges. Note that there are $jn_j$ half-edges belonging to vertices of degree $j$. Hence, a random half-edge shares a vertex with $j-1$ other half-edges with probability $jn_j/\sum_k kn_k$. By [Condition \[C1\]]{}, $jn_j/\sum_k kn_k\to jp_j/\mu$, and recall the definition of $\tilde p_j=jp_j/\mu$ defined in (\[ptilde\]). Let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}}$ be the Galton–Watson branching process starting with one particle and with the offsping distribution $(\tilde p_{j+1})_{j=0}^\infty$. (This is the distribution $(p_j)_j$ size-biased and shifted one step.) In other words, the offspring distribution is ${\tilde D}-1$, with ${\tilde D}$ as in [Section \[Sresults\]]{}.
We let $\rho=\rho({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}})$ denote the survival probability of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}}$, and define $$\tau{:=}{\sum_{d=1}^\infty}p_d {\bigl(1-(1-\rho)^d\bigr)};$$ this is the survival probability for the branching process ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}}$ started with a random number of particles having the distribution $(p_d)_{d=0}^\infty$.
Consider a vertex $x$ of degree $d$ in ${\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}$. We explore the component containing $x$ by a breadth-first search. We concentrate on the half-edges, so we begin by taking the $d$ half-edges at $x$, and label them as *active*. We then process the active half-edges one by one as follows. We take an active half-edge, relabel it as *used*, and find the half-edge that it connects to and the corresponding vertex; this partner is chosen uniformly among all half-edges that are not yet used. We then label the partner as used and all other half-edges at the same vertex as active, provided that they are not already used (which would mean that we have found a cycle or a multiple edge). The active half-edges will behave essentially as a Galton–Watson process (where we reveal the children of the particles one by one), but the probability distribution of the children will vary slightly; it will depend on the numbers of vertices of different degrees that we already have found. Nevertheless, it is obvious that at each step in the beginning, the probability of $j-1$ new half-edges is close to $j n_{j}/ \sum_k k n_k \approx \tilde p_{j}$.
To be more precise, first, let $k$ be a fixed number, and consider the event that $x$ belongs to a component with at least $k$ vertices. This is almost the same as the probability that we will find at least $k-1$ active half-edges in the process just described. (This is not exact, because if we stop when we have found $k-1$ half-edges, some of these may connect back to vertices already found; the probability of this tends to 0, however, as [${n\to\infty}$]{}.) The complementary event, that the process finds less than $k-1$ active half-edges, consists of a finite number of cases, where each case describes the sequence of new active half-edges found at each step. It is obvious that the probability of each of these cases converges, as [${n\to\infty}$]{}, to the corresponding probability in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}$, and thus we find, for a vertex $x$ of degree $d$, with ${\mathcal C}(x)$ denoting the corresponding component of ${\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}$, $$\label{a1}
{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\mathcal C}(x)|\ge k)={\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}|\ge k-1)+o(1).$$ Recall that ${{\ensuremath{N_{\ge k}}}}$ is the number of vertices of degree $d$ belonging to a component of size at least $k$. The expectation ${\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}{{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge k,d}}}}}$ equals $n_d$ times the probability that a given vertex $x$ of degree $d$ satisfies $|{\mathcal C}(x)|\ge k$, and thus, by and [Condition \[C1\]]{}(i), for every fixed $d\ge0$ and $k\ge1$, $$\label{a4}
{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge k,d}}}}}/n) \to p_d{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}|\ge k-1).$$
We next want to let $k\to\infty$ here. We thus, for the remainder of this section, assume that ${\omega}(n)$ is a function such that ${\omega}(n)\to\infty$ but ${\omega}(n)/n\to0$ as [${n\to\infty}$]{}. We regard components as *big* if they contain at least ${\omega}(n)$ vertices, and *small* otherwise. (The flexibility in the choice of ${\omega}(n)$ is useful, but we will see that it does not matter much; the asymptotics we find do not depend on ${\omega}$.)
\[L1\] If ${\omega}(n)\to\infty$ and ${\omega}(n)/n\to0$, then, $$\label{a2}
{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n)}}}}}/n) \to \tau$$ and, for every fixed $d\ge0$, $$\label{a3}
{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n) \to p_d{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}|=\infty)
=
p_d{\bigl(1-(1-\rho)^d\bigr)}
.$$
We begin with an upper bound in . For any fixed $k$, we have ${\omega}(n)>k$ for large $n$, and thus ${{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}\le{{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge k,d}}}}}$. Consequently, yields $$\label{a5b}
\limsup_{\ensuremath{{n\to\infty}}}{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n )
\le
\limsup_{\ensuremath{{n\to\infty}}}{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge k,d}}}}}/n )
= p_d{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}|\ge k-1)
.$$ As [${k\to\infty}$]{}, the right hand side converges to $p_d{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}|=\infty)$, and we find $$\label{a5}
\limsup_{\ensuremath{{n\to\infty}}}{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n )
\le
p_d{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}|= \infty)
.$$
For a lower bound, let $\nu\ge1$ be fixed and let $X_\nu$ be a random variable taking values in [$\{0,1,\dots,\nu\}$]{} with ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(X_\nu=j)=(1-\nu{^{-1}}){\tilde p}_{j+1}$ for $1\le j\le\nu$ (and a suitable value for ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(X_\nu=0)$ so that the sum becomes 1). Consider the breadth-first exploration process described above. As long as we have found less than ${\omega}(n)$ vertices, the number of new active half-edges at each step stochastically dominates $X_\nu$, provided $n$ is large enough, since the remaining number of vertices of degree $j+1$ is $n_{j+1}-o(n)=p_{j+1} n-o(n)\ge(1-\nu{^{-1}})p_{j+1} n$ for $n$ large. (If $p_{j+1}=0$, the result is trivial.) Consequently, letting ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}_{\nu}^d}}$ be the Galton–Watson process with $d$ initial particles and the number of children distributed as $X_\nu$, if $n$ is large enough, we can couple the exploration process and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}_{\nu}^d}}$ such that as long as we have found less than ${\omega}(n)$ vertices, the number of active half-edges is at least the number of active particles in ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}_{\nu}^d}}$ ([i.e.=1000]{}, the particles whose children have not yet been revealed.) In particular, if the exploration process stops before ${\omega}(n)$ vertices are found, then ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}_{\nu}^d}}$ stops, and thus the probability that a vertex $x$ of degree $d$ satisfies $|{\mathcal C}(x)|< {\omega}(n)$ is at most ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}_{\nu}^d}}|<\infty)$. Consequently, for large $n$, $$\label{a6}
{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}{{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}\ge n_d {\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}_{\nu}^d}}|=\infty)$$ and thus $$\liminf_{\ensuremath{{n\to\infty}}}{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n )
\ge
p_d{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}_{\nu}^d}}|=\infty).$$ Now let $\nu\to\infty$. Then $X_\nu{\overset{\mathrm{d}}{\to}}X$, where $X$ has the distribution ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(X=j)=\tilde p_{j+1}$, and thus, by [Lemma \[Lgw\]]{}, ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}_{\nu}^d}}|=\infty)\to{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}|=\infty)$. Consequently, $$\liminf_{\ensuremath{{n\to\infty}}}{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n) \ge
p_d{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}|=\infty),$$ which together with and yields .
Finally, noting that ${{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}\le n_d$, it follows easily from the uniform summability in that we can sum over $d$ and take the limit outside the sum, [i.e.=1000]{} $${\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n)}}}}}/n)
=
\sum_d {\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n)
\to
\sum_d p_d{\bigl(1-(1-\rho)^d\bigr)}
=\tau.$$ [-]{}
Note that the limits do not depend on the choice of ${\omega}(n)$. Hence, it follows that the expected number of vertices belonging to components of size between, say, $\log n$ and $n^{0.99}$ is $o(n)$.
We next show that we have convergence not only of the expectations but also of the random variables in and , [i.e.=1000]{} that these random variables are concentrated close to their expectations.
\[L2\] If ${\omega}(n)\to\infty$ and ${\omega}(n)/n\to0$, then, $$\label{b2}
{{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n)}}}}}/n {\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}\tau$$ and, for every fixed $d\ge0$, $$\label{b3}
{{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n {\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}p_d{\bigl(1-(1-\rho)^d\bigr)}
.$$
Start with two distinct vertices $x$ and $y$ of the same degree $d$ and explore their components as above. We can repeat the arguments above, and find $${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}{\bigl(|{\mathcal C}(x)|< k,\,|{\mathcal C}(y)|<k\bigr)}={\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}|< k-1)^2+o(1)$$ and thus, using , $${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}{\bigl(|{\mathcal C}(x)|\ge k,\,|{\mathcal C}(y)|\ge k\bigr)}={\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}|\ge k-1)^2+o(1).$$ Multiplying with the number $n_d(n_d-1)$ of pairs $(x,y)$ of the same degree $d$, and noting that the number of such pairs where both $x$ and $y$ belong to components of size $\ge k$ (the same or not) is ${{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge k,d}}}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge k,d}}}}}-1)$, we find $${\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge k,d}}}}}^2 /n^2)
=
{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge k,d}}}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge k,d}}}}}-1)/n^2) +O(1/n)
\to p_d^2{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}|\ge k-1)^2.$$ Hence, $\limsup_{\ensuremath{{n\to\infty}}}{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}^2 /n^2)
\le p_d^2{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}|\ge k-1)^2$ for every $k$, and thus $$\limsup_{\ensuremath{{n\to\infty}}}{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}^2 /n^2)
\le p_d^2{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}|=\infty)^2.$$ Since, by the [Cauchy–Schwarz]{} inequality and , further $${\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}^2 /n^2)
\ge ({\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n))^2
\to p_d^2{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}|=\infty)^2,$$ it follows that $${\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}^2/n^2) \to p_d^2{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}_{\nu}^d}}|=\infty)^2.$$ This and show that $${\operatorname{Var}}{\bigl({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n\bigr)} \to 0,$$ and thus $${\bigl({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}-{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}})\bigr)}/n {\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}0,$$ which by implies .
Finally, again we can sum over $d$ because of ; this yields .
\[T1\] Assume that Condition \[C1\] holds. Then $$\begin{aligned}
C_1({\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}})&= \tau n + o_p(n),
\\
C_2({\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}})&= o_p(n).\end{aligned}$$
We have already shown that roughly $\tau n$ vertices lie in big components. It remains to show that most of them belong to the same component. We write $G_n={\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}$.
First, if $C_1(G_n)\ge {\omega}(n)$, then ${{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n)}}}}}(G_n)\ge C_1(G_n)$. Thus, for every ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $n$ so large that ${\omega}(n)<{\varepsilon}n$, we have by [Lemma \[L2\]]{} $$\label{jesper}
{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}{\bigl(C_1(G_n)>\tau n+{\varepsilon}n\bigr)}
\le {\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}{\bigl({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n)}}}}}(G_n)>\tau n+{\varepsilon}n\bigr)}
\to0.$$
This completes the proof if $\tau=0$.
In the sequel we assume $\tau>0$ and show a corresponding estimate from below. First, if $p_d=0$ for every $d\ge2$, then ${\tilde p}_{j+1}=0$ for all $j\ge1$, so ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}}$ dies immediately and $\rho=0$ and $\tau=0$. Hence $p_d>0$ for some $d\ge2$. We fix such a $d$ for the remainder of the proof, and fix ${\delta}$ with $0<{\delta}<1/2$. Further, take (rather arbitrarily) ${\omega}(n)=n^{0.9}$.
We assume in the sequel that $n$ is so large that $n_d>{n^{1-{\delta}}}$. We then split the ${n^{1-{\delta}}}$ first of the vertices of degree $d$ in $G_n$ into $d$ vertices of degree 1 each; we colour these $d{n^{1-{\delta}}}$ new vertices *red*. (To be precise, we should round ${n^{1-{\delta}}}$ to an integer.) We denote the resulting graph by $G_n'$; note that $G_n'$ is a random multigraph $G^*(n',(d_i'))$ where $n_j'$, the number of vertices of degree $j$, is given by $n_d'=n_d-{n^{1-{\delta}}}$, $n_1'=n_1+d{n^{1-{\delta}}}$, and $n_j'=n_j$ for $j\neq 1,d$. Note that the total number of vertices in $G_n'$ is $n'{:=}n+(d-1){n^{1-{\delta}}}=n+o(n)$, and that $(d_i')$ satisfies [Condition \[C1\]]{} with the same $(p_j)$ (except that $n$ is replaced by $n'$, which only makes a notational difference). Consequently, our results above apply to $G_n'$ too.
By symmetry, we may assume that the $d{n^{1-{\delta}}}$ red vertices in $G_n'$ are chosen at random among all vertices of degree 1, and that $G_n$ is obtained by partitioning the red vertices at random into groups with $d$ vertices and then coalescing each group into one vertex.
During the exploration of the component ${\mathcal C}'(x)$ in $G'_n$ containing a vertex $x$, in each step, the active half-edge is paired with the single half-edge leading to a red vertex with probability at least $c_1 {n^{-{\delta}}}$, for some $c_1>0$, unless at least ${n^{1-{\delta}}}$ red vertices already have been found. Consequently, if the component ${\mathcal C}'(x)$ has at least ${\omega}(n)$ vertices, the number of red vertices stochastically dominates $\min{\bigl({n^{1-{\delta}}},{\operatorname{Bi}}({\omega}(n)-1, c_1{n^{-{\delta}}})\bigr)}$. A Chernoff bound, see [e.g.=1000]{} [@JLR Corollary 2.3], shows that the probability that ${\mathcal C}'(x)$ has at least ${\omega}(n)$ vertices but less than $c_2{n^{-{\delta}}}{\omega}(n)=c_2n^{0.9-{\delta}}$ red vertices is at most $\exp(-c_3 n^{0.9-{\delta}})=o(n^{-1})$, for $c_2=c_1/2$ and some $c_3>0$. Summing over all $x$, we see that [[whp]{}]{}, *every* big component of $G'_n$ contains at least $c_2n^{0.9-{\delta}}$ red vertices.
Assume that this holds, and consider two big components $K_1$ and $K_2$ in $G_n'$. We can construct the random partition of the red vertices by taking first the red vertices in $K_1$ one by one, unless already used, and randomly selecting $d-1$ partners. We thus do this at least $m:=c_2n^{0.9-{\delta}}/d$ times, and each time the probability of not including a red vertex in $K_2$ is at most $1-c_2n^{0.9-{\delta}}/(d{n^{1-{\delta}}})=1-c_4n^{-0.1}$, with $c_4=c_2/d$. Consequently, the probability of not joining $K_1$ and $K_2$ in the coalescing phase is at most $$\exp(-mc_2 n^{-0.1})=\exp(-c_4^2 n^{0.8-{\delta}})
=o(n^{-2}).$$ Since there are at most $(n')^2=O(n^2)$ such pairs $K_1$ and $K_2$, we see that [[whp]{}]{} all big components in $G_n'$ are connected in $G_n$. Hence, if $B'$ is the union of all big components in $G_n'$, and $B$ is the corresponding set of vertices in $G_n$, we see that [[whp]{}]{} $B$ is connected in $G_n$, and, using [Lemma \[L2\]]{} for $G_n'$, $$\label{emma}
C_1(G_n) \ge |B|
\ge |B'|-(d-1){n^{1-{\delta}}}=\tau n' +o_p(n)
=\tau n + o_p(n).$$ Combining and we obtain $C_1(G_n)=\tau n+o_p(n)$.
Finally, we observe that if $C_2(G_n)\ge {\omega}(n)$, then ${{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n)}}}}}(G_n)\ge C_1(G_n)+C_2(G_n)$, and thus, by and , $$C_2(G_n) \le \max{\bigl({\omega}(n),{{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n)}}}}}(G_n)-C_1(G_n)\bigr)} =o_p(n).$$ [-]{}
The simple random graph [$G(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{} {#SSsimple}
--------------------------------------------
We transfer the results to the simple random graph [$G(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{} by the following result proved in [@SJ195]; see also [e.g.=1000]{} Bollobás [@bollobas] and McKay [@McKay] for earlier versions.
\[Lsimple\] If Conditions [\[C1\] and \[C2\]]{} hold, then $$\liminf_{{\ensuremath{{n\to\infty}}}} {\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}{\bigl({\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}\text{ is a simple graph}\bigr)}>0.$$
All results for [$G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{} that can be stated in terms of convergence in probability, as our results in this section, thus hold also if we condition on the graph being simple. In other words, the results proved for [$G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{} hold for [$G(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{} too. Thus, [Theorem \[T1\]]{} has the following version for [$G(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{}.
\[T1s\] Assume that Conditions [\[C1\] and \[C2\]]{} hold. Then $$\begin{aligned}
C_1({\ensuremath{G(n,(d_i)_1^n)}})&= \tau n + o_p(n),
\\
C_2({\ensuremath{G(n,(d_i)_1^n)}})&= o_p(n).\end{aligned}$$
Uniform vaccination {#uniform-vaccination-1}
-------------------
We now extend [Theorem \[T1\]]{} to the graph ${\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ where $0\le v<1$ and $0<p\le1$, see [Section \[Smodels\]]{}. Recall that we obtain this graph from ${\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}$ by randomly and independently deleting edges with probability $1-p$ (non-transmission) and vertices with probability $v$ (vaccination). The branching process approximation arguments above still work, with the difference that each new individual found is kept with probability $p(1-v)$, and otherwise discarded. Hence the offspring distribution is changed from ${\tilde D}-1$ to ${{\tilde X}}_v\sim{\operatorname{MixBi}}({\tilde D}-1,p(1-v))$, and the branching process corresponding to an unvaccinated person with $d$ friends starts with ${\operatorname{Bi}}(d,p(1-v))$ individuals. Let now ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}^d}}$ denote the branching process with this offspring distribution, starting with $d$ individuals. The probability generating function of ${{\tilde X}}_v$ is, as shown in Subsections [\[SSomodel\] and \[SSumodel\]]{}, given by $${\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}t^{{{\tilde X}}_v}= \frac{f_D'{\bigl(1-p(1-v)(1-t)\bigr)}}{f_D'(1)}.$$ Hence, the extinction probability of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{X}}}^1$ is ${\tilde \pi}{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ given by . If we start the branching process with $D'\sim{\operatorname{Bi}}(d,p(1-v))$ individuals, the extinction probability is thus, writing ${\bar p}=p(1-v)$, $${\pi^{(d)}}:=
\sum_k \binom dk {\bar p}^k(1-{\bar p})^{d-k}({\tilde \pi}{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}})^k
={\bigl(1-{\bar p}+{\bar p}{\tilde \pi}{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}\bigr)}^d.$$ The arguments in the proofs of Lemmas [\[L1\] and \[L2\]]{} show, recalling that each vertex has probability $1-v$ of being unvaccinated, that holds in the form $$\label{b3v}
{{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n {\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}p_d(1-v){\bigl(1-{\pi^{(d)}}\bigr)},$$ for every fixed $d\ge0$, assuming ${\omega}(n)\to\infty$ and ${\omega}(n)/n\to0$. Hence, $$\label{b2v}
{{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n)}}}}}/(n(1-v)) {\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}\sum_d p_d(1-{\pi^{(d)}})
=1-\sum_d p_d{\pi^{(d)}}=1-f_D(1-{\bar p}+{\bar p}{\tilde \pi}{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}).$$ This limit equals $\tau{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}:=1-\pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ with $\pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ given by .
To extend [Theorem \[T1\]]{}, it remains to show that there is only one very large component. More precisely, we show again that, with ${\omega}(n)=n^{0.9}$, there is [[whp]{}]{} only one big component. We argue as for [Theorem \[T1\]]{}, splitting some vertices of degree $d$ in $G_n={\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}$ into $d$ red vertices of degree 1, calling the resulting graph $G_n'$.
We vaccinate the vertices in $G_n'$ with probability $v$ each, independently; we then recombine the red vertices to vertices of degree $d$ in $G_n$ and consider each such vertex as vaccinated if at least one of its red parts in $G_n'$ is. This means that some vertices in $G_n$ are vaccinated with probability larger than $v$, but this does not hurt since the aim of the argument is to provide a lower bound for $C_1$, the size of the largest component, and any extra vaccinations can only decrease $C_1$.
By a Chernoff bound, there are [[whp]{}]{} at least $(1-v)n^{1-{\delta}}$ unvaccinated red vertices, and it follows as before that [[whp]{}]{} every big component of $(G_n'){^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ contains at least $c_2 n^{0.9-{\delta}}$ red vertices (although the value of $c_2$ may change). Given two big components $K_1$ and $K_2$ it follows similarly as before that with probability $1-o(n^{-2})$ there exists a vertex in $G_n$ that is split into $d$ red vertices, of which at least one is in $K_1$, at least one in $K_2$, and all are unvaccinated. The proof is completed as before.
Consequently, using also [Lemma \[Lsimple\]]{}, we have the following theorem. Theorems [\[TU\] and \[T0\]]{} (the special case $v=0$) are immediate consequences.
\[T1U\] Assume [Condition \[C1\]]{}, and let $0<p\le1$, $0\le v<1$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
C_1{\bigl({\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}\bigr)}&= \tau{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}n(1-v) + o_p(n),
\\
C_2{\bigl({\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}\bigr)}&= o_p(n),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}=1-\pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ with $\pi{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ given by . If also [Condition \[C2\]]{} holds, then the same results hold for ${\ensuremath{G(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{\mathsf{U}}}_{v; p}}$ too.
Acquaintance vaccination {#acquaintance-vaccination-1}
------------------------
As explaind in [Subsection \[SSamodel\]]{}, in order to obtain (asymptotically) a Galton–Watson branching process, with the right independence properties, we consider directed edges, or equivalently half-edges, that are *open*, [i.e.=1000]{} transmission may take place but the edge is not used for vaccination. Moreover, we consider only open edges originating at an unvaccinated person.
Let $x$ be a given vertex with degree $d$ in [$G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{}, and let us explore the component of $x$ in [${\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$]{}, conditioned on $x$ being unvaccinated (otherwise $x$ does not belong to [${\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$]{}). In order to be kept in [${\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$]{}, an edge has to be open, but not all edges are kept since some may lead to vertices that are vaccinated, see Figure \[acq-br\]c). Nevertheless, we consider all open edges found during the exploration. We declare the open edges starting at $x$ to be *active*. We then investigate the active edges. If an active edge leads to a person that is unvaccinated, we declare the open edges going from that person, except the one going back to where we just came from, to be new active edges. We continue until no more active edges are found; we then have found the component containg $x$ (plus some extra open edges leading to vaccinated persons).
We investigate this process probabilistically, revealing the structure of ${\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}$ by combining half-edges at random as we proceed the exploration. We consider asymptotics as [${n\to\infty}$]{}, and some of the statements below are only approximatively correct for finite $n$.
Note first that each of the $d$ edges leading from $x$ is open with probability $pe^{-c/d}$, independently of each other, so we start with ${\operatorname{Bi}}(d,pe^{-c/d})$ open edges.
The vertex $x$ has $d$ friends; in [$G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)$]{} they are chosen by randomly choosing $d$ half-edges and their degrees have the size-biased distribution $({\tilde p}_j)$, independently of each other. Conditioning on $x$ being unvaccinated means that we condition on none of the $d$ edges being used for vaccination in the opposite direction. Since the probability that a friend with degree $j$ does not name $x$ is $e^{-c/j}$, this preserves the independence of the degrees of the friends, but shifts their distribution to, as asserted in , $({\tilde p}_je^{-c/j}/{\alpha})_j$, where ${\alpha}={\alpha}(c)=\sum_j{\tilde p}_je^{-c/j}$ as in is the probability of not being named by a random friend.
Now suppose that an open edge goes from $x$ to a friend $y$ of degree $k$. In order for this to define an edge in [${\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$]{}, $y$ must not be vaccinated through another of its friends; this has the probability ${\alpha}^{k-1}$. In this case, $y$ has $k-1$ further edges, and each of them is open with probability $pe^{-c/k}$. It follows that the number of new open edges at $y$ has a distribution that is the mixture $(1-{\alpha}^{k-1}){\delta}_0+{\alpha}^{k-1}{\operatorname{Bi}}(k-1,pe^{-c/k})$. Using the distribution for the degree of $y$, we finally see that the distribution of the number $Y$ of new active edges found when exploring a single active edge is given by .
Hence, observing obvious independence properties, the process of active edges is (asymptotically) a Galton-Watson branching process with offspring distribution $Y$, starting with ${\operatorname{Bi}}(d,pe^{-c/d})$ active edges. Denote his branching process by ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}}}$. Let, as in [Subsection \[SSamodel\]]{}, ${\tilde \pi}{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$ by the probability that a branching proess with this offspring distribution $Y$ and starting with a single individual dies out. Then, the extinction probability of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}}}$ is $$\begin{split}
{\pi^{(d)}}&:={\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}}}|<\infty)
= \sum_{j=0}^d\binom dj(pe^{-c/d})^j(1-pe^{-c/d})^{d-j}({\tilde \pi}{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}})^j
\\&
=
(1-pe^{-c/d}+pe^{-c/d}{\tilde \pi}{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}})^d.
\end{split}$$
A minor complication is that the branching process approximation counts open edges and, as remarked above, not all open edges lead to vertices in [${\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$]{}. Thus does not extend directly. However, we still have the inequality $${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\mathcal C}(x)|\ge k)\le{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}}}|\ge k-1)+o(1).$$ Furthermore, a vertex of degree $d$ in ${\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}$ is unvaccinated with probabilty ${\alpha}^d$, and thus $${\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge k,d}}}}})\le n_d {\alpha}^p{\bigl({\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}}}|\ge k-1)+o(1)\bigr)},$$ which arguing as in and leads to $$\label{f1}
\limsup_{\ensuremath{{n\to\infty}}}{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n)
\le p_d {\alpha}^p{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}}}|=\infty)
= p_d {\alpha}^p(1-{\pi^{(d)}}).$$
For a lower bound, we note that an open edge creates new open edges in the exploration process only if it leads to an unvaccinated person. Hence, if $f({\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}}})$ denotes the number of individuals in the branching process ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}}}$ with at least one child, we have, for every $k\ge1$, $${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\mathcal C}(x)|\ge k)\ge{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(f({\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}}})\ge k-1)+o(1).$$ In order to replace the fixed $k$ by ${\omega}(n)$, we do as in the proof of [Lemma \[L1\]]{} and define a Galton–Watson process ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}_\nu}}$, now starting with ${\operatorname{Bi}}(d,pe^{-c/d}(1-\nu{^{-1}}))$ individuals and with an offspring distribution $Y_\nu$ on [$\{0,\dots,\nu\}$]{} with ${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(Y_\nu=j)=(1-\nu{^{-1}}){\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(Y=j)$ for $j=1,\dots,\nu$.
For each $\nu$ and each fixed $A<\infty$, we can for large $n$ couple the exploration process and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}_\nu}}$ as in the proof of [Lemma \[L1\]]{} as long as we have found at most $A{\omega}(n)$ open edges. Hence, if $|{\mathcal C}(x)|<{\omega}(n)$, then either $f({\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}_\nu}})<{\omega}(n)$ or the process ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}_\nu}}$ reaches more than $A{\omega}(n)$ individuals while less than ${\omega}(n)$ of them, plus the root, have had children. The probability of the latter event is at most, since the root has at most $d$ children, $${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}{\Bigl(1+d+\sum_{i=1}^{{\omega}(n)} Y^*_{\nu,i} > A{\omega}(n)\Bigr)},$$ where $Y^*_{\nu,i}$ are independent random variables with the distribution ${{\mathcal L}}(Y\mid Y>0)$, and thus this probability tends to 0 by the law of large numbers provided we have chosen $A>{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}(Y\mid Y>0)$.
Consequently, $${\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}{\bigl(|{\mathcal C}(x)|<{\omega}(n)\bigr)}
\le
{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}{\bigl(f({\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}_\nu}})<{\omega}(n)\bigr)} + o(1)
\le
{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}{\bigl(f({\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}_\nu}})<\infty\bigr)} + o(1).$$ Using again that a person with degree $d$ is unvaccinated with probability ${\alpha}^d$, it follows that $${\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}{{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}\ge n_d {\alpha}^p{\bigl(1-{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}_\nu}}|<\infty)+o(1)\bigr)}$$ and thus $$\liminf_{\ensuremath{{n\to\infty}}}{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n)
\ge p_d {\alpha}^p{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}_\nu}}|=\infty).$$ We let $\nu\to\infty$ and obtain by [Lemma \[Lgw\]]{} $$\liminf_{\ensuremath{{n\to\infty}}}{\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n)
\ge p_d {\alpha}^p{\operatorname{\mathbb P{}}}(|{\ensuremath{\mathfrak X^{(d)}}}|=\infty)
= p_d {\alpha}^p(1-{\pi^{(d)}}),$$ which together with yields $${\operatorname{\mathbb E{}}}({{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n)
\to p_d {\alpha}^p(1-{\pi^{(d)}}).$$ Arguing as in the proof of [Lemma \[L2\]]{}, we find also $${{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n),d}}}}}/n
{\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}p_d {\alpha}^p(1-{\pi^{(d)}})$$ and, recalling and , $${{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n)}}}}}/n
{\overset{\mathrm{p}}{\to}}\sum_d p_d {\alpha}^p(1-{\pi^{(d)}})
= \sum_d p_d {\alpha}^p(1-\pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}})
= (1-v(c))\tau{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}},$$ with $\tau{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}=1-\pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$. In particular, $$C_1({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}}})
\le{\omega}(n)+{{{\ensuremath{N_{\ge {\omega}(n)}}}}}\le (1-v(c))\tau{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}n+o_p(n).$$
Finally, we argue again as in the proof of [Theorem \[T1\]]{} to show that most vertices in large components belong to a single component. We split some of the vertices in $G_n={\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}$ as above and perform acquaintance vaccination on the resulting graph $G'_n$. This corresponds to acquaintance vaccination on $G_n$, except that the vertices that are split now are asked to name a friend ${\operatorname{Po}}(dc)$ times instead of ${\operatorname{Po}}(c)$. We perform thus some extra vaccinations, but this can only decrease $C_1$ and we obtain as in the lower bound $$C_1({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}}})
\ge (1-v(c))\tau{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}n + o_p(n).$$
Summing up, and using [Lemma \[Lsimple\]]{}, we have shown he following theorem. [Theorem \[TA\]]{} is an immediate consequence.
\[T1A\] Assume [Condition \[C1\]]{}, and let $0<p\le1$, $0\le c<\infty$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
C_1{\bigl({\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}\bigr)}&= \tau{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}n(1-v(c)) + o_p(n),
\\
C_2{\bigl({\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}\bigr)}&= o_p(n),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}=1-\pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$ with $\pi{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$ given by . If also [Condition \[C2\]]{} holds, then the same results hold for ${\ensuremath{G(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{\mathsf{A}}}_{c; p}}$ too.
Edgewise vaccination {#edgewise-vaccination-1}
--------------------
We argue as for acquaintance vaccination with the modifications (simplifications) explained in [Subsection \[SSemodel\]]{}. There are no new complications, and we obtain the following. [Theorem \[TE\]]{} is an immediate consequence.
\[T1E\] Assume [Condition \[C1\]]{}, and let $0<p\le1$, $0<{\alpha}\le1$. Then, for $j=1,2$, $$\begin{aligned}
C_1{\bigl({\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}\bigr)}&= \tau{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}n(1-v({\alpha})) + o_p(n),
\\
C_2{\bigl({\ensuremath{G^*(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}\bigr)}&= o_p(n),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}=1-\pi{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}$ with $\pi{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}$ given by . If also [Condition \[C2\]]{} holds, then the same results hold for ${\ensuremath{G(n,(d_i)_1^n)}}{^{{^{{\mathsf{E}j}}}}_{\alpha; p}}$ too.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Mathias Lindholm for help in producing the figures. T.B.gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Swedish Research Council.
[99]{} \#1
H. Andersson, Epidemic models and social networks. *Math. Scientist* [24]{} (1999), 128–147.
H. Andersson & T. Britton, *Stochastic Epidemic Models and their Statistical Analysis*. Springer Lecture Notes in Statistics, 151, Springer, New York, 2000.
K.B. Athreya & P.E. Ney, *Branching Processes*. [Springer]{}, Berlin, 1972.
B. Bollobás, [Random Graphs]{}. 2nd ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001.
B. Bollobás, S. Janson & O. Riordan, The phase transition in inhomogeneous random graphs. [*Random Struct. Alg.* ]{}, to appear. T. Britton, M. Deijfen & A. Martin-Löf, Generating simple random graphs with prescribed degree distribution, [J. Statist. Phys.]{}, to appear.
R. Cohen, S. Havlin & D. ben-Avrahan, Efficient immunization strategies for computer networks and populations. *Phys. Rev. Let.* **91** (2003), 247901.
A. Gut, [Probability: A Graduate Course]{}. Springer, New York, 2005.
S. Janson, The probability that a random multigraph is simple. [[0` ~http://arxiv.org/math.CO/0609802`]{}]{}
S. Janson, D. Knuth, T. Łuczak & B. Pittel, The birth of the giant component. [*Random Struct. Alg.* ]{} **4** (1994), 231–358.
S. Janson, T. Łuczak & A. Ruciński, [Random Graphs]{}. [Wiley]{}, New York, 2000.
O. Kallenberg, *Foundations of Modern Probability*, 2nd ed., [Springer]{}, New York, 2002.
B. D. McKay, Asymptotics for symmetric $0$-$1$ matrices with prescribed row sums, [Ars Combin.]{} [19]{} A (1985), 15–25.
M. Molloy & B. Reed, A critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence. [*Random Struct. Alg.* ]{}6 (1995), 161–179.
M. Molloy & B. Reed, The size of the giant component of a random graph with a given degree sequence. [*Combin. Probab. Comput.* ]{}7 (1998), 295–305.
C. Moore & M.E.J. Newman, Epidemics and percolation in small world networks. *Phys. Rev. E* **61** (2000), 5678–5682.
M.E.J. Newman, The structure and function of complex networks. *SIAM Rev.* **45** (2003), 167–256.
M.E.J. Newman, S.H. Strogatz & J. Watts, Random graphs with arbitrary degree distributions and their applications. *Phys. Rev. E* **64** (2001), 026118.
J. Scott, *Social Network Analysis, A Handbook*. 2nd ed., Sage, London, 2000.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We report measurements of the two-magnon states in a dimerized antiferromagnetic chain material, copper nitrate ([Cu(NO$_{3}$)$_{2}\cdot
2.5 $D$_{2}$O]{}). Using inelastic neutron scattering we have measured the one and two magnon excitation spectra in a large single crystal. The data are in excellent agreement with a perturbative expansion of the alternating Heisenberg Hamiltonian from the strongly dimerized limit. The expansion predicts a two-magnon bound state for $q\sim (2n+1)\pi d$ which is consistent with the neutron scattering data.
author:
- |
D. A. Tennant$^{1,2,3,4}$, C. Broholm$^{5,6}$, D. H. Reich$^{7}$, S. E. Nagler$^{3}$, G. E. Granroth$^{3}$, [T. Barnes]{}$^{7,8}$, K. Damle$%
^{9}$, G. Xu$^{5}$, Y. Chen$^{5}$, and B. C. Sales$^{3}$.
title: 'A neutron scattering study of two-magnon states in the quantum magnet copper nitrate'
---
Introduction
============
The basic physics of the elementary one-magnon excitations of lower-dimensional quantum antiferromagnets can now be regarded as well established, both theoretically and experimentally through studies of materials that are reasonably accurate realizations of the spin Hamiltonians. In contrast, higher excitations such as multimagnon continua and bound states have attracted relatively little attention. This topic may prove to be a fascinating area for the application of few- and many-body techniques, and will involve interesting and nontrivial results in band structure, band mixing, bound state formation, phase transitions through the formation of condensates of magnetic excitations [Oosawa01,nikuniprl2000, WatsonMeisel01,YuHaas00,TsvelikGiamarchi,Affleck91,coldea02]{}, and other collective phenomena.
Although some aspects of the physics of low-lying multimagnon states can be inferred from model Hamiltonians using standard theoretical techniques, few experimental studies of these higher excitations have been reported to date. Experimental difficulties that have precluded such work include relatively weak couplings of probes to these higher excitations, dominant contributions from the lowest one-magnon excitations, and resolution requirements in energy and wavenumber that are beyond the capabilities of most techniques.
High-resolution inelastic neutron scattering should prove to be an ideal technique for observing some of these higher magnetic excitations. One can control both energy and momentum transfer, so that the existence and spectral weight of higher magnetic excitations can be established and quantified. The new generation of high-intensity neutron sources combined with high-resolution detectors should allow the observation of details of the multimagnon excitation spectrum such as band boundaries, quantitative determination of the dynamical correlation function $\mathcal{S}(\mathbf{Q}%
,\omega )$ and discontinuities within a band [@barnes02], and weakly bound states just below the band edge. The principle limitation in this approach may be the unavoidable $\Delta S=1$ selection rule of magnetic neutron scattering, so that one can only reach spin $S=1$ excitations given an $S=0$ ground state and an isotropic spin Hamiltonian. Other techniques such as Raman scattering can be used to study certain of these higher excitations, *albeit* with strong constraints on the accessible spin and momentum quantum numbers.
Systems that appear especially interesting for studies of higher magnetic excitations at present are quasi-1D spin chains and spin ladders, since many of these have gaps and hence will have separated bands of higher excitations and perhaps bound states of magnons. The alternating Heisenberg antiferromagnetic chain (AHC) with spin-1/2 is an example of such a system; with any amount of alternation $0<\alpha <1$ (where $\alpha \equiv J2/J1$) the AHC has an energy gap in its one-magnon dispersion with a second gap to the multimagnon continuum, and two-magnon bound states with spin-0 and spin-1 are predicted [@uhrig]. The AHC is also attractive because of its relative simplicity and because of recent extensive theoretical studies of the low-energy excitations in this model.
In this paper we present results from an inelastic neutron scattering study of higher magnetic excitations in copper nitrate ([Cu(NO$_{3}$)$_{2}\cdot
2.5 $D$_{2}$O]{}), which was recently confirmed by neutron scattering [xu00]{} to be an accurate realization of a strongly alternating Heisenberg antiferromagnetic chain. This material is especially attractive because the alternation parameter $\alpha \approx 0.27$ is close to the value predicted to maximize the separation of the spin-1 two-magnon bound state from the continuum [@BRT]. In addition it is relatively easy to prepare large single crystals of this material, which compensates for the weak neutron scattering intensity from the higher magnetic excitations.
![\[fig:epsart\] The $S=1$ excitation spectrum of the spin-1/2 alternating Heisenberg chain with moderately strong dimerization. The parameters used are $J=0.45$ meV and $\protect\alpha =0.27$, (as fit to copper nitrate neutron scattering data.) There is an energy gap $\Delta $ from the $S=0$ ground state to the $S=1$ triplet magnon band. The two-magnon continuum states are also shown; these have energies and wavevectors given by the sum of two independent one-magnon excitations. A $S=1$ bound state is predicted to lie just below the two-magnon continuum for small wavevectors near $k=\protect\pi /d$, where the continuum has minimum width.](fig1_eps.eps){width="3in"}
The paper is arranged as follows: Section (2) summarizes important results from the theory of the ground and excited states of the alternating Heisenberg chain. Section (3) reviews the magnetic properties of [Cu(NO$_{3}$)$_{2}\cdot 2.5$D$_{2}$O]{}, or CN for short. Section (4) presents the results of our measurements, with the analysis in terms of the model given in section (5). A discussion of the results is given in (6), with conclusions in (7). Additional theoretical results for two-magnon excitations in this model are given in the Appendix.
Theory
======
The spin-1/2 alternating Heisenberg chain has received much attention in the theoretical literature. This simple model plays a central role in the study of the spin-Peierls effect, and is also known to provide an accurate description of the magnetic properties of many real materials. The model consists of antiferromagnetically coupled Heisenberg spin pairs, “dimers”, which are themselves coupled by weaker antiferromagnetic Heisenberg interactions in an alternating chain, as shown in Fig.2. The Hamiltonian for this model is given by $$H=\sum_{m=1}^{N/2}\ J\;\bigg\{\mathbf{S}{_{m,-}}\cdot \mathbf{S}{_{m,+}}%
+\alpha \;\mathbf{S}{_{m,+}}\cdot \mathbf{S}{_{m+1,-}}\bigg\}\ ,$$where $N$ is the number of spins in the chain, $J>0$ (also called $J_{1}$) is the intradimer coupling, $\alpha J$ (also $J_{2}$) is the interdimer coupling, and $\alpha $ is allowed the range $0<\alpha <1$. The index $m$ labels the dimers, and $-$ and $+$ denote left and right spins. The position of each spin is given by $\mathbf{r}{_{m,\pm }=}m\mathbf{d}\pm \mathbf{\rho }%
/2$, where $\mathbf{d}$ is the chain repeat vector, and $\mathbf{\rho }$ is the intradimer separation.
![\[fig:num2\]Alternating chain layout showing dimers coupled together. Each dimer is labeled by an index $m$, $\mathbf{\protect\rho }$ is the separation between dimer spins, and $\mathbf{d}$ is the chain repeat vector.](fig2_eps.eps){width="3in"}
This model has a nontrivial spin-0 ground state, and for all $\alpha $ in the allowed range $0<\alpha <1$ has a gap to the first excitation, which is a band of spin-1 excitations (magnons). In the “strong-coupling limit” $%
\alpha \ll 1$ the ground state approaches a system of uncoupled spin-0 dimers, and the one-magnon excitations can be accurately described as a single dimer excited to spin-1 (an $``$exciton”), delocalized on the chain to give states of definite along-chain wavenumber $k$. The energies and some matrix elements of these states have been evaluated as power series in the intradimer coupling $\alpha $ [@BRT; @CCM].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Label $\Psi_m$ $E$ $S^{z}_m$ $S_m$
------------------ --------------------------------------------------------- --------- ----------- -------
$G_m$ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{ |\uparrow \downarrow \rangle $-3J/4$ $0$ $0$
-|\downarrow \uparrow \rangle \right\} $
$1_m$ $|\uparrow \uparrow \rangle $ $J/4$ $1$ $1$
$0_m$ $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{ |\uparrow \downarrow \rangle $J/4$ $0$ $1$
+|\downarrow \uparrow \rangle \right\} $
$\overline{1}_m$ $|\downarrow \downarrow \rangle $ $J/4$ $-1$ $1$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Eigenstates of dimer $m$, $H_{m}=J\mathbf{S}_{m,-}\cdot \mathbf{S}%
_{m,+}$.
To interpret experimental results approximate analytic forms of the wavefunctions and energies are useful and we include calculations of wavefunctions expanded around the single dimer eigenstates in the Appendix. The one-magnon $S=1$ triplet has a gap energy $\Delta =J-\alpha J/2$ and dispersion to $\mathcal{O}(\alpha )$$$\omega _{\text{1mag}}(k)=J-\alpha J/2\cos (kd).$$This magnon wavefunction can be visualized as a localized wavepacket of magnetic polarization (excitons) along $x,y,$ or $z$ carrying total spin-1 travelling through a featureless singlet background with the gap energy coming from the effort expended in breaking a dimer bond.
Approximate wavefunctions for the two-magnon states are given in the Appendix. At large separations the magnons do not overlap and they behave as free particles, however when close they interfere and scatter off each other. In a one dimensional geometry such scattering conserves particle number, energy, and momentum up to a lattice wavevector, and the scattering introduces a momentum dependent phase shift in the scattered wavefunction. The energy of these states (to order $\mathcal{O}(1/N)$) is given by $\omega
_{k_{1},k_{2}}(k)=\omega _{\text{1mag}}(k_{1})+\omega _{\text{1mag}}(k_{2})$, where $k=k_{1}+k_{2}$ is the total wavevector. The resulting continuum using equation (2) is illustrated in Fig. 1 [@barnes02].
As well as elastic scattering of magnons, bound states also form. To appreciate their physical origin consider two dimers, both in excited states, coupled by a single interdimer coupling $\alpha J$. In the absence of coupling all the double excited states $S=0,1,$ and $2$ have the same energy $2J$. However, the interdimer coupling splits these states. There is an $S=2$ quintuplet of energy $2J+\alpha J/4$ (this energy is higher because the interdimer coupling favours antiferromagnetism whereas the $S=2$ states have all spins along the same direction - ferromagnetic). There is also an $%
S=1$ triplet of energy $2J-\alpha J/4$, this lowering of energy is purely quantum mechanical and comes from resonance between the two excited dimers. Finally there is an $S=0$ singlet of even lower energy, $2J-\alpha J/2$, which gains resonance and also antiferromagnetic energy due to the spins in neighboring dimers pointing in opposite directions.
As the $S=0$ and $1$ states with excited dimers neighboring each other have lower energy than two well separated excited dimers (by $\alpha J/4$ and $%
\alpha J/2$ respectively) there is a short range attractive potential. Magnons can be confined within the potential well (bound states) as long as the relative kinetic energy between the magnons is smaller than the interaction energy.
This situation applies to the bound states in the AHC, the $S=0$ mode at all wavevectors and the $S=1$ mode over limited wavevectors around the node points. These are positions where the kinetic energy is small compared to the binding potential. The $S=1$ bound state is visible to neutron scattering and has a dispersion [@uhrig][@Damle] $$\omega _{\text{BS}}=2J-\frac{\alpha J}{4}\left( 4\cos ^{2}(kd/2)+1\right) .$$The bound state is characterized by a probability amplitude for the separation between the two magnons that drops exponentially with distance (see appendix for more details). These $S=1$ bound states exist only over the range $\left| n\pi -kd\right| \leqslant \pi /3$, where $n$ is an odd integer, see Fig. 1.
Magnetic properties of [Cu(NO$_{3}$)$_{2}\cdot 2.5$D$_{2}$O]{}
==============================================================
The structural and magnetic properties of CN have been thoroughly investigated and shown to be near ideal. The structure of [Cu(NO$_{3}$)$%
_{2}\cdot 2.5$H$_{2}$O was investigated by Garaj [@garaj] and Morosin [@morosin], and was shown to have a monoclinic crystal structure with space group $I12/c1$ [@space_group] and the lattice parameters and crystallographic copper positions given in Table II. The deuterated form [Cu(NO$_{3}$)$_{2}\cdot 2.5$D$_{2}$O]{} we studied has low temperature ($T=3$ K) lattice parameters ]{}$a$[$=16.1$, ]{}$b$[$=4.9$, $c=15.8$ Å and $\beta
=92.9^{\circ }$[@xu00]. ]{}
The magnetism of CN arises from the Cu$^{2+}$ ions. Crystal electric fields from the oxygen ligands surrounding the Cu$^{2+}$ ions quench their orbital moments, leaving a near-isotropic spin-1/2 moment with g-values that show a small easy-axis anisotropy along the crystallographic $b$-direction; the values are $g_{\parallel \mathbf{b}}=2.33$ and $g_{\perp \mathbf{b}}=2.09$ [@diederix_paper1]. Magnetic superexchange in this material is mediated by long double Cu-O-O-Cu exchange paths, which accounts for the rather weak exchange interaction observed in CN.
Atom $x$-pos $y$-pos $z$-pos
------ ------------------- ----------------- -----------------
$1$ $x$ $y$ $z$
$2$ $1-x$ $1-y$ $1-z$
$3$ $1-x$ $y$ $\frac{1}{2}-z$
$4$ $x$ $1-y$ $\frac{1}{2}+z$
$5$ $\frac{1}{2}+{x}$ $\frac{1}{2}-y$ $z$
$6$ $\frac{1}{2}-{x}$ $\frac{1}{2}+y$ $1-z$
$7$ $\frac{1}{2}-{x}$ $\frac{1}{2}-y$ $\frac{1}{2}-z$
$8$ $\frac{1}{2}+{x}$ $\frac{1}{2}+y$ $\frac{1}{2}+z$
: Crystallographic data for [Cu(NO$_{3}$)$_{2}\cdot 2.5$H$_{2}$O]{} from reference [@morosin]. The room temperature lattice parameters are $a=16.453$, $b=4.936$, $c=15.963$ Å and $\protect\beta %
=93.765^{\circ }$ The Cu ions are at the 8f positions at (x,y,z) where x=0.12613, y=0.01352, z=0.11376. The equivalent positions in the unit cell are:
The exchange couplings of CN were studied by Eckert *et al.* in [eckert79]{} and are illustrated in Fig. 3. The dominant magnetic exchange integral $J$ is between pairs of spins (copper positions 7 & 8, and equivalent pairs, *c.f.* Fig. 3) forming dimers with a separation of 5.3 Å. These dimers separated by *crystal vector* $\mathbf{u}=\left[
u_{1},u_{2},u_{3}\right] \equiv u_{1}\mathbf{a}+u_{2}\mathbf{b}+u_{3}\mathbf{%
c}$ are coupled together by exchanges $J_{\mathbf{u}}^{\prime }$; the only exchange paths of appreciable strength are $J_{[{\frac{1}{2}},\pm {\frac{1}{2%
}},{\frac{1}{2}}]}^{\prime }$, connected via bonds between 1 & 7 and equivalent (bond length 6.2 Å). This results in two sets of $S=1/2$ alternating Heisenberg chains running in the $[1,1,1]$ and $[1,\overline{1}%
,1]$ directions of the crystal with repetition every $\mathbf{d}=[1,1,1]/2$ and $\mathbf{d}^{\prime }=[1,\overline{1},1]/2$ respectively (repeat distance $d=11.3$ [Å)]{}; the corresponding intradimer vectors are $\mathbf{%
\rho }=[0.252,\pm 0.027,0.228]$ (where the $x,y,z$ positions from Table IIhave been used). Inelastic neutron scattering measurements [@xu00] have recently further confirmed the model alternating Heisenberg chain properties of CN and have shown that the dominant collective excitations are indeed the gapped triplet of magnons expected for the AHC.
![\[fig:num3\] Positions of copper ions projected onto the $ac$ plane for Cu(NO$_{3}$)$_{2}\cdot 2.5$D$_{2}$O. The atom positions are those detailed in Table II. Two sets of identical chains run in the $\left[ 1,1,1%
\right] $ and $\left[ 1,\overline{1},1\right] $ directions respectively.](fig3_eps.eps){width="3in"}
Approximate ground state energy
-------------------------------
Bulk magnetic measurements give information on the gap, exchange, and ground state energies of the spin chains in copper nitrate. Measurements of the effect of applied magnetic field show that spin flop (SF) ordering is induced in CN above a critical field $B_{c1}\approx 2.7$ T, with a transition to full alignment at $B_{c2}\approx 4.3$ T and there are no demagnetization effects in the zero temperature limit [@Diederix]. As the orbital moment on the Cu$^{2+}$ ions is quenched by the crystal electric field and demagnetization effects are negligible, the field $B_{c1}$ can be used to directly give the excitation gap energy to the one-magnon states, and Diederix *et al.* report a value of $\Delta =0.378\pm .007$ meV [@Diederix].
The gap can be inferred from the transition field because the magnons carry spin quantum numbers $S^{z}=1,0,-1$ and are split into three dispersive modes shifted by a Zeeman energy with respect to each other. The ground state by virtue of its spin-0 quantum number is unaffected by the field and the transition occurs when the Zeeman energy of the lowest mode closes the gap and magnons condense into the ground state. The long range order itself is due to weak couplings between the chains.
The high field transition, $B_{c2}$, yields further important information. It is where all the low-lying magnons are completely condensed into the ground state and the spins are fully aligned along the field. The fully aligned state is an exact eigenstate, and for an unfrustrated quantum magnet the transition field gives the sum of exchange couplings $g\mu
_{B}B_{c2}=J+\sum_{\mathbf{u}}J_{\mathbf{u}}^{\prime }=0.580\pm .007$ meV in the system [@coldea02]. An estimate of the ground state energy of CN can be made using these numbers.
Using the low temperature isothermal magnetization $M(B)=g\mu
_{B}\left\langle S^{z}\right\rangle _{B}$ as a measure of the work required to saturate the spin chains from the zero-field quantum ground state, an energy-per-spin can be inferred. The zero-field ground state energy-per-spin $e_{0}$ can be estimated via the formula $e_{0}\approx e_{f}-g\mu
_{B}SB_{c2}+\int_{0}^{B_{c2}}M(B)dB$ where the fully-aligned energy-per-spin is $e_{f}=S^{2}/2\cdot (J+\sum_{\mathbf{u}}J_{\mathbf{u}}^{\prime })=g\mu
_{B}B_{c2}/8=0.0725\pm .001$ meV for a $S=1/2$ unfrustrated system. Utilizing the 270 mK data of Diederix *et al.* in Fig. 3 of [Diederix]{} (measured using proton resonance) to determine the integral over magnetization gives an experimental ground state energy-per-spin $%
e_{0}=-0.174\pm .004$ meV. This is essentially the $T=0$ result, as the gap activation energy corresponds to 4.4 K.
To estimate thermodynamic properties we approximate the sum of the *inter*dimer exchanges by the single coupling $\alpha J=\sum_{\mathbf{u}}J_{%
\mathbf{u}}^{\prime }$ of equation (1). Using the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha ^{9})$ expansions [@BRT] for $\Delta (\alpha )$ and $e_{0}$ gives $J=0.455\pm
.002$ meV and $\alpha =0.277\pm .006$; in agreement with the results of [Diederix]{} and [@Bonner], $J=0.45$ meV and $\alpha =0.27$. Our calculated values of the thermodynamic parameters $J+\sum_{\mathbf{u}}J_{%
\mathbf{u}}^{\prime }=0.581$ meV, $\Delta =0.379$ meV and $e_{0}=-0.172$ meV agree within error with the experimental values.
Experimental Method
===================
Neutron scattering
------------------
The inelastic neutron-scattering cross-section [@marshall71]$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^{2}\sigma }{d\Omega d\omega } &\propto &N\sigma
_{mag}\sum\limits_{\alpha ,\beta }\frac{k_{f}}{k_{i}}\left| F(\mathbf{Q}%
)\right| ^{2} \\
&&\left( \delta _{\alpha \beta }-Q_{\alpha }Q_{\beta }\right) \mathcal{S}%
^{\alpha \beta }(\mathbf{Q},\omega ),\end{aligned}$$is proportional to the dynamical response $\mathcal{S}^{\alpha \beta }(%
\mathbf{Q},\omega )$, where $\mathbf{Q}$ is the wavevector transfer, $%
F\left( \mathbf{Q}\right) $ is the magnetic form factor, $N$ is the number of scattering centers, the constant $\sigma _{mag}=0.2896$ b, $k_{i}$ and $%
k_{f}$ are the momenta of initial and final neutron states respectively, $g$ is the Landé $g$-factor, and $\alpha =x,y,z$ are Cartesian coordinates. The dynamical response is the space and time Fourier transform of the spin-spin correlation function $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}^{\alpha \beta }(\mathbf{Q},\omega ) &=&\frac{1}{2\pi N}%
\sum_{i,j}\int \exp \left( i\left( \omega t+\mathbf{Q}\cdot (\mathbf{r}_{i}-%
\mathbf{r}_{j}\right) \right) \\
&&\langle {S}_{i}^{\alpha }(0)S_{j}^{\beta }(t)\rangle dt,\end{aligned}$$where $i$ and $j$ labels sites of the system. For the AHC, equation (1), spin conservation and isotropy in spin space ensure that $\mathcal{S}%
^{\alpha \beta }(\mathbf{Q},\omega )=0$ for $\alpha \neq \beta $, and all diagonal spin components are equivalent $\mathcal{S}^{xx}(\mathbf{Q},\omega
)=\mathcal{S}^{yy}(\mathbf{Q},\omega )=\mathcal{S}^{zz}(\mathbf{Q},\omega ).$ At $T=0$ this is given by $$\mathcal{S}^{xx}(\mathbf{Q},\omega )=\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{S}^{+-}(\mathbf{Q}%
,\omega )=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\lambda }|\langle {\Psi _{\lambda }}(k)|S_{%
\mathbf{Q}}^{+}|\Psi _{G}\rangle |^{2}\delta (\omega -\omega _{\lambda }),$$where $\lambda $ label the eigenstates of $H$ and$$S_{\mathbf{Q}}^{+}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_{d}}}\sum_{m=1}^{N_{d}}\sum_{p=\pm
}\exp (i\mathbf{Q}\cdot \mathbf{r}_{m,p})S_{m,p}^{+}$$is the Fourier transformed spin creation operator.
The action of the neutron is to flip a spin and so create a localized spin-1 polarization in the chain, and the strength of scattering to particular states is determined by their overlap with this spin flip state. This means that the multiparticle states will be sampled with particles created close together. This is where interactions of the particle wavefunctions are most important, making neutrons a sensitive technique for looking at overlap effects. An interesting consequence of this is that the short range interactions between particles can have a large influence on measured correlation functions with little effect on the thermodynamics of the spin chain, an effect noted for spinons in uniform chains [@bernevig01]. Similarly, the thermodynamic influence of bound states at low temperatures vanishes as $1/N$ yet they have a finite scattering cross section as discussed below.
Neutron scattering measurements
-------------------------------
We made our measurements of the inelastic scattering cross-section of CN using the SPINS cold neutron triple-axis spectrometer at the NIST Center for Neutron Research. The same high quality sample of copper nitrate used by Xu *et al.* [@xu00] was utilized. This 14.1g sample consists of four coaligned single crystals of CN, with deuterium substituting for 92%of hydrogen. The substitution of D for H was made as it reduces significantly the background from incoherent scattering of neutrons but does not change the magnetic properties of the material. The sample was mounted with $(h,0,l)$ as the scattering plane in a pumped $^{3}$He cryostat at a base temperature of 300 mK. This temperature is an order of magnitude smaller than the gap energy ($\sim 4.4$ K) and the collective quantum ground state is almost entirely free of thermally produced magnons, with a population of these numbering less than one per two million dimer sites.
The two-magnon scattering is expected to be weak as the neutron matrix element to it is of $\mathcal{O}(\alpha ^{2})$ from the ground state so the spectrometer was set up in an open configuration to gain maximum scattered signal, and the only collimator included in the setup was of $80^{\prime }$ between monochromator and sample. A vertically focused pyrolytic graphite PG(002) array monochromated the incident neutrons (energy $E_{i}$, wavevector $\mathbf{k}_{i}$) and a horizontally focused array composed of eleven independently rotatable PG(002) blades was employed to analyze the scattered neutrons ($E_{f}$, $\mathbf{k}_{f}$). A cooled Be filter was placed in the incident beam before the sample to remove higher-order contamination from the beam. The actual neutron energy transfer to the sample being h[-.2em]{}$\omega =E_{i}-E_{f}$ and the wavevector transfer is $\mathbf{Q}=\mathbf{k}%
_{i}-\mathbf{k}_{f}$.
Measurements of scattering cross-section were made by fixing the final energy at $E_{f}=2.5$ meV ($k_{f}=1.10$ Å$^{-1}$) and scanning incident energy $E_{i}$ at various fixed wavenumber transfers along the chain, $k=%
\mathbf{Q}\cdot \widehat{\mathbf{d}}$ (i.e. the component of the scattered wavevector along the important chain direction). Although there are actually two types of chain in CN (with repeats $\mathbf{b}=[1,1,1]/2$ and $\mathbf{b}%
^{\prime }=[1,\overline{1},1]/2$) this is not important in our case - we study the $(h,0,l)$ scattering plane where the chains give identical contributions (see Fig. 3).
With an open scattering configuration instrumental resolution is an important consideration. The spectrometer resolution represents the spread in coordinate space ($\mathbf{Q},\omega $) sampled by the instrument at each measured point. The energy resolution of the spectrometer is of Gaussian profile with a full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) at $E_{f}=2.5$ meV and h[-.2em]{}$\omega =0.8$ meV of $\sim 0.10$ meV. The $\mathbf{Q}$ resolution is dominated by the wide angular acceptance ($14^{\circ }$) of the analyzer on the scattered side - it is highly elongated along a direction within the scattering plane that is perpendicular to the scattered wavevector - and approximating the measured angular dependence by a Gaussian profile gives a FWHM of $\sim 0.2$ Å$^{-1}$. This resolution width is very considerable, however by using calculated scan trajectories that maintain the final wavevector $\mathbf{k}_{f}$ along the crystallographic $(1,0,1)$ direction, so as to integrate over the nondispersive directions between chains, good wavenumber resolution in $k$ along the important quantum spin chain directions (estimated at of order $0.02$ Å$^{-1}$) is maintained.
![\[fig:num4\] (a) Low temperature scattering at $k=2%
\protect\pi /d$. The dashed line is a fitted background and the solid line is a fit to the scattering described in the text. (b) Two magnon scattering with background subtracted off. The solid line is a fit (see text). The solid bar indicates the instrumental resolution. (c) Two-magnon scattering for $k=3\protect\pi /d$ with nonmagnetic background subtracted off.](fig4_eps.eps){width="3in"}
Results and Analysis
====================
Fig. 4 shows some of the results of scans in energy performed on CN: Panel (a) shows a scan at the antiferromagnetic zone-center, $k=2\pi /d$, taken at $T=300$ mK. This is the wavenumber along the chain where the magnon energy is a minimum, *c.f*. Fig. 1. Strong elastic scattering from incoherent nuclear processes is clearly seen as well as a peak at 0.4 meV as expected for the one magnon mode [@xu00], close to the dimer excitation energy $J=0.45$ meV. A second much weaker peak appears at roughly double the dimer energy at about 0.9 meV, which is where two-magnon scattering is expected. On heating up the sample both the 0.4 meV and 0.9 meV peaks disappear identifying these as being magnetic in origin.
Heating up the sample also identifies the non-magnetic background contribution (dashed line in the figure) which consists of the incoherent nuclear peak, modelled by a Gaussian centered at zero-energy, and a broad contribution from thermal diffuse scattering from the analyzer which is well-characterized by a power-times-Lorentzian (broad, quasielastic) component decaying from zero-energy. As the background is large compared to the two magnon signal it was studied in depth at different temperatures and wavevectors.
Panels (b) and (c) of Fig. 4 show this peak with the modelled nonmagnetic background subtracted at $k=2\pi /d$ and $k=3\pi /d$, respectively. This feature is considerably weaker than the one-magnon scattering. The FWHM of the peak narrows from 0.18(1) meV at $2\pi /d$, panel (b), to 0.11(1) meV at the zone-boundary ($3\pi /d$), panel (c); behavior indeed consistent with two-magnon scattering.
Fig. 1 shows the energy corresponding to a weighted average of scattering as a thick grey line. It is notable that at $k=3\pi /d$ to a good approximation the neutrons couple only to the bound mode, so that nearly all the scattering weight is in it, not the continuum. The calculated neutron scattering intensity from the bound state is $\sim 2\%$ of the one-magnon intensity which agrees with the data in Fig. 4.
The one- and two-magnon scattering at 300 mK was scanned from $k=\pi /d$ to $%
5\pi /d$ in steps of $\pi /4d$. The background subtracted data are plotted in the upper panel of Fig. 5. The lower panel shows the calculated magnetic scattering based on the 1D perturbation theory of the Appendix with the estimated parameters $J=0.45$ and $\alpha =0.27$. The calculation includes the correct dimer structure factor effects and uses the true scan trajectories in conjunction with the dimer coordinates given in Table II. Corrections for the Cu$^{2+}$ magnetic form factor [@brown99] have also been made. Instrumental line broadening has been included as well by convolving the theoretical calculations with the estimated instrumental resolution and sample mosaic spread. The calculation is directly comparable with the data in the upper panel of Fig. 3, and at a qualitative level there is good agreement with experiment.
![\[fig:num5\] (Color) Upper panel shows a color filled contour plot of the measured data with nonmagnetic background subtracted. Intensity is on a linear scale indicated by color, going from dark red (minimum) to light yellow (maximum). The two-magnon scattering has been enhanced by a factor of 100 to make it visible on the same scale. Lower panel shows the calculated scattering using perturbation theory with corrections for instrumental resolution, multiple scattering and magnetic form factor.](fig5_eps.eps){width="2.2in"}
Next we consider the measured one- and two-magnon scattering in more detail and relate this to the physical picture presented by perturbation theory. A quantitative comparison between theory and data is shown in Fig. 6. The measured positions of one- and two-magnon peaks are plotted in the left panel. Energies, widths and intensities for each peak were extracted by least-squares fitting of Gaussians. In fact the wavevector and energy resolution was not sufficiently good in this experiment to distinguish details of line shape and the energies, widths and intensities represent the meaningful content of the measured data. We examine the one-magnon scattering first.
### One-magnon scattering
*Dispersion*: The measured dispersion of the one-magnon states is shown in the left hand panel of Fig. 6. Considerable dispersion of the one-magnon modes around the dimer energy (0.45 meV) is evident as expected. Although the one magnon dispersion has been calculated to high order $\mathcal{O}%
(\alpha ^{5})$ [@BRT] previously, the small value of $\alpha $ in CN means that the one-magnon dispersion should be well approximated by the $%
\mathcal{O}(\alpha )$ result, equation (2). In fact the dispersions in CN measured by Xu *et al.* [@xu00] and Stone *et al.* [stone]{} show that it is well described by$$\omega (\mathbf{Q})=J-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\mathbf{u}}\ J_{\mathbf{u}}\cos (%
\mathbf{Q}\cdot \mathbf{u})\;$$with $J=0.442(2)$ meV the dimer coupling, $J_{[111]/2}=0.106(2)$ meV the along chain coupling, plus additional weak interdimer couplings $%
J_{[1/2,0,0]}^{\prime }=0.012(2)$ meV and $J_{[0,0,1/2]}^{\prime }=0.018(2)$ meV. The alternation ratio that Xu *et al.* consider $\alpha
=J_{[111]/2}/J=0.240(5)$ is smaller than that found from the magnetization data discussed above which is presumably due to the neglect of interchain coupling effects in the analysis of the latter.
The solid line through the one magnon dispersion in Fig. 6 is that calculated using the results of [@xu00] and it gives a reasonable account of the data. The small discrepancies from the peak-centers measured here are attributable due to the effects of the instrumental resolution which averages over a large swathe of the interchain dispersion modulation.
*Intensity*: The lower right-hand panel of Fig. 6 shows the one-magnon intensities extracted from fitting. The neutron scattering matrix element $%
\mathcal{S}^{+-}(\mathbf{Q})\equiv |\langle {\Psi _{\lambda }}(k)|S_{\mathbf{%
Q}}^{+}|\Psi _{G}\rangle |^{2}$ for excitation of the one-magnon states in the AHC to $\mathcal{O}(\alpha ^{3})$ is [@BRT]$$\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{S}_{\text{1mag}}^{+-}(\mathbf{Q})=(1-\cos (\mathbf{Q}\cdot \mathbf{%
\rho }))\cdot \\
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\left( 1-\frac{5}{16}\alpha ^{2}-\frac{3}{32}\alpha ^{3}\right) +\left(
\frac{1}{2}\alpha -\frac{1}{8}\alpha ^{2}-\frac{5}{192}\alpha ^{3}\right)
\cos (kd)+ \\
\left( \frac{3}{16}\alpha ^{2}+\frac{7}{48}\alpha ^{3}\right) \cos (2kd)+%
\frac{5}{64}\alpha ^{3}\cos (3kd)%
\end{array}%
\right\} .%
\end{array}
\label{brt_onemag}$$The leading order scattering process is from the bare dimer component of the ground state, and the $\alpha /2\cdot \cos (kd)$ component in the one magnon structure factor arises from an $\mathcal{O}(\alpha )$ two-dimer excitation in the ground state. The dynamical structure factor then reflects both the composition of the ground and excited states leading to a complex wavevector dependence.
An interesting aspect of the one-magnon intensity $\mathcal{S}_{\text{1mag}%
}^{+-}(\mathbf{Q})$ noted in [@BRT] is that the spin structure factor comes in only as a $(1-\cos (\mathbf{Q\cdot \rho }))$ modulation. So where $%
\mathbf{Q\cdot \rho }=2\pi n$ ($n$ integer) the magnetic intensity should be zero. Although this situation occurs for the measurements at the wavenumber $%
k=3.9\pi /d$, the scattering does not go to zero because of residual intensity from secondary elastic scattering from incoherent processes. Such residual scattering was also observed in CN by Xu *et al.* [@xu00]. The solid line in the figure then is the scattering intensity predicted using equation (4) with $J=0.45$ meV and $\alpha =0.27$ including secondary scattering, as well as instrumental resolution and magnetic form factor. It is seen to account very well for the observed scattering intensity. We now consider the two-magnon scattering.
### Two-magnon scattering
Integrated peak intensities, widths and positions extracted using the fitting method described above for the two-magnon scattering are also plotted in Fig. 6. The peak positions are plotted in the left panel of Fig. 6 (filled circles). They are nearly dispersionless at an energy of $\sim
0.86 $ meV. The peak widths are plotted in the top right-hand panel. These are largest around $k=2\pi /d$ and $4\pi /d$ where the continuum is expected to be widest, and are near resolution limited around $\pi /d,3\pi /d,$ and $%
5\pi /d$. Also shown is the integrated peak intensity $\int d\omega I(\omega
)$, where $I(\omega )$ is the intensity, which peaks around $k=2\pi /d$.
*Intensity*: The integrated peak intensity of the measured two magnon scattering includes a sum over the two-particle continuum and $S=1$ bound mode. Taking account of the density of momentum states with energy transfer, the scattering intensities for the continuum (eqn. (17)) and bound (eqn. (18)) states as described in the Appendix were computed. As interchain effects are effectively integrated over in the two-magnon scattering, and this results in line broadening rather than shifts in energy; we thus have implicitly included interchain coupling effects in our definition of $\alpha
=0.27$ for (1). The energy integrated two-magnon intensity, $\int d\omega
I(\omega )$, (right middle panel) shows a more complicated $k$ dependence than the one magnon scattering. The comparison with the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha
^{2})$ calculation looks qualitatively similar to the data, however it underestimates the scattering at $k\approx 9\pi /2d$ and overestimates it at $2\pi /d$, which may indicate that higher order terms in the scattering amplitude are important. It is notable that the two-magnon intensity is very strongly dependent on the spatial arrangement of magnetic ions.
*Center*: the fitted peak centers are compared with the computed weighted center $\left\langle \omega \right\rangle =\int d\omega I(\omega
)\times \omega $ (gray band) for the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha ^{2})$perturbation theory in the left panel of Fig. 6. The nearly dispersionless extracted positions (grey filled circles) are located at the calculated weighted-average energies (grey band) replotted from Fig. 1. The fact that the weighted center lies below the center of the continuum is a direct result of the movement of scattering weight towards the lower boundary due to the magnon-magnon interaction.
*Width*: the peak widths obtained from the fits are shown in the top right-hand panel. The solid line represents that calculated using the perturbation theory. It is the sum-in-quadrature of the instrumental resolution width in energy and the variance $\sigma $ of the theoretical intensity where $\sigma ^{2}$ $=\int d\omega I(\omega )\times (\omega
-\left\langle \omega \right\rangle )^{2}$. The calculation is seen to provide a good account of the data.
*Bound mode*: One of the most interesting aspects of the multiparticle states in the AHC is the existence of the bound mode below the two-magnon continuum. The predicted wavevector dependence of the intensity (see Appendix) is $$\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{S}_{\text{BS}}^{+-}(\mathbf{Q})=\left( \frac{\alpha }{4}\right) ^{2}%
\left[ 1-4\cos ^{2}(kd/2)\right] \times \\
\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\left[ \sin \left( \mathbf{Q}\cdot (\mathbf{%
\rho }+\mathbf{d})/2\right) +3\sin \left( \mathbf{Q}\cdot (\mathbf{\rho }-%
\mathbf{d})/2\right) \right] ^{2}.%
\end{array}%$$and should be visible around $k=3\pi /d$. The binding energy of the $S=1$ state, neglecting interchain coupling, is predicted to be [@BRT] $%
E_{B}=J\left( \frac{1}{4}\alpha -\frac{13}{32}\alpha ^{2}\right) =0.017$ meV for CN. The scattering in CN around $k=3\pi /d$ is centered at $0.852\pm
.007$ meV, which gives a binding energy of $E_{B}=0.03\pm .02$ meV. In addition the scattering is near resolution limited, as expected for a well-defined mode. However, although the energy and intensity around $k=3\pi
/d$ lend support to binding around this bandwidth minimum, the experimental error means this does not constitute definitive proof of the effect in CN.
Discussion
==========
Our measurements establish the feasibility of studying weak multi-magnon states using neutron scattering and raise a number of important issues. Firstly the introduction of experimental data highlights the need for practical techniques for calculating the multiparticle excitation spectra and cross sections for realistic spin models. Our perturbation theory, although useful for interpreting results, is of too low order to quantitatively account for our measurements and in addition does not include interchain coupling. Very powerful linked-cluster-expansion techniques have recently been introduced that allow multiparticle spectra to be calculated to high order[@trebst00; @zheng01] for the AHC and the extension of these to calculations of the neutron scattering cross-section would be a significant development. Analytical approaches based on Green function techniques may also prove fruitful. Secondly, measurement of weak multiparticle signals preludes the access of neutron scattering to measuring bound two-magnon states. Interactions such as next nearest neighbor coupling should further stabilize bound modes and make measurement of these easier. A question which requires further investigation is the stability of such bound modes to thermal fluctuations and also interchain coupling. An alternative route for investigating the phenomenology of particle binding is through solitonic systems such as the 1D Ising chain with small XY-like terms [Ishimura]{}. In this case the coupling of neutrons to pairs of $S=1/2$solitons (also called spinons) is at zeroth order and therefore strong. Binding of solitons only occurs when extra terms are included in the Hamiltonian, such as exchange mixing [@Goff], next-nearest neighbor coupling [@Matsubara], or transverse field [@ghosh01]. Evidence for this binding phenomenon in and Ising-like chain has been observed recently in neutron scattering experiments [@Goff].
Time-of-flight (TOF) neutron spectrometers give potentially much better energy resolution than conventional triple-axis instrumentation and could provide definitive proof of the bound state in the alternating chain by resolving the bound mode from the continuum. Previously, TOF techniques have proven successful in the study of similar binding effects at the bandwidth minimum of the two-soliton continuum scattering of the $S=1/2$ XXZ Ising chain material CsCoCl$_{3}$ [@Goff]. Although limited neutron fluxes may make such measurements difficult for CN [@xu00] these should be feasible and we plan to make such measurements in the near future.
![\[fig:num6\] Comparison of theory and data. Left panel shows fitted positions of observed sattering using perturbations theory (see text). Right lower panel shows fitted one magnon intensity compared with perturbation theory (see text). Right upper panel shows a comparison of the two-magnon intensity with perturbation theory (see text).](fig6_eps.eps){width="3in"}
Summary
=======
In summary, we have used inelastic neutron scattering to investigate the ground and excited states of the near-ideal alternating Heisenberg chain material Cu(NO$_{3}$)$_{2}\cdot 2.5$D$_{2}$O, and also derived the scattering analytically to lowest order in perturbation theory. Our measurements are consistent with the predictions of this model for several magnetic properties of this system, including the ground state energy, one- and two-magnon excitation spectra and intensities, and possibly the existence of a two-magnon bound state. Much experimental work remains to be done to establish the phenomenology of binding in isotropic 1D systems.
We wish to thank Drs B. Lebech, R. Hazell, B. Lake, P-A Lindgård, and D. McMorrow for their help and advice and also Risø National Laboratory for generous support. This work was partly supported by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the US Dept. of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. The NSF supported work at SPINS through DMR-9423101 and work at JHU through DMR-9453362 and DMR-9801742. DHR acknowledges the generous support of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.Work at Harvard (KD) was supported by NSF-DMR grants 9981283, 9714725, and 9976621
Appendix
========
Ground state
------------
Here we apply the perturbation theory of [@BRT] to two-magnon scattering. The single dimer eigenstates (labelled $\text{G},1,0,\overline{1}
$) are listed in Table I and the ground state of the uncoupled dimers ($%
\alpha =0$) is a direct product of dimer ground states $$\Psi _{0}=\prod_{m=1}^{N_{d}}|G_{m}\rangle ,\ E_{0}=-\frac{3JN_{d}}{4}.$$As total spin $S_{T}=\sum_{m=1}^{N_{d}}S_{m}$, and $S_{T}^{z}=%
\sum_{m=1}^{N_{d}}S_{m}^{z}$ are constants-of-the-motion for the Hamiltonian $H$ they organize the Hilbert space. For notation we introduce dimer creation operators $a_{m}^{+}|G_{m}\rangle =|a_{m}\rangle $ where $a=1,0,%
\overline{1}$ label excited dimer states. In real space we denote the singly excited states with quantum numbers $(S_{T},S_{T}^{z})=(1,a)$ as $|a\rangle
_{m}=a_{m}^{+}\Psi _{0}$ and the doubly excited with $|(S_{T},S_{T}^{z})%
\rangle _{m,\nu }$ as the Clebsh-Gordan combinations of excitations at dimer sites $m$ and $m+\nu $ *i.e.* $|(0,0)\rangle _{m,\nu }=1/\sqrt{3}%
\{1_{m}^{+}\overline{1}_{m+\nu }^{+}-0_{m}^{+}0_{m+\nu }^{+}+\overline{1}%
_{m}^{+}1_{m+\nu }^{+}\}\Psi _{0}$, $|(1,1)\rangle _{m,\nu }=1/\sqrt{2}%
\{0_{m}^{+}1_{m+\nu }^{+}-1_{m}^{+}0_{m+\nu }^{+}\}\Psi _{0},$ *etc*.
As the alternating chain has translational symmetry plane-wave states prove convenient $$|a\rangle _{k}\equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{d}}}\sum_{m=1}^{N_{d}}e^{imkd}|a%
\rangle _{m},$$and $$|(S,S^{z})\rangle _{k,\nu }\equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{d}}}%
\sum_{m=1}^{N_{d}}e^{imkd}|(S,S^{z})\rangle _{m,\nu }.$$where the allowed momenta are $k_{n}=2n\pi /N_{d}d$, where $n$ are integers from $-N_{d}/2$ to $N_{d}/2$. The action of the Hamiltonian on the basis states has been considered in [@BRT] and the ground state to $\mathcal{O}%
(\alpha )$ is $$\Psi _{G}=\eta _{0}[\Psi _{0}-\alpha \frac{\sqrt{3}}{8}%
\sum_{m=1}^{N_{d}}|(0,0)\rangle _{m,1}]$$where $\eta _{0}=1-(3/128)\alpha ^{2}N_{d}$.
Neutron scattering measures the square of the expectation value of the spin operator $S^{+}(\mathbf{Q})=\left( 2N_{d}\right)
^{-1/2}\sum_{m=1}^{N_{d}}\sum_{p=\pm }\exp (i\mathbf{Q}\cdot \mathbf{r}%
_{m,p})S_{m,p}^{+}$ between eigenstates, where $\mathbf{Q}$ is the wavevector transfer of the neutron. The action of this spin operator applied to the ground state is$$\begin{array}{l}
S^{+}(\mathbf{Q})\left| \Psi _{G}\right\rangle =A_{\mathbf{Q}}|1\rangle
_{k}+B_{\mathbf{Q}}|(1,1)\rangle _{k,1}, \\
A_{\mathbf{Q}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( e^{i\mathbf{Q}\cdot \mathbf{\rho }%
/2}-e^{-i\mathbf{Q}\cdot \mathbf{\rho }/2}\right) \left( 1+\frac{\alpha }{4}%
\cos (kd)\right) , \\
B_{\mathbf{Q}}=\frac{\alpha }{8}\left( e^{i\mathbf{Q}\cdot \mathbf{\rho }%
/2}+e^{-i\mathbf{Q}\cdot \mathbf{\rho }/2}\right) \left( e^{ikd}-1\right) .%
\end{array}%$$where $k=\mathbf{Q}\cdot \widehat{\mathbf{d}}$ is the wavenumber of the states excited by this operator. The neutron scattering matrix element at $%
T=0$ to state $\lambda $, is given by $\mathcal{S}_{\lambda }^{+-}(\mathbf{Q}%
)=\left| \left\langle \Psi _{\lambda }\left| S_{\mathbf{Q}}^{+}\right| \Psi
_{G}\right\rangle \right| ^{2}$.
One-magnon states
-----------------
The one-magnon wavefunctions to order $\mathcal{O}(\alpha )$ are [@BRT]$$\begin{aligned}
\Psi _{\text{1mag}} &=&|a\rangle _{k}+\frac{\alpha }{2\sqrt{2}}%
(e^{ikd}+1)|(1,a)\rangle _{k,1}- \\
&&\frac{\alpha \sqrt{3}}{8\sqrt{N_{d}}}\sum_{m,m^{\prime }=1}^{N_{d}}\delta
_{m\neq m^{\prime }}e^{imkd}a_{m}^{+}|(0,0)\rangle _{m^{\prime },1} \notag\end{aligned}$$and form an $S=1$ triplet with an energy gap $\Delta =J-\alpha J/2$ above the ground state and dispersion $$\omega _{1\text{mag}}(k)=J-\alpha J/2\cos (kd).$$Application of the $S^{+}(\mathbf{Q})$ operator gives the intensity to $%
\mathcal{O}(\alpha )$$$\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{S}_{\text{1mag}}^{+-}(\mathbf{Q})=(1-\cos (\mathbf{Q}\cdot \mathbf{%
\rho }))\cdot \\
\left\{ 1+\frac{1}{2}\alpha \cos (kd)\right\} .%
\end{array}%$$
Two-magnon states
-----------------
Ignoring states higher than two-excited-dimer (as they do not contribute to the neutron-scattering matrix element to lowest order in $\alpha $), the action of the Hamiltonian is [@BRT] $$H|a\rangle _{k}=\alpha _{k}|a\rangle _{k}+\sqrt{2}\gamma _{k}^{\dagger
}|(1,a)\rangle _{k,1}$$and $$\begin{aligned}
&&H|(1,a)\rangle _{k,\nu }= \notag \\
&&\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\sqrt{2}\gamma _{k}|a\rangle _{k}+(\beta -\epsilon )|(1,a)\rangle
_{k,1}+\gamma _{k}|(1,a)\rangle _{k,2},\;\nu =1 \\
\beta |(1,a)\rangle _{k,\nu }+\gamma _{k}|(1,a)\rangle _{k,\nu +1}+\gamma
_{k}^{\dagger }|(1,a)\rangle _{k,\nu -1},\text{ }\nu >1%
\end{array}%
\right.\end{aligned}$$where $\alpha _{k}=J-(\alpha J/2)\cdot \cos (kd)$, $\beta =2J$, $\epsilon
=\alpha J/4$, $\gamma _{k}=-\frac{\alpha J}{4}\left( 1+e^{-ikd}\right) $, and $\dagger $ denotes complex conjugation. The excitation spectrum can be calculated by direct diagonalization of a large number of dimers and application of the matrix element above or by analytical solution.
Approximate analytical wavefunctions for the $S=1$ states can be calculated using elementary scattering theory, see [@Matsubara]. Ignoring the coupling to the one-excited-dimer states for the time being, the two-magnon wavefunctions are$$\Psi _{\text{2mag}}(k)=\sum_{\nu =1}^{N_{d}-1}b_{\nu }\exp (i\theta \nu
)|(1,1)\rangle _{k,\nu }.$$where for $\theta =-i\log (\sqrt{\gamma _{k}^{\dagger }/\gamma _{k}})=kd/2$ the time-independent Schr[ö]{}dinger equation reduces to solving the real and symmetric system of equations $$\begin{array}{l}
\lambda b_{1}=(\beta -\epsilon )b_{1}+\widetilde{\gamma }_{k}b_{2} \\
\vdots \\
\lambda b_{\nu }=\beta b_{\nu }+\widetilde{\gamma }_{k}(b_{\nu +1}+b_{\nu
-1}) \\
\vdots \\
\lambda b_{N_{d}-1}=(\beta -\epsilon )b_{N_{d}-1}+\widetilde{\gamma }%
_{k}b_{N_{d}-2}%
\end{array}%$$where $\widetilde{\gamma }_{k}=\sqrt{\gamma _{k}^{\dagger }\gamma _{k}}%
=\alpha J/2\cdot |\cos (kd/2)|$ and the term $\exp (i\theta \nu )$ serves to transform to the center-of-momemtum (center $R$) frame where magnons are at $%
r_{i}=R-\nu /2$ and $r_{j}=R+\nu /2$ with total momentum $K=k_{1}+k_{2}=kd$.
### Magnon-pair-state solutions
Magnon-pair-states comprise particles that are free at large distances and for particle conservation in one-dimension the interactions introduce a phase factor $\phi $ on scattering. This state corresponds to $$b_{\nu }^{\mu }=X_{0}\left( \exp \left( ip_{\mu }\nu \right) -\exp \left(
-i\left( p_{\mu }\nu -\phi _{\mu }\right) \right) \right)$$where the normalization constant $X_{0}\simeq 1/\sqrt{N_{d}}$, $p_{\mu }$ is the relative momentum, and $\mu =1,2,...,N_{d}-1$ index the eigenstates. The phases and momenta are determined by the boundary conditions of the particles and their interaction energy. The standard method of solving for these boundary conditions [@Matsubara; @Mattis] is to introduce the single site coefficients $b_{0}$ and $b_{N}$ and set $\epsilon b_{1}=\widetilde{%
\gamma }_{k}b_{0}$ and $\epsilon b_{N_{d}-1}=\widetilde{\gamma }%
_{k}b_{N_{d}} $ and substitute into equation (14). The momentum $p_{\mu }$ and phase $\phi _{\mu }$ solve for the constraints on $b_{0}$ and $b_{N_{d}}$ when$$e^{i\phi _{\mu }}=\frac{\widetilde{\gamma }_{k}+\epsilon \exp \left( -i\frac{%
\pi \mu +\phi _{\mu }}{N_{d}}\right) }{\widetilde{\gamma }_{k}+\epsilon \exp
\left( i\frac{\pi \mu +\phi _{\mu }}{N_{d}}\right) },p_{\mu }=\frac{\pi \mu
+\phi _{\mu }}{N_{d}}$$and the eigenvalues are $\lambda _{\mu }=2J-\alpha J\cos (kd)\cos (p_{\mu })+%
\mathcal{O}(1/N_{d})$. In the time-dependent Schrödinger picture this state corresponds to two particles with wavepackets at positions $%
r_{i}=R+\nu /2$ and $r_{j}=R-\nu /2$ and with momenta $k_{1}=(K+p)/2$ and $%
k_{2}=(K-p)/2$ that scatter via the $\mathbf{S}$-matrix $\mathbf{S}%
_{k_{1},k_{2}}=-\exp (i\phi _{k_{1}-k_{2}})$, and the eigenspectrum is $$\omega _{k_{1},k_{2}}=\omega _{\text{1mag}}(k_{1})+\omega _{\text{1mag}%
}(k_{2})$$with $\omega _{\text{1mag}}(k)=J-\alpha J/2\cdot \cos (kd)$ as above.
Including the coupling to the $|1\rangle _{k}$ states as a perturbation gives the approximate wavefunction$$\Psi _{2\text{mag}}(k,\mu )=-\frac{\alpha c_{1}^{\mu }}{2\sqrt{2}}%
(1+e^{-ikd})|1\rangle _{k}+\sum_{\nu =1}^{N_{d}-1}c_{\nu }^{\mu
}|(1,1)\rangle _{k,\nu }$$where $c_{\nu }^{\mu }=b_{\nu }^{\mu }\exp \left( ikd\nu /2\right) $. The neutron scattering matrix element can then be computed straightforwardly for a large $N_{d}$ system by evaluating the closure with equation (8).
### Bound state solutions
When $\widetilde{\gamma }_{k}<\epsilon $, $\phi _{\mu }$ cannot be solved with $\mu =1$ and $N_{d}-1$, and the $c_{\nu }^{1}$ and $c_{\nu }^{N_{d}-1}$ solutions comprise exponentially decaying bound states solutions below the two magnon continuum. The $S=1$ bound state wavefunctions and energy have previously been given by Ührig and Schulz [@uhrig], and Damle and Nagler [@Damle]. It is specified by equation (18) with$$b_{\nu }^{1}=\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon ^{2}-\widetilde{\gamma }_{k}^{2}}{%
\widetilde{\gamma }_{k}^{2}}}\exp (-\kappa \nu ),$$where $\exp (-\kappa )=-\widetilde{\gamma }_{k}/\epsilon $ which has dispersion energy $$\omega _{\text{BS}}=2J-\frac{\alpha J}{4}\left( 4\cos ^{2}(kd/2)+1\right) .$$An interesting feature of the bound state solution is that it only exists over the range $\left| n\pi -kd\right| \leqslant \pi /3$, where $n$ is an odd integer, and so there is an $S=1$ bound mode only for small wavevectors around the narrowest part of the continuum. Using our wavefunction we calculate the neutron scattering strength from the bound state to be$$\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{S}_{\text{BS}}^{+-}(\mathbf{Q})=\left( \frac{\alpha }{4}\right) ^{2}%
\left[ 1-4\cos ^{2}(kd/2)\right] \times \\
\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\left[ \sin \left( \mathbf{Q}\cdot (\mathbf{%
\rho }+\mathbf{d})/2\right) +3\sin \left( \mathbf{Q}\cdot (\mathbf{\rho }-%
\mathbf{d})/2\right) \right] ^{2}.%
\end{array}%$$
[99]{} A. Oosawa *et al.*, Physica B **294-295**, 34 (2001).
T. Nikuni *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 5868 (2000).
B. C. Watson *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 5168 (2001).
W. Yu and S. Haas, Phys. Rev. B **62**, 344 (2000).
T. Giamarchi and A. M Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. B **59**, 11398 (1999).
I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. B **43**, 3215 (1991); E. Sorensen and I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. Lett **71**, 1633 (1993).
R. Coldea, D.A. Tennant, K. Habicht, P. Smeibidl, C. Wolters and Z. Tylczynski, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 7203 (2002).
T. Barnes, cond-mat/0204115 (unpublished).
G.S. Uhrig and H.J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. B **54**, R9624 (1996).
G. Xu, C. Broholm, D.H. Reich, and M.A. Adams, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 4465 (2000).
T. Barnes, J. Riera, and D.A. Tennant*.* Phys. Rev. B **59**, 11384 (1999).
R.R.P. Singh and Z. Weihong, Phys. Rev. B **59**, 9911 (1999).
K. Damle and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B **57**, 8307 (1998);K. Damle and S.E. Nagler, cond-mat/9904438 (unpublished).
J. Garaj, Acta Chem. Scand. **22**, 1710 (1968).
B. Morosin, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B **26**, 1203 (1970).
Note that the space group for Cu(NO$_{3}$)$_{2}\cdot
2.5$H$_{2}$O has been incorrectly given in previous work as I 1 2/a 1.
K.M. Diederix, J.P. Groen, J.S.J.M. Henkens, T.O. Klaassen, and N.J. Poulis, Physics B **93**, 99 (1978).
J. Eckert *et al.* Phys. Rev. B **20**, 4596 (1979).
K.M. Diederix *et al.* Phys. Rev. B **19**, 420 (1979).
J.C. Bonner *et al.* Phys. Rev. B **27**, 248 (1983).
W. Marshall and S.W. Lovesey, *Thermal Neutron Scattering* (Clarendon, Oxford, 1971).
B.A. Bernevig, D. Giuliano, and R.B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 3392 (2002).
P.J. Brown, in *International Tables for Crystallography*, edited by A.J.C. Wilson and E. Prince (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1999), Vol. C.
M. Stone *et al.* unpublished.
S. Trebst, H. Monien, C.J. Hamer, W.H. Zheng, R.R.P. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 4373 (2000).
W.H. Zheng, C.J. Hamer, R.R.P. Singh, S. Trebst, H. Monien, Phys. Rev. B **63**, 144410 (2001).
N. Ishimura and H. Shiba, Prog. Theor. Phys. **63**, 743 (1980).
J.P. Goff, D.A. Tennant, and S.E. Nagler, Phys. Rev. B **52**, 15992 (1995).
F. Matsubara, and S. Inawashiro, Phys. Rev B **43**, 796 (1991).
A. Ghosh, J. Phys. Condens. Matter **13**, 5205 (2001).
D.C. Mattis, “The Theory of Magnetism I”, Chapter 5, Springer-Verlag (Berlin) 1988.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'I present here the first results from an ongoing pilot project with the 1.6 m telescope at the OPD, Brasil, aimed at the detection of the OVI $\lambda$6830 line via linear polarization in symbiotic stars. The main goal is to demonstrate that OVI imaging polarimetry is an efficient technique for discovering new symbiotic stars. The OVI $\lambda$6830 line is found in 5 out of 9 known symbiotic stars, in which the OVI line has already been spectroscopically confirmed, with at least 3$\sigma$ detection. Three new symbiotic star candidates have also been found.'
author:
- Akras Stavros
title: OVI 6830Å Imaging Polarimetry of Symbiotic Stars
---
1em [**Key Words**: symbiotic stars - polarization]{}
Introdution
===========
Raman scattering is a well established mechanism in symbiotic stars (Schmid 1989; Nussbaumer et al. 1989). Generally, two broad lines are detected in symbiotic stars (SySts) centred at 6830Å and 7088Å, with the latter being approximately 4 times weaker. These two lines are attributed to Raman scattering of the ultraviolet OVI $\lambda\lambda$1032, 1038 resonance lines by neutral hydrogen (Schmid 1989; Nussbaumer et al. 1989). Of the confirmed Galactic SySts 252 or 55% (Akras et al. these proceedings) show the broad OVI $\lambda$6830 Raman-scattered line (Allen 1980; Schmid & Schild 1994).
The mechanism of Raman scattering is well known to produce strong polarization from a few percent up to 10-15% (Schmid & Schild 1994; Harries & Howarth 1996,2000). Spectro-polarimetric observations are very important for determining the orbital parameters for these systems as well as the mass-loss rate of the cold giant by studying the O VI line profiles (Harries & Howarth 1997). However, only a few of them have been systematically observed. Hence, an OVI $\lambda$6830 imaging polarimetric survey of SySts is required in order to unveil those with significant polarization.
In this paper, I present the first OVI 6830Å imaging polarimetric observations of SySts. This pilot project aims to pave the way for larger and systematic OVI surveys (imaging photometry and/or polarimetry) searching for new SySts without necessarily obtain follow-up observations.
Observations
============
Linear imaging polarimetric observations were obtained with the 1.6 $\mu$m Perkin-Elmer telescope at the Observatório do Pico dos Dias (OPD/LNA) in Brasil. The data were taken using the imaging polarimeter Instituto de Astronomía, Geofísica e Ciências Atmosféricas polarimeter (IAGPOL; Magalhães et al. 1996). The polarimeter consists of a half-wave plate that can be rotated in steps of 22.5 degrees and a Savart calcite prism (Ramírez et al. 2015). The broad-band filter [*R*]{} and a narrowband filter centred at 6810Å (100Å bandwidth) were used with exposure times between 5 and 240 s. The field of view and image scale are 12 arcmin$^2$ and 0.36 arcsec pixel$^{-1}$, respectively. During observations, the seeing varied between 1.5 and 2 arcsec. Fig. 1 shows an image of RR Tel obtained with the OVI $\lambda$ filter.
Separate images were obtained for both filters and at relative position angles of the prism of 0, 22.5, 45, 67.5, 90, 112.5, 135, 157.5 and 180 degrees. The instrumental polarization as well as the rotation angle of the polarimeter were estimated by observing a number of unpolarized and polarized standard stars during the campaign. The data reduction was performed by using the IRAF package BEACON pipeline. The code applies a standard reduction technique which includes, removal of cosmic rays, subtraction of the dark current and bias, as well as flat-field normalization. It calculates the degree of polarization (DoP) and position angle (PA) for several stars in the field.
![OVI $\lambda$6830 line image of RR Tel taken with the IAGPOL at position angle of the prism of 0 degree. The two stars in the red circle refer to the real and imaginary part of RR Tel. North is up, east to the left.[]{data-label=""}](fig1.eps){width="8cm"}
--------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------- ----------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
Name O VI$^{\dag}$ P$_{\rm OVI}$ P$_{\rm R}$ P$_{\rm ISM,OVI}$ P$_{\rm ISM,R}$
(6830Å) (%) (%) (%) (%)
[*RR Tel*]{} yes 3.09$\pm$0.13 0.58$\pm$0.02 0.42$\pm$0.03 0.45$\pm$0.02
[*Hen 2-106*]{} yes 4.19$\pm$0.20 3.02$\pm$0.03 2.21$\pm$0.02 2.13$\pm$0.01
[*CD-43 14304*]{} yes 0.65$\pm$0.03 0.22$\pm$0.01 0.53$\pm$0.02 0.28$\pm$0.01
[*AR PAV*]{} yes 1.30$\pm$0.03 1.16$\pm$0.02 0.61$\pm$0.01 0.61$\pm$0.01
[*2MASS16422739*]{} yes 9.32$\pm$3.07 4.79$\pm$0.06 1.91$\pm$0.01 1.71$\pm$0.01
BI Cru no 1.04$\pm$0.03 1.07$\pm$0.06 1.33$\pm$0.02 1.26$\pm$0.02
HD 330036 no 2.79$\pm$0.06 2.66$\pm$0.02 2.06$\pm$0.02 2.01$\pm$0.01
Hen 3-1213 no 2.82$\pm$0.20 3.04$\pm$0.14 2.01$\pm$0.01 2.10$\pm$0.01
Hen 3-1761 no 1.00$\pm$0.02 1.01$\pm$0.02 0.97$\pm$0.01 0.98$\pm$0.01
V4018 no 0.35$\pm$0.03 0.40$\pm$0.02 0.50$\pm$0.01 0.51$\pm$0.01
V4074 yes 1.15$\pm$0.07 1.05$\pm$0.33 1.18$\pm$0.02 1.25$\pm$0.01
Hen 3-1341 yes 1.89$\pm$0.05 1.75$\pm$0.14 2.01$\pm$0.01 2.04$\pm$0.01
StHa 164 yes 2.47$\pm$0.13 2.58$\pm$0.17 2.58$\pm$0.01 2.66$\pm$0.02
PN K 3-12 yes 0.95$\pm$0.17 0.75$\pm$0.13 0.92$\pm$0.02 0.93$\pm$0.01
--------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------- ----------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
$^{\dag}$ Spectroscopic detection of the OVI $\lambda$ 6830 Raman-scattered line.
Results
=======
In narrowband polarization imaging there are three components that have to been taken into account, (i) the polarization in spectral line, (ii) the polarization in the continuum and (iii) the interstellar medium polarization (ISP). For a positive detection of the spectral line via polarization imaging, the continuum and ISP components have to be measured and properly subtracted. For the continuum polarization, the broadband filter [*R*]{} was used.
Regarding the ISP, the field star method was used (e.g. Akras et al. 2017). Assuming that the field stars are unpolarized, the average DoP from all the stars in the field gives a rough estimate of the ISP.
Table 1 presents the DoP in the OVI and [*R*]{} filters for 14 known SySts (Belczyński et al. 2000, Akras et al. these proceedings) as well as the ISP in the direction of each object (5$^{\rm th}$ and 6$^{\rm th}$ columns). Two criteria were used in order to get a positive detection of the OVI Raman line, (i) P$_{\rm OVI}>$P$_{\rm ISM,OVI}$+3$\times\sigma_{P_{\rm OVI}}$, which implies the star is intrinsically polarized in the OVI line and (ii) P$_{\rm OVI}>$P$_{\rm R}$+3$\times\sigma_{P_{\rm OVI}}$, which implies that the observed polarization is due to the spectral line and not the continuum. In some cases, the target can be highly polarized in the continuum ([*R*]{}) but not necessarily in the spectral line (e.g. Hen 3-1213).
In my sample, there are nine SySts in which the presence of OVI $\lambda$6830 Raman line had been confirmed spectroscopically before and five SySts without a confirmed detection. I get a 3$\sigma$ detection for 5 ([*italic*]{} in Table 1) out of 9 SySts with previous OVI detection. The non detection of the OVI line from the last four SySts may be due to the variation of the line (very faint OVI line at the time of my observations). As for the five SySts, without a confirmed detection, I get no detection for all of them (100% success).
Besides the SySts, I have also found three stars that pass the aforementioned criteria and I have considered them as candidate SySts. Since this is a pilot project, follow-up spectroscopic observations of these three candidates are required in order to unveil their nature and confirm the power of this technique.
Conclusion
==========
OVI 6830Å imaging polarimetry seems to be very promising technique for searching new SySts. 5 out of 9 SySts (56%) show a 3 $\sigma$ detection of the OVI Raman line. The detection of the OVI Raman line via polarimetry assures the symbiotic nature of the object without following-up observations. More observation of SySts, with or without a confirmed detection of the OVI line, are planned to be obtained this year.
I would like to thank the organizing committee for the opportunity to attend this event and present this work as well as for their financial support. I also acknowledge support of CNPq, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - Brazil (grant 300336/2016-0). This work is based upon observations carried out at the Observatório do Pico dos Dias (LNAMCT/CNPq, Brazópolis, Brazi). Many thanks also to Nikos Nanouris for reviewing this paper.
Akras S., Ramirez-Velez J. C., Nanouris N., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2948\
Allen D. A., 1980, MNRAS, 190, 75\
Belczyński, K., et al., 2000, A&AS, 146, 407B\
Harries T. J., Howarth I. D., 1996, A&AS, 119, 61\
Harries T. J., Howarth I. D., 1997, A&AS, 121, 15\
Harries, T. J.; Howarth, I. D., 2000, A&A, 361, 139\
Kenyon S. J., Livio M., Mikolajewska J., Tout C. A., 1993, ApJ, 407, L81\
Magalhães A. M., et al., 1996, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 97, 118\
Magalhães A. M., Benedetti E., Roland E. H., 1984, PASP, 96, 383\
Magrini L., Corradi R. L. M., Munari U., 2003, ASPC, 303, 539\
Munari U., Renzini A., 1992, AJ, 397, 87\
Nussbaumer H., Schmid H. M., Vogel M., 1989, A&A, 211, 27\
Ramírez Edgar A., et al. , 2015, arXiv151209085\
Schmid H. M., 1989, A&A, 211, 31\
Schmid H. M., Schild H., 1994, A&A, 281, 145\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We perform linear and nonlinear photon absorption calculations in ultra-thin films of a topological insulator on a substrate. Due to the unique band structure of the coupled topological surface states, novel features are observed for suitable photon frequencies, including a divergent edge singularity in one-photon absorption process and a significant enhancement in two-photon absorption process. The resonant frequencies can be controlled by tuning the energy difference and coupling of the top and bottom surface states. Such unique linear and nonlinear optical properties make ultra-thin films of topological insulators promising material building blocks for tunable high-efficiency nanophotonic devices.'
author:
- Jing Wang
- Hideo Mabuchi
- 'Xiao-Liang Qi'
title: 'Calculation of divergent photon absorption in ultra-thin films of a topological insulator'
---
Introduction
============
Time-reversal invariant topological insulators (TIs) are new states of quantum matter characterized by an insulating bulk state and gapless Dirac-type surface states. [@qi2010; @hasan2010; @moore2010; @qi2011] A range of compounds have been found to be three-dimensional (3D) TIs, [@zhanghj2009; @xia2009; @chadov2010; @lin2010; @zhang2012] among which layered Bi$_2$Se$_3$ is demonstrated to be a prototype 3D TI with a large insulating bulk gap of about $0.3$ eV and metallic surface states with a single Dirac cone. [@zhanghj2009; @xia2009] A thin layer of TI is expected to be a promising material for high-performance optoelectronic devices such as photodetectors [@zhangx2010] and transparent electrodes [@penghl2012] due to its spin momentum locked massless Dirac surface state, which is topologically protected against time-reversal invariant perturbations.
Two-photon absorption (TPA) is a primary process of interest in various emergent photonics applications. [@stryland1988; @tutt1993; @bravo2007; @hayat2011; @mabuchi2012] For application purposes, a good TPA material must display large absorptive nonlinearities tuned within specific spectral regions. [@wherrett1984; @christodoulides2010] To gain insight into the origin of large (degenerate) TPA coefficients $\beta$, we consider the expression for $\beta$ in second-order perturbation theory, which is proportional to the transition dipole moments and joint density of states (JDOS): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TPA}
\beta(\omega) &\equiv& \frac{2\hbar\omega W_2}{\mathcal{I}^2}
\nonumber
\\
&=& \frac{2\hbar\omega}{\mathcal{I}^2}\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}\sum\limits_{\mathbf{k}}\left|\sum\limits_{i}\frac{\left\langle \psi_{c}\right|\mathcal{H}_1\left|\psi_i\right\rangle
\left\langle \psi_{i}\right|\mathcal{H}_1\left|\psi_v\right\rangle}{E_{i}(\mathbf{k}_{i})-E_{v}(\mathbf{k}_{v})-\hbar\omega}\right|^2
\nonumber
\\
&&\times\delta\left(E_{c}(\mathbf{k}_{c})-E_{v}(\mathbf{k}_{v})-2\hbar\omega\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_{c}$, $\psi_{i}$ and $\psi_{v}$ are Bloch wavefunctions of the electrons in conduction, intermediate and valence bands, whose energies are $E_{c}(\mathbf{k}_{c})$, $E_{i}(\mathbf{k}_{i})$ and $E_{v}(\mathbf{k}_{v})$ and momenta are $\mathbf{k}_c$, $\mathbf{k}_i$ and $\mathbf{k}_v$. $\omega$ is the frequency of light. The delta function expresses energy conservation requirements for optical transition, and the summations over $i$ extend over all possible intermediate states. The $\mathbf{k}$ summation is over the entire first Brillouin zone, $\mathcal{H}_1$ is the electron-photon interaction Hamiltonian and $\mathcal{I}$ is the light irradiance. In general, one can get large $\beta$ when reaching the resonant condition ($E_{i}-E_{v}=2\hbar\omega$). Moreover, sharp peaks in the frequency dependence of the TPA coefficient should occur at critical points of the JDOS, such as Van Hove singularities. Two-dimensional (2D) systems may offer a novel avenue for creating useful TPA materials, unlike in 3D, Van Hove singularities in 2D may induce divergent JDOS.
In this paper we show that thin films of a TI could provide a powerful setting, in which both linear and nonlinear optical processes of interest are greatly enhanced and are also highly tunable. A key feature of TIs is the existence of robust topological surface states, in which electrons propagate as massless relativistic fermions as shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a). In an ultra-thin film (5 nm or thinner for Bi$_2$Se$_3$) of TIs the top and bottom surface states are coupled, giving rise to an energy gap. [@linder2009; @liu2010a; @lu2010; @zhangy2010] The coupling strength is controlled by the film thickness [@liu2010a] and the energy difference between the two surface states can be controlled by substrate or electrical gating. Such tunability makes the TI thin film a unique 2D electron system. Due to the coupling of surface states, the conduction band minima and valence band maxima occur at the same nonzero wave-vector, leading to a divergent JDOS and thus a divergent one-photon absorption (OPA) at the gap frequency, illustrated by optical process $\alpha_1$ in Fig. \[fig1\](b). Furthermore, by tuning the relative amplitude between the gap and the top-bottom surface energy difference, one can achieve a band structure in which a two-photon process \[$\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ in Fig. \[fig1\](b)\] is greatly enhanced due to the existence of an intermediate band at the resonance frequency and the almost divergent JDOS of the initial and final states \[$\delta$ in Fig. \[fig1\](b)\]. With such properties, thin films of Bi$_2$Se$_3$ (and similar materials Bi$_2$Te$_3$ and Sb$_2$Te$_3$) are unique material building blocks for new nanophotonic devices.
The organization of this paper is as follows. After this introductory section, Sec. \[model\] describes the model for the thin film of a TI and perturbative approach to calculating the linear and nonlinear optical absorption. Section \[results\] presents the results for OPA and TPA processes. Section \[discussion\] presents the discussion. Section \[conclusion\] concludes this paper.
![(color online) (a) Coupling of Dirac cones on opposite surfaces of a thin-film TI. (b) Surface band structure with divergences in JDOS for one- ($\alpha_1$) and two-photon ($\delta$) transitions. The doping level of the system is in the gap. The bands and their labels are in the same color. The possible one-photon optical transitions are indicated by arrows with an index of $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_3$, $\alpha_4$ and two-photon optical transitions by $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$, $\gamma$, $\delta$. (c) Optical selection rules for direct interband transition. $\mathcal{D}_{ji}$ denotes the optical transition from band $E_i$ to $E_j$. The ring denotes the constant energy contour for vertical transition, and arrow indicates the polarization of the optical field.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.pdf){width="3.4in"}
Model and Theory {#model}
================
The low-energy physics of a TI thin film is characterized by two copies of the topological surface states on the top and bottom surfaces. In the simplest TIs such as the Bi$_2$Se$_3$ family, each surface state has a single Dirac cone. The surface state wavefunction is localized on the surface and decays exponentially away from the surface with a characteristic “penetration depth" $\xi$. For the Bi$_2$Se$_3$ family of materials $\xi\sim 1$ nm. For ultra-thin films with thickness comparable with $\xi$, the overlap between the surface state wavefunctions from the two surfaces of the film become non-negligible and hybridization between them has to be taken into account. In a thin film TI on a substrate, the chemical potentials of the top and bottom surfaces are inequivalent and the Dirac points are generically at different energies. Considering the inter-surface coupling and the chemical potential difference one can write down the following low energy effective model of the thin film TI which matches well with experiment, [@zhangy2010; @shan2010] $$\label{Hamiltonian}
\mathcal{H}_0 = \hbar v\tau_z\otimes\left(\sigma_xk_y-\sigma_yk_x\right)+\frac{\Delta_{h}}{2}\tau_x\otimes1+\Delta_{ib}\tau_z\otimes1,$$ where $v$ is the Dirac velocity, and $\sigma_{i}$ ($i=1,2,3$) and $\tau_j$ ($j=1,2,3$) are Pauli matrices acting on spin space and opposite surfaces, respectively. Time-reversal invariance follows from $\left[\Theta,\mathcal{H}_0\right]=0$, where $\Theta=1\otimes i\sigma_y\mathcal{K}$ and $\mathcal{K}$ is complex conjugation. $\Delta_{h}$ is the hybridization between the two surface states. $\Delta_{ib}$ is the inversion symmetry breaking, which can be substantially modified through electrical gating. [@zhangy2010] Here for simplicity we neglect the higher-order terms in $k$, and we will discuss the effect of higher-order terms at the end of the paper. The surface band dispersion is $$\label{dispersion}
E(\mathbf{k}) =\mp\sqrt{\left(\hbar v\left|\mathbf{k}\right|\mp\Delta_{ib}\right)^2+\left(\Delta_{h}/2\right)^2},$$ The energy gap is $E_{\text{edge}}=\Delta_{h}$ at the wavevector $\left|\mathbf{k}\right|=\Delta_{ib}/\hbar v$. In the following, we consider the doping level of the system is always in the gap. [@grushin2012] $E_1$ and $E_3$ bands are occupied, while $E_2$ and $E_4$ bands are unoccupied. Thus the low energy optical absorption by the surface states can occur with photon energy ranging from $E_{\text{edge}}$ to gap of the bulk bands.
The direct electron-photon interaction is the dipole interband optical transitions, which is determined by minimal coupling, [*i.e.*]{}, by replacing $\mathbf{k}$ by $\mathbf{k}-e\mathbf{A}/\hbar c$ in the model Eq. (\[Hamiltonian\]), which leads to the interaction Hamiltonian $$\mathcal{H}_1 =-\frac{e}{c}v\tau_z\otimes\left(\sigma_xA_y-\sigma_yA_x\right).$$ Here $\mathbf{A}=A\mathbf{e}$ is the optical vector potential with amplitude $A$ and polarization $\mathbf{e}$. The amplitude $A$ is related to the light irradiance by $\mathcal{I}=\sqrt{\epsilon_{\omega}}\omega^2A^2/2\pi c$, and $\epsilon_{\omega}$ is the dielectric constant of the material. Here we have neglected the small wave vector of light. Taking into account the momentum conservation $\mathbf{k}$ for the initial $|\psi_{c}\rangle$ and final $|\psi_{v}\rangle$ states, only vertical excitation processes contribute to absorption.
The optical selection rules of the interband transition are obtained by the polarization operator $$\mathcal{D}_{ji}(\mathbf{k}) \equiv \left\langle\psi_j(\mathbf{k})\right|\mathcal{H}_1\left|\psi_i(\mathbf{k})\right\rangle,$$ here $\mathcal{D}_{ji}$ denotes the transition from state $|\psi_i\rangle$ to $|\psi_j\rangle$. The explicit form of the wavefuctions $|\psi_i\rangle$ ($i=1,2,3,4$) are $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi_{1,2}(\mathbf{k})\rangle &=& \frac{1}{N_{1,2}}
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{\left(\hbar v|\mathbf{k}|-\Delta_{ib}\right)\mp\sqrt{\left(\hbar v|\mathbf{k}|-\Delta_{ib}\right)^2+\Delta_h^2/4}}{\Delta_h/2}ie^{-i\theta_{\mathbf{k}}}\\
\frac{\left(\hbar v|\mathbf{k}|-\Delta_{ib}\right)\mp\sqrt{\left(\hbar v|\mathbf{k}|-\Delta_{ib}\right)^2+\Delta_h^2/4}}{\Delta_h/2}\\
ie^{-i\theta_{\mathbf{k}}}\\
1
\end{bmatrix}\nonumber
\\
|\psi_{3,4}(\mathbf{k})\rangle &=& \frac{1}{N_{3,4}}
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{\left(\hbar v|\mathbf{k}|+\Delta_{ib}\right)\pm\sqrt{(\hbar v|\mathbf{k}|+\Delta_{ib})^2+\Delta_h^2/4}}{\Delta_h/2}ie^{-i\theta_{\mathbf{k}}}\\
-\frac{\left(\hbar v|\mathbf{k}|+\Delta_{ib}\right)\pm\sqrt{(\hbar v|\mathbf{k}|+\Delta_{ib})^2+\Delta_h^2/4}}{\Delta_h/2}\\
-ie^{-i\theta_{\mathbf{k}}}\\
1
\end{bmatrix}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $N_{1,2}$ and $N_{3,4}$ are normalization factor, and $\theta_{\mathbf{k}}$ is the azimuth angle between $\mathbf{k}$ and $k_x$-axis. Thus we have the transition for the surface bands $\mathcal{D}_{21}\propto\hat{\mathbf{k}}$, $\mathcal{D}_{43}\propto-\hat{\mathbf{k}}$, $\mathcal{D}_{41}\propto \hat{\mathbf{n}}\times\hat{\mathbf{k}}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{23}\propto-\hat{\mathbf{n}}\times\hat{\mathbf{k}}$, where $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ is a unit vector normal to the momentum $\mathbf{k}$. Such selections rules is shown in Fig. \[fig1\](c). We can see clearly that the optical selection rules in a thin film TI is very different from that in a conventional direct-gap semiconductor such as GaAs, where the spin wavefunction remains unchanged. This unique optical transition selection rule is due to the spin momentum locking of surface states.
The energy spectrum of the effective model (\[Hamiltonian\]) is shown in Fig. 1(b). For finite chemical potential offset $\Delta_{ib}$, the coupling between the two surface states leads to avoided crossing of the energy dispersion at finite wavevectors, and the valence band maxima and conduction band minima coincide on a one-dimensional (1D) ring at $|{\bf k}|=\Delta_{ib}/\hbar v$ in momentum space. This feature is essential for optical properties of the system, since the density of states of both conduction and valence bands diverge at the same wavevectors, enabling a divergence in the probability of the optical transition process marked by $\alpha_1$ in Fig. \[fig1\](b). Other important optical transitions beside $\alpha_1$ are also shown in Fig. \[fig1\](b).
Results
=======
One-photon absorption
---------------------
![ (color online) (a) Contour plot of OPA spectra for thin film TIs (logarithmic scale). $\Delta_{h}/\Delta_{ib}$ can be tuned by film thickness and electrical gating. $\alpha(\omega)$ is in units of $\pi\alpha/\sqrt{\epsilon_{\omega}}$. (b) Line cut for the 4-QLs Bi$_2$Se$_3$ thin film with $\Delta_{h}=70$ meV and $\Delta_{ib}=53$ meV. The edge of the interband transition $E_{\text{edge}}$ is indicated by an arrow; important features are labeled $\alpha_1-\alpha_4$.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.pdf){width="3.4in"}
The OPA coefficient is $$\alpha(\omega) =\frac{\hbar\omega W_1}{\mathcal{I}},$$ where $W_1$ is the transition probability rate for OPA per unit area $$\label{OPA}
W_1 =\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}\sum\limits_{\mathbf{k}}\sum\limits_{f\neq i}\left|\left\langle\psi_{f}\right|\mathcal{H}_1\left|\psi_{i}\right\rangle\right|^2
\delta\left(E_{fi}(\mathbf{k})-\hbar\omega\right),$$ where $E_{fi}(\mathbf{k})\equiv E_{f}(\mathbf{k})-E_{i}(\mathbf{k})$. Fig. \[fig2\](a) shows the OPA spectrum when the doping level is in the gap. Thus allowed optical transitions are $E_1\rightarrow E_2$, $E_3\rightarrow E_4$, $E_1\rightarrow E_4$, $E_3\rightarrow E_2$. These optical processes $\alpha_i$ ($i=1,2,3,4$) contribute to different features at different frequencies as marked in Fig. \[fig2\](a). In the following we will discuss the contribution of these processes in more details.
*1*. When the optical frequency $\hbar\omega<\Delta_{h}$, no real OPA will occur, for the energy conservation of the optical transition cannot be satisfied.
*2*. As the frequency is larger at $\hbar\omega=\Delta_h$, the optical transition $\alpha_1$ can occur, and it will lead to the band edge singularity in OPA spectrum at the gap energy $E_{\text{edge}}$ as shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. This singularity is directly related to the JDOS divergence of the surface states in $E_1$ and $E_2$ bands. Explicitly, the summation over the delta function $\delta(E_{21}(\mathbf{k})-\hbar\omega)$ in Eq. (\[OPA\]) can be converted into an integration over energy by a JDOS, $$\mathcal{N}(\omega) = \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int \frac{dS_{\mathbf{k}}}{\left|\nabla_{\mathbf{k}}\left[E_2(\mathbf{k})-E_1(\mathbf{k})\right]\right|},$$ where $S_{\mathbf{k}}$ is the constant energy surface defined by $E_{21}(\mathbf{k})=\hbar\omega$. When $\hbar\omega\leq\sqrt{4\Delta_{ib}^2+\Delta_{h}^2}$, the JDOS for $E_1$ and $E_2$ bands becomes $$\mathcal{N}(\omega) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{\hbar\omega}{\sqrt{\hbar^2\omega^2-\Delta_{h}^2}}.$$ It becomes singular when $\hbar\omega=\Delta_h$ at finite wavevector. This square-root divergent Van Hove singularity of the JDOS at the band edge is characteristic of one-dimensional behavior. [@cappelluti2007prl] For large photon frequencies, the $E_1\rightarrow E_2$ contribution to $\alpha(\omega)$ is proportional to $\omega^{-3}$.
*3*. When the optical frequency is increased at $\hbar\omega=\sqrt{4\Delta_{ib}^2+\Delta_{h}^2}$, besides the $E_1\rightarrow E_2$ transition, other transitions $E_{1}\rightarrow E_4$, $E_{3}\rightarrow E_4$ and $E_{3}\rightarrow E_2$ start to occur at ${\bf k}=0$, as is labeled by $\alpha_2$ in Fig. \[fig1\](b). These processes will lead to a step discontinuity in the OPA spectra. In particular, OPA from $E_{3}\rightarrow E_4$ is exactly zero at $\hbar\omega=\sqrt{4\Delta_{ib}^2+\Delta_{h}^2}$ and has $\omega^{-2}$ dependence when $\hbar\omega/\Delta_{ib}\gg1$.
*4*. For frequency $\hbar\omega\gg\sqrt{4\Delta_{ib}^2+\Delta_{h}^2}$, the transitions $\alpha_3$ ($E_1\rightarrow E_4$) and $\alpha_4$ ($E_3\rightarrow E_2$) will occur far away from the avoided crossing wavevector $\Delta_{ib}/\hbar v$. In this limit the inter-surface coupling can be neglected, and the transition occurs within each surface. It has been studied in the graphene context [@nair2008; @wang2008; @min2009] that such a transition in a 2D Dirac fermion system leads to a universal frequency-independent contribution $\pi\alpha/2\sqrt{\epsilon_{\omega}}$ to OPA with $\alpha\equiv e^2/\hbar c$ the fine-structure constant. This contribution dominates the absorption probability in the high frequency limit as shown in Fig. \[fig2\](b).
{width="\textwidth"}
In short, as the frequency increases, the OPA spectrum of a TI thin film first has a square-root singularity at band edge $\hbar\omega=\Delta_h$, and then has a step discontinuity at $\hbar\omega=\sqrt{4\Delta_{ib}^2+\Delta_{h}^2}$, and approaches $\pi\alpha/2\sqrt{\epsilon_{\omega}}$ in the high frequency limit.
Two-photon absorption
---------------------
For the surface state of a bulk TI, the TPA coefficient is obtained by including all possible intermediate states in the surface bands, which leads to $$\beta_{\text{thick}} =\frac{2\pi^2}{\epsilon_{\omega}\omega^4\hbar^3}\left(\frac{ve^2}{c}\right)^2.$$ There is no resonant feature or Van Hove singularity.
In a thin film new resonant features will appear due to the inter-surface coupling. There are four allowed transitions, $E_1\rightarrow E_4\rightarrow E_2$ and $E_3\rightarrow E_4\rightarrow E_2$, $E_1\rightarrow E_2\rightarrow E_4$ ($\beta_1$, $\beta_2$) and $E_3\rightarrow E_2\rightarrow E_4$ ($\gamma$). We consider the case that the doping level is in the gap, so the latter two with nearly resonant condition dominate the optical process, as shown in Fig. \[fig1\](b). Both transitions are included in the calculation of the TPA coefficient if $\hbar\omega\geq\sqrt{\Delta_{ib}^2+(\Delta_{h}/2)^2}$, as both of them satisfy energy conservation. In Fig. \[fig3\] we show numerical results for TPA coefficients and corresponding optical processes. When $\Delta_{h}/2<\hbar\omega<\sqrt{\Delta_{ib}^2+(\Delta_{h}/2)^2}$, the optical transitions from valence bands to conduction band $E_4$ is forbidden by energy conservation, so that $\beta=0$. As the photon frequency becomes larger, $\beta(\omega)$ has two resonance frequencies, corresponding to transitions $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$, with the resonance condition $E_4-E_2=E_2-E_1=\hbar\omega$ indicated by Eq. (\[TPA\]). These features represent large tunable absorptive nonlinearities, making thin film TIs promising TPA materials for applications. The double resonance is at $k_{1,2}=(5\mu\pm\sqrt{9\Delta_{ib}^2-4\Delta_{h}^2})/4\hbar v$, and it disappears when $\Delta_{h}/\Delta_{ib}$ reaches a critical value $\Delta_{h}/\Delta_{ib}\geq1.5$ as shown in Fig. \[fig3\](a). In practice, the energy $\hbar\omega$ in Eq. (\[TPA\]) needs to be replaced by $\hbar\omega+i\Gamma$ in order to take into account the effect of carrier damping. Here, $\Gamma$ is assumed to be a constant and inversely proportional to the dephasing time $\tau$. In our calculation we set $\Gamma/\Delta_{ib}=0.05$. Fig. \[fig3\](b) shows the TPA spectrum for representative values of $\Delta_{h}/\Delta_{ib}$. $\beta(\omega)$ shows as double resonance feature for $\Delta_{h}/\Delta_{ib}=1.32$, which corresponds to the experimental values observed for 4 quintuple layers (QLs) Bi$_2$Se$_3$ film. [@zhangy2010; @shan2010] The strongest resonance feature occurs at $\beta_1$ since the optical transition matrix elements at $\beta_1$ are larger than that at $\beta_2$. In contrast, there is no strong resonance for $\Delta_{h}/\Delta_{ib}=1.60$. The process $\gamma$ does not satisfy the resonant condition for any photon frequency, so it has little contribution to the TPA coefficient. Fig. \[fig3\](c) shows the maximum of $\beta$ (at $\beta_1$) versus the parameter $\Delta_{h}/\Delta_{ib}$. In particular, although the resonant condition is satisfied at $\omega=\Delta_{ib}$ when $\Delta_{h}=0$, the associated transition from $E_1\rightarrow E_2$ vanishes. The strongest $\beta$ occurs at $\Delta_{h}/\Delta_{ib}\approx0.5$.
The double resonance feature of the TPA coefficient from transition $E_1\rightarrow E_4$ is due to the Rashba-type splitting, compared to the single resonance in bilayer graphene. [@yang2011] The Rashba splitting also gives rise to the divergent JDOS at the band edge, which has already been shown in the OPA coefficient. Obviously, there is no resonant intermediate states in the TPA process from $E_1\rightarrow E_2$, however, with the divergent JDOS and finite transition matrix elements at $\left|\mathbf{k}\right|=\Delta_{ib}$, the TPA contributed by the process $\delta$ around the gap is $$E_1\rightarrow E_2:\ \ \beta(\omega) \propto \frac{1}{\omega^3\sqrt{\left(2\hbar\omega\right)^2-\Delta_{h}^2}}.\label{TPA12}$$ It has a singular feature centered around $\hbar\omega=\Delta_{h}/2$ due to the Van Hove edge singularity. It shows $\omega^{-3}$ dependence in the resonant region $\hbar\omega\sim\Delta_{h}/2$ and $\omega^{-9}$ dependence in the off-resonant regions of $\hbar\omega\gg\Delta_h$, while TPA of gapless surface states in TIs has a $\omega^{-4}$ dependence for all photon frequency.
In short, at a given value of $\Delta_h$, the TPA spectrum of a TI thin film has a singularity at band edge $\hbar\omega=\Delta_h/2$. In addition, for small $\Delta_h$ there are two other resonance peaks appearing in the frequency range $\hbar\omega>\sqrt{\Delta_{ib}^2+(\Delta_{h}/2)^2}$ which merge into one peak and disappear at a certain $\Delta_h$.
Discussion
==========
Taking into account of both OPA and TPA, the change in the intensity of the light as it passes through the sample is given by $$\Delta\mathcal{I}=-\alpha\mathcal{I}-\beta\mathcal{I}^2.$$ The total absorption coefficient is given by $\alpha_{\text{total}}=\alpha+\beta\mathcal{I}$. The nonlinearity is characterized by the ratio $\beta\mathcal{I}/\alpha$ which depends on the intensity $\mathcal{I}$. Since for the TI film we have shown that $\beta$ has resonance features occurring at frequencies different from that of $\alpha$, the ratio $\beta/\alpha$ can be greatly enhanced, enabling the realization of strong nonlinearity at low intensity of light. For the 4-QL Bi$_2$Se$_3$, the parameters are estimated by $\Delta_{ib}=53$ meV. [@sobota2012; @giraud2011] In our calculation we have taken $\tau\sim2.3$ ps, which leads to $\Gamma=2.9$ meV. For the resonant frequency of $\beta$ $1.25<\hbar\omega/\Delta_{ib}<1.8$, the condition $\beta\mathcal{I}/\alpha\sim1$ can be satisfied for an (optical) electric field strength of $10^5$ V/m. Such field strengths potentially could be realized at low incident optical powers using photonic resonators with high ratio of quality-factor to mode-volume. [@yee2009]
The interaction of surface states with phonons and impurities will cause electron relaxation. In fact, the dephasing time of the topological surface states observed in experiments.may be longer than the $\tau$ we take. From the femtosecond time- and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy, [@sobota2012] a long-lived population of a metallic Dirac surface state ($>10$ ps) in Bi$_2$Se$_3$ has been found. Such long dephasing time is directly related to the spin texture of surface states. The electron-phonon interaction in TI is also weak because the small Fermi surface limits the number of phonon modes coupled with electrons. According to Ref. , the broadening is $\Gamma<1$ meV at $T<50$ K.
In general, the electron hole pair at two surfaces under external bias will have Coulomb interaction. In the mean field approximation, the interaction here would prefer the exciton condensate when the chemical potential is smaller than $\Delta_h$. [@seradjeh2009] This is exactly the case considered here that the doping level is always in the gap. (It should be pointed out that there are many interesting effects when the chemical potential is in the conduction band, which need further investigation. [@stauber2007]) Such exciton condensate will enhance the hybridization of the two surface states, and thus the resonance frequency of the system. [@zhangy2010]
There are higher order terms such as hexagonal warping term proportional to $k^3$ in the surface state dispersion relation. [@fu2009] With such terms the gap due to avoid crossing of surface states is no longer uniform around the crossing wavevectors, and the JDOS becomes finite. However, the warping parameter is very small in Bi$_2$Se$_3$ when the crossing energy is lower than 0.22 eV (defined respect to the Dirac point), so that the JDOS enhancement given by our low energy effective theory remains valid. [@wang2011]
It worths mentioning that the gap of TI thin films is always less than the bulk gap 0.3 eV, which is in the THz frequency range. However, Raman processes may lead to transition between $E_1$ and $E_{2,4}$ in the optical frequency range where the intermediate states are high-energy bulk states, [@jenkins2010; @hsieh2011b] such Raman process should be greatly enhanced due to the divergent JDOS and could be more conveniently accessed in experiments and applications.
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, the TI thin film has interesting linear and non-linear optical properties. The unique band structure of the coupled topological surface states gives rise to a divergent edge singularity in one-photon absorption process and a significant enhancement in two-photon absorption process. The tunable one-photon and two-photon absorption in this system may find applications in spintronics, such as optical generation of spin current and charge current. [@zhao2006] Such unique linear and nonlinear optical properties make ultra-thin films of TIs promising material building blocks for tunable high-efficiency nanophotonic devices.
We are grateful to Y. Cui, H. Y. Hwang, R. B. Liu and S. C. Zhang for insightful discussions. This work is supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Microsystems Technology Office, MesoDynamic Architecture Program (MESO) through contract Nos. N66001-11-1-4105 (J. W. and X. L. Q.) and N66001-11-1-4106 (H. M.), and by the US Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering, under contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.
[39]{}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 10.1063/1.3293411) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.3045) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature08916) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1057) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/NPHYS1270) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphys1274) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nmat2770) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nmat2771) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1126/science.1216184) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.245107) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/NCHEM.1277) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/JOSAB.5.001980) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OE.15.016161) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.015806) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/JOSAB.1.000067) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/AOP.2.000060) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.205401) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.81.115407) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/NPHYS1689) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.075126) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.167002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1156965) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1152793) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.067402) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/nl200587h) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.117403) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.245322) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.066402) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.75.115425) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.266801) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.235447) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.82.125120) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.057401) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.246601)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Frame theory has been a popular subject in the design of structured signals and codes in recent years, with applications ranging from the design of measurement matrices in compressive sensing, to spherical codes for data compression and data transmission, to spacetime codes for MIMO communications, and to measurement operators in quantum sensing. High-performance codes usually arise from designing frames whose elements have mutually low coherence. Building off the original “group frame” design of Slepian which has since been elaborated in the works of Vale and Waldron, we present several new frame constructions based on cyclic and generalized dihedral groups. Slepian’s original construction was based on the premise that group structure allows one to reduce the number of distinct inner pairwise inner products in a frame with $n$ elements from $\frac{n(n-1)}{2}$ to $n-1$. All of our constructions further utilize the group structure to produce tight frames with even fewer distinct inner product values between the frame elements. When $n$ is prime, for example, we use cyclic groups to construct $m$-dimensional frame vectors with at most $\frac{n-1}{m}$ distinct inner products. We use this behavior to bound the coherence of our frames via arguments based on the frame potential, and derive even tighter bounds from combinatorial and algebraic arguments using the group structure alone. In certain cases, we recover well-known Welch bound achieving frames. In cases where the Welch bound has not been achieved, and is not known to be achievable, we obtain frames with close to Welch bound performance.'
author:
- |
Matthew Thill Babak Hassibi\
Department of Electrical Engineering, Caltech, Pasadena, CA
title: Group Frames with Few Distinct Inner Products and Low Coherence
---
Coherence, frame, unit norm tight frame, group representation, group frame, Welch bound, spherical codes, compressive sensing.
Introduction: Frames and Coherence {#sec:matcohframe}
==================================
Recall that a frame is the following generalization for the basis of a vector space:
Let $\mathcal{V}$ be a vector space equipped with an inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ (or more specifically, a separable Hilbert space). A set of elements $\{f_k\}_{k \in \mathcal{I}}$, where $\mathcal{I}$ is a countable index set, is a *frame* for $\mathcal{V}$ if there exist positive constants $A$ and $B$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
A || f ||_2^2 \le \sum_{k \in \mathcal{I}} | \langle f, f_k \rangle |^2 \le B || f ||_2^2, \label{eqn:framedef} \end{aligned}$$ for all $f \in \mathcal{V}$. A frame is called *tight* if $A = B$ in this definition, and *unit norm* if $|| f_k ||_2 = 1, \forall k \in \mathcal{I}$.
We define the *coherence* $\mu$ of the frame to be the maximum correlation between any two distinct columns: $$\mu = \max_{i \ne j} \frac{|\langle f_i, f_j \rangle|}{||f_i||_2 \cdot ||f_j||_2}.$$
Designing frames with low coherence is a problem that has connections to a wide range of fields, including compressive sensing [@Donoho; @Huo; @Candes; @Romberg; @Tao; @Tropp07], spherical codes [@Delsarte; @Heath], LDPC codes [@Fan], MIMO communications [@Pailraj; @Bolcskei], quantum measurements [@Eldar; @Scott; @RenesBlumeKohoutScottCaves], etc. Frame theory has also made its mark as an interesting field in its own right, with a great collection of recent work by Casazza, Kutyniok, Fickus, Mixon, and many others [@CasazzaKutyniokFickusMixon; @FickusMixonTremain; @CasazzaArt; @CasazzaKutyniok2; @CasazzaKovacevic; @CasazzaKutyniokLi].
Most often we will consider our frame vectors to be the columns $\{{\mathbf{m}}_i\}_{i = 1}^n$ of a matrix ${{\mathbf{M}}}= [{\mathbf{m}}_1, {\mathbf{m}}_2, \hdots, {\mathbf{m}}_n ]\in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times n}$. We will speak of the *coherence of ${{\mathbf{M}}}$* to be the coherence of the frame $\{{\mathbf{m}}_i\}$. The frame is tight if and only if ${{\mathbf{M}}}{{\mathbf{M}}}^* = \lambda {\mathbf{I}}_{m}$ where ${\mathbf{I}}_m$ is the $m \times m$ identity matrix and $\lambda$ is a scalar. Furthermore, $\lambda = A = B$ in (\[eqn:framedef\]). If the $\{{\mathbf{m}}_i\}$ form a unit norm tight frame, then $\lambda = \frac{n}{m}$.
It is easy to see that any orthonormal basis for a vector space is a tight frame, and consequently a frame can be regarded as a generalization of an orthonormal set which may include more vectors than the dimension of the space. One important example of a tight frame that we will encounter is when the rows of ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ are a subset of the rows of the $n \times n$ discrete Fourier matrix:
Let $\omega = e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{n}}$, and let $\mathcal{F}$ be the discrete Fourier matrix, whose $(i, j)^{th}$ entry is $\omega^{ij}$. Let ${{\mathbf{M}}}= [{\mathbf{m}}_1, ..., {\mathbf{m}}_n] \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times n}$ such that the *rows* of ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ are a subset of the rows of $\lambda \mathcal{F}$ for some scalar $\lambda \in {\mathbb{C}}$. Then $\{{\mathbf{m}}_i\}_{i = 1}^n$ is called a $\textit{harmonic frame}$.
*Remark:* The notion of a harmonic frame is actually more general than in this definition, as is explained in [@CasazzaKutyniok], but the more general harmonic frames are also tight with equal norm elements. For our purposes, the above definition will suffice. We will touch on generalized harmonic frames in Section \[sec:abelianharmonicframes\], but there is a substantial collection of results on harmonic frames in [@ChienWaldron] and [@HayWaldron].
Of great interest is when a tight frame is *equiangular*:
A unit-norm frame $\{f_k\}_{k \in \mathcal{I}}$ is said to be equiangular if there is some constant $\alpha$ such that for any $i \ne j$, $|\langle f_i, f_j \rangle| = \alpha$.
The following theorem, known as the *Welch bound* and based on the results of [@Welch], provides a lower bound on the coherence of a frame:
\[thm:framebound\] Let $\mathbb{E}$ be the field of real or complex numbers, and $\{f_k\}_{k = 1}^n$ be a unit-norm frame for $\mathbb{E}^m$. Then $$\max_{i \ne j} | \langle f_i, f_j \rangle | \ge \sqrt{\frac{n - m}{m (n-1)}},$$ with equality if and only if $\{f_k\}_{k = 1}^n$ is tight and equiangular.
This theorem is a classical result, and one of an even broader set of bounds [@Welch]. A quick proof which can be found in [@Heath] involves considering the eigenvalues of the Gram matrix ${\mathbf{G}}$ defined by ${\mathbf{G}}_{ij} = \langle f_i, f_j \rangle$.
Thus, we would like to identify tight, equiangular frames for use in constructing matrices which achieve this lower bound. This problem arises in various contexts, for example line packing problems [@ConwayHarding]. It should be emphasized that such frames do not exist for all values of $m$ and $n$, so in general, we would also like to find ways to optimize the coherence by choosing ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ wisely from a cleverly designed class of matrices. Our approach will be to use the group frame construction proposed by Slepian [@Slepian] in the 1960s. Group frames have received a great deal of attention in recent years, notably in the substantial collection of work by Vale, Waldron, and others [@Vale; @ValeWaldron2; @ValeWaldron3; @Waldron1; @ChienWaldron; @HayWaldron]. For an excellent review of the work in group frames, see [@CasazzaKutyniok].
On one final note before proceeding, a common approach to produce a set of vectors with low correlation is to construct a set of Mutually Unbiased Bases (MUBs). Two bases $\{e_1, ..., e_m \}$ and $\{e'_1, ..., e'_m\}$ for ${\mathbb{C}}^d$ are mutually unbiased if each is orthonormal, and $| \langle e_i, e'_j \rangle | = \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}$ for any $i$ and $j$. Algebraic constructions of up to $m+1$ MUBs are known in prime-power dimensions $m$, allowing for a number of vectors at most $m^2 + m$ [@Klappenecher; @Bandyopadhyay; @Wootters]. The frame constructions presented in this paper will at times outperform this coherence, though typically with a smaller number of vectors. More importantly, though, our frames do not require $m$ to be prime.
Reducing the Number of Distinct Inner Products in Tight Frames
==============================================================
In practice, constructing frames which are both tight and equiangular can prove difficult. It turns out, however, that we can expect reasonably low coherence from tight frames if we just require that the inner products between frame elements take on few distinct values, provided that each of these values arises the same number of times.
The following lemma, which is in some sense a generalization of the Welch bound, provides a bound on the coherence of a tight frame:
Let $\{f_i\}_{i = 1}^{n} \subset {\mathbb{C}}^m$ be a unit-norm tight frame such that the absolute values of the inner products, $|\langle f_i, f_j \rangle|_{i \ne j}$, take on $r$ distinct values, each occurring the same number of times. Then the coherence $\mu$ of $\{f_i\}$ is at most a factor of $\sqrt{r}$ greater than the Welch bound. That is, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu & \le \sqrt{r} \sqrt{\frac{n-m}{m(n-1)}}. \end{aligned}$$ \[lem:tightframecohbound\]
As a preliminary fact, Theorem 6.2 of [@BenedettoFickus] shows that the *frame potential* $\sum_{i, j} | \langle f_i, f_j \rangle |^2$ is at least $\frac{n^2}{m}$ with equality if and only if the frame is tight. Let $\alpha_1, ..., \alpha_r$ be the distinct squared absolute values of the inner products, $\{|\langle f_i, f_j \rangle|^2\}_{i \ne j}$. Since each of the $\alpha_i$ occurs the same number of times as a squared inner product norm, we have that their arithmetic mean is equal to that of the $\{|\langle f_i, f_j \rangle|^2\}_{i \ne j}$, which is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{r} \sum_{i = 1}^r \alpha_i & = \frac{1}{n(n-1)} \sum_{i \ne j} |\langle f_i, f_j \rangle |^2 = \frac{n-m}{m(n-1)}, \end{aligned}$$ where the second equality follows from the preliminary frame potential result and the fact $\{f_i\}_{i = 1}^n$ is tight and unit-norm by assumption.
Thus, since all the $\alpha_i$ are nonnegative we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^2 = \max_i \alpha_i \le \sum_{i = 1}^r \alpha_i = r \cdot \frac{n-m}{m(n-1)}, \end{aligned}$$ from which the result follows.
In light of Lemma \[lem:tightframecohbound\], our goal will be to construct a tight frame whose elements have very few inner product values between them, each of which occurs with the same multiplicity. In the following sections, we will present a group theoretic way to do this.
Frames from Unitary Group Representations: Slepian Group Codes {#sec:unitmat}
==============================================================
In [@Slepian], Slepian proposed a method to construct low-coherence matrices by reasoning that the key to controlling the inner products between the columns was to reduce the number of distinct inner product values which arise. His construction, which has come to be known as a *group frame*, has since been generalized (see, for example [@Vale] and [@CasazzaKutyniok]). On this note, let $\mathcal{U} = \{{{\mathbf{U}}}_1, {{\mathbf{U}}}_2, ..., {{\mathbf{U}}}_n\}$ be a (multiplicative) group of unitary matrices. We can equivalently view $\mathcal{U}$ as the image of a faithful, unitary representation of a group $\mathcal{G}$. In some works, e.g. [@Gabardo], $\mathcal{U}$ is taken to be a group-like unitary operator system—the image of a projective representation—but normal representations will suffice for our purposes. Such representations exist for any finite group.
Suppose that for each $i$, we have ${{\mathbf{U}}}_i \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times m}$ (or equivalently, $\mathcal{U}$ is the image of an $m$-dimensional representation). Let ${{\mathbf{v}}}= [v_1, ..., v_m]^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times 1}$ be any vector, and let ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ be the matrix whose $i^{th}$ column is ${{\mathbf{U}}}_i {{\mathbf{v}}}$: ${\mathbf{M}} = [{{\mathbf{U}}}_1 {{\mathbf{v}}}, ..., {{\mathbf{U}}}_n {{\mathbf{v}}}]$. The inner product between the $i^{th}$ and $j^{th}$ columns of ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ is $\langle {{\mathbf{U}}}_i {{\mathbf{v}}}, {{\mathbf{U}}}_j {{\mathbf{v}}}\rangle = {{\mathbf{v}}}^* {{\mathbf{U}}}_i^* {{\mathbf{U}}}_j {{\mathbf{v}}}$. Since $\mathcal{U}$ is a unitary group, we have ${{\mathbf{U}}}_i^* {{\mathbf{U}}}_j = {{\mathbf{U}}}_i^{-1} {{\mathbf{U}}}_j = {{\mathbf{U}}}_k$, for some $k \in \{1, ..., n\}$, so we can write $\langle {{\mathbf{U}}}_i {{\mathbf{v}}}, {{\mathbf{U}}}_j {{\mathbf{v}}}\rangle = {{\mathbf{v}}}^* {{\mathbf{U}}}_k {{\mathbf{v}}}$. In this manner, we have reduced the total number of pairwise inner products between the columns of ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ from ${n \choose 2}$ to $n-1$, the inner products parametrized by the non-identity elements of $\mathcal{U}$. Furthermore, we have the following:
Let $\{{{\mathbf{U}}}_1, ..., {{\mathbf{U}}}_n\} \subset {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times m}$ be a set of distinct unitary matrices which form a group under multiplication, and let ${{\mathbf{v}}}\in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times 1}$ be a nonzero vector. Each of the values ${{\mathbf{v}}}^* {{\mathbf{U}}}_k {{\mathbf{v}}}$ occurs as the inner product between two columns of ${\mathbf{M}} = [{{\mathbf{U}}}_1 {{\mathbf{v}}}, ..., {{\mathbf{U}}}_n {{\mathbf{v}}}]$ the same number of times. \[lem:samemultiplicityinnerprods\]
For every choice of ${\mathbf{U}}_k$ and ${\mathbf{U}}_i$, there is a unique ${\mathbf{U}}_j$ such that ${\mathbf{U}}_i^{-1} {\mathbf{U}}_j = {{\mathbf{U}}}_k$. Thus, for each ${{\mathbf{U}}}_k$, there are $n$ pairs $({{\mathbf{U}}}_i, {{\mathbf{U}}}_j)$ such that ${{\mathbf{v}}}^* {{\mathbf{U}}}_i^* {{\mathbf{U}}}_j {{\mathbf{v}}}= {{\mathbf{v}}}^*{{\mathbf{U}}}_k {{\mathbf{v}}}$.
Abelian Groups and Harmonic Frames {#sec:abelianharmonicframes}
==================================
For now, we will restrict ourselves to consider representations of abelian groups. Abelian groups are the simplest groups, in a sense, and have the special property that each of their irreducible representations is one-dimensional. Therefore, if $\mathcal{U}$ is the image of a representation of an abelian group, then all of the elements ${{\mathbf{U}}}_i$ can be simultaneously diagonalized by a change of basis matrix. Thus, we may assume without loss of generality that the ${{\mathbf{U}}}_i$ are *diagonal* unitary matrices whose diagonal entries are powers of $\omega = e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{n}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{U}}}_j = {\operatorname{diag}}(\omega^{k_{1, j}}, ..., \omega^{k_{m, j}}) \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times m}, \label{eqn:diagU} \end{aligned}$$ where the $k_{i, j}$ are integers.
With each ${{\mathbf{U}}}_j$ in this form, the inner products between the normalized columns of ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ will take the form $$\frac{|{{\mathbf{v}}}^* {{\mathbf{U}}}_j {{\mathbf{v}}}|}{|| {{\mathbf{v}}}||_2^2} = \left| \sum_{i = 1}^m \frac{\left|v_i\right|^2}{||{{\mathbf{v}}}||_2^2} \omega^{k_{i, j}}\right|,$$ where ${{\mathbf{v}}}= [v_1, ..., v_m]^T$. So we see that the entries of ${{\mathbf{v}}}$ simply weight the diagonal entries of ${{\mathbf{U}}}_j$ in the above sum. In particular, without loss of generality, we may take the entries of ${{\mathbf{v}}}$ to be real. Furthermore, it turns out that in order for our abelian group frame to be tight, all the entries $v_i$ must be of equal norm. This follows from Theorem 5.4 in [@CasazzaKutyniok]. On this note, we will consider the case where ${{\mathbf{v}}}$ is the vector of all 1’s, $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{v}}}= \mathbf{1}_m = [1, ..., 1]^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times 1}, \label{eqn:all1v}
$$ so that the above inner product norm becomes simply $$\label{eqn:abelianinnerprod} \frac{|{{\mathbf{v}}}^* {{\mathbf{U}}}_j {{\mathbf{v}}}|}{|| {{\mathbf{v}}}||_2^2} = \frac{1}{m} \left|\sum_{i = 1}^m \omega^{k_{i, j}}\right|.$$
Notice that from Equation (\[eqn:abelianinnerprod\]), we can see that the coherence of our final matrix would remain unchanged if we chose $\omega$ to be any other primitive $n^{th}$ root of unity.
Let us examine the simple case where $\mathcal{U}$ is a cyclic unitary group, the most basic abelian group. That is, the elements of $\mathcal{U}$ can be written as the powers of a single unitary matrix ${{\mathbf{U}}}$ of order $n$: $$\mathcal{U} = \{{{\mathbf{U}}}, {{\mathbf{U}}}^2, ..., {{\mathbf{U}}}^{n-1}, {{\mathbf{U}}}^n = {\mathbf{I_m}}\},$$ where ${\mathbf{I_m}}$ is the $m \times m$ identity matrix. We consider again choosing ${{\mathbf{v}}}$ to be the vector of all ones as in (\[eqn:all1v\]), and form the frame matrix ${{\mathbf{M}}}= [{{\mathbf{v}}}, {{\mathbf{U}}}{{\mathbf{v}}}, ..., {{\mathbf{U}}}^{n-1} {{\mathbf{v}}}]$. Note that if we express our group elements diagonally as in (\[eqn:diagU\]), $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{U}}}= {\operatorname{diag}}(\omega^{k_{1}}, ..., \omega^{k_{m}}) \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times m}, \label{eqn:cyclicU} \end{aligned}$$ we can see that the matrix ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ will take the form $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{M}}}&= \begin{bmatrix} {{\mathbf{v}}}& {{\mathbf{U}}}{{\mathbf{v}}}& \hdots & {{\mathbf{U}}}^{n-1} {{\mathbf{v}}}\end{bmatrix} \\
& = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \omega^{k_{1}} & \omega^{k_{1}\cdot 2} & \hdots & \omega^{k_{1}\cdot (n-1)}\\
1 & \omega^{k_{2}} & \omega^{k_{2} \cdot 2} & \hdots & \omega^{k_{2}\cdot (n-1)}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
1& \omega^{k_{m}} & \omega^{k_{m} \cdot 2} & \hdots & \omega^{k_{m} \cdot (n-1)} \end{bmatrix}.
\label{eqn:cyclicframemat} \end{aligned}$$ If the $k_i$ are distinct this is a subset of rows of the discrete Fourier matrix, hence a harmonic frame.
For cyclic groups, the inner product between the columns ${{\mathbf{U}}}^{\ell_1} {{\mathbf{v}}}$ and ${{\mathbf{U}}}^{\ell_2} {{\mathbf{v}}}$, after normalizing the columns, will take the form $\frac{|{{\mathbf{v}}}^* {{\mathbf{U}}}^{\ell_2 - \ell_1} {{\mathbf{v}}}|}{||{{\mathbf{v}}}||_2^2}$, which is the value of the inner product determined by ${{\mathbf{U}}}^{\ell_2 - \ell_1}$ in (\[eqn:abelianinnerprod\]).
A general abelian group $G$ can be represented as follows: First express $G$ as a direct product of, say, $L$ cyclic groups of orders $n_1, ..., n_L$, so that $G \cong \frac{{\mathbb{Z}}}{n_1 {\mathbb{Z}}} \times ... \times \frac{{\mathbb{Z}}}{n_L {\mathbb{Z}}}$. Then let $\omega_1, ..., \omega_L$ be the corresponding primitive roots of unity: $\omega_j = e^{2 \pi i / n_j}$. Then we set ${{\mathbf{U}}}_j = {\operatorname{diag}}(\omega_j^{k_{1 j}}, ..., \omega_j^{k_{m j}})$, where we will assume that the $k_{ij}$ are distinct integers modulo $n_j$. The abelian group generated by the diagonal matrices $\{{{\mathbf{U}}}_1, ..., {{\mathbf{U}}}_L\}$ is isomorphic to $G$, and an arbitrary element will take the form ${{\mathbf{U}}}_1^{a_1} {{\mathbf{U}}}_2^{a_2} \hdots {{\mathbf{U}}}_L^{a_L}$, where $a_j \in \{0, ..., n_j - 1\}$. Our frame matrix ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ will then take the form ${{\mathbf{M}}}= [\hdots \left( {{\mathbf{U}}}_1^{a_1} {{\mathbf{U}}}_2^{a_2} \hdots {{\mathbf{U}}}_L^{a_L} {{\mathbf{v}}}\right) \hdots]_{0 \le a_j \le n_j - 1}$.
In this form, our previous cyclic frames clearly arise as subsets of the columns of ${{\mathbf{M}}}$. It turns out that these abelian frames are the generalized harmonic frames as described in [@CasazzaKutyniok], up to a unitary rotation of ${{\mathbf{v}}}$ or an equivalent group representation. The frame matrix ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ is a subset of rows of the Kronecker product ${\mathbf{A}}_1 \otimes ... \otimes {\mathbf{A}}_L$, where ${\mathbf{A}}_j = \begin{bmatrix} {{\mathbf{v}}}, {{\mathbf{U}}}_j {{\mathbf{v}}}, ..., {{\mathbf{U}}}_j^{n_j - 1} {{\mathbf{v}}}\end{bmatrix}$. As such, any of these frames will be tight.
Equiangular Frames from Cyclic Group Representations
====================================================
Let us examine the harmonic frame formed by the columns of ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ in (\[eqn:cyclicframemat\]). [@Giannakis] classified the conditions on the $k_i$ under which this frame is equiangular. Since we know these frames are tight, this determines precisely when their coherence achieves the Welch lower bound of Theorem \[thm:framebound\].
Let $G$ be a group. A *difference set* $K = \{k_1, ..., k_m\} \subset G$ is a set of elements such that every nonidentity element $g \in G$ occurs as a difference $k_i - k_j$ the same number of times. That is, the sets $A_g := \{(k_i, k_j) \in K \times K ~|~ k_i - k_j = g\}$ have the same size for $g \ne 0$.
The harmonic frame formed by the columns of ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ in (\[eqn:cyclicframemat\]) is equiangular if and only if the integers $k_i$ form a difference set in ${\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$. \[thm:diffsets\]
The proof follows from a simple but insightful Fourier connection. Let us define $A_t := \{(k_i, k_j) \in K \times K ~|~ k_i - k_j \equiv t \mod n \}$ for any $t \in {\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$, and set $a_t := |A_t |$. Furthermore, if we index the columns as $\ell = 0, 1, ..., n-1$ then the inner product associated to the $\ell^{th}$ column takes the form $$c_{\ell} := \frac{{{\mathbf{v}}}^* {{\mathbf{U}}}^{\ell} {{\mathbf{v}}}}{||{{\mathbf{v}}}||_2^2} = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{\ell k}.$$ Since we are concerned only with the magnitude of $c_{\ell}$, we may consider the quantity $$\alpha_\ell := |c_\ell|^2 = \frac{1}{m^2} \left(\sum_{k \in K} \omega^{\ell k}\right)^* \left(\sum_{k \in K} \omega^{\ell k}\right)$$ $$= \frac{1}{m^2} \sum_{k_i, k_j \in K} \omega^{\ell (k_i - k_j)}.$$
We can then write $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_\ell = \frac{1}{m^2} \sum_{t = 0}^{n-1} a_t \omega^{\ell t}, \label{eqn:alphaintermsofa} \end{aligned}$$ which gives us a Fourier pairing between the $\alpha_\ell$ and the $a_t$ with inverse transform given by $$\begin{aligned}
a_t = \frac{m^2}{n} \sum_{\ell = 0}^{n-1} \alpha_\ell \omega^{-t \ell}. \label{eqn:aintermsofalpha} \end{aligned}$$
${{\mathbf{M}}}$ will be an equiangular tight frame precisely when all of the $\alpha_\ell$ are equal for $\ell \ne 0$, and from the Fourier pairing this will occur precisely when the $a_t$ are equal for $t \ne 0$, i.e., when the $k_i$ form a difference set.
This concept of tight equiangular frames arising from difference sets has since been generalized and elaborated [@DingFeng], [@CasazzaKutyniok], [@Waldron1]. [@Ding] showed how slightly relaxed forms of difference sets can produce frames which have coherence almost reaching the Welch Bound. Many of our results in the following sections can also be viewed as using more extensively-relaxed difference sets to produce low-coherence frames. Difference sets have been long studied and classified [@Baumert], [@BethJungnickel]. They have found application in other fields as well, such as designing codes for DS-CDMA systems [@DingGolinKlove], LDPC codes [@VasicMilenkovic], sonar and synchronization [@Golomb], and other forms of frame design [@Kaira].
While Theorem \[thm:diffsets\] completely characterizes the optimal-coherence frames arising from representations of cyclic groups, it reveals that equiangular frames of the form (\[eqn:cyclicframemat\]) are rather scarce, since the number of known difference sets is relatively small. In the following section, we will present a new strategy for selecting the integers $k_i$ which, while not always producing an equiangular frame, does yield frames with few distinct inner product values and provable low coherence.
Cyclic Groups of Prime Order {#sec:cyclicprimegrp}
=============================
We have already managed to cut down the number of distinct inner products between columns from ${n \choose 2}$ to $n-1$, simply by using a unitary group to generate our columns. For cyclic groups, however, we can reduce this number even more. We first consider the case where $n$ is prime. Let $G = \left( {\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}\right)^\times$, the multiplicative group of the integers modulo $n$. As usual, we identify the elements of ${\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$ with the integers $0, 1, ..., n-1$. Since $n$ is assumed to be a prime, $G$ is itself a cyclic group, and consists of the $n-1$ nonzero elements of $G$. Now let us choose $m$ to be any divisor of $n-1$, and set $r := \frac{n-1}{m}$. Since $G$ is cyclic, it has a unique subgroup $K$ of order $m$ consisting of the distinct $r^{th}$ powers of the elements of $G$. In fact, if $g$ is any generator for $G$, then $K$ will be generated by $k := g^\frac{n-1}{m}$. Now, if we write out the elements of $K$ as $\{k_1, ..., k_m\}$ (or equivalently in terms of a single generator $k$ as $\{1, k, k^2, ..., k^{m-1}\}$), we can form our generator matrix ${{\mathbf{U}}}$ as in (\[eqn:cyclicU\]), choosing $\omega^{k_i}$ to be the $i^{th}$ diagonal term. Note that since $K$ consists of elements relatively prime to $n$, then for each $i$, $\omega^{k_i}$ has multiplicative order $n$. It follows that ${{\mathbf{U}}}$ also has order $n$ and generates the cyclic group $\mathcal{U} = \{{{\mathbf{U}}}^\ell\}_{\ell = 0}^{n-1} \cong {\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$.
It turns out that this construction not only reduces the number of distinct inner product values between our columns, but it maintains the property that each such value occurs with the same multiplicity:
Let $n$ be a prime and $m$ any divisor of $n-1$. Take $K = \{k_1, ..., k_m\}$ to be the unique (cyclic) subgroup of $G = ({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$. Set $\omega = e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{n}}$, ${\mathbf{v}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}[1, ..., 1]^T \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m}$, and ${\mathbf{U}} = {\operatorname{diag}}(\omega^{k_1}, ..., \omega^{k_m})$. Then the columns of ${\mathbf{M}} = [{{\mathbf{v}}}, {\mathbf{U}} {{\mathbf{v}}}, ..., {\mathbf{U}}^{n-1} {{\mathbf{v}}}]$ form a unit-norm tight frame with at most $\frac{n-1}{m}$ distinct inner product values between its columns, each occurring with the same multiplicity. \[thm:nprimealgorithm\]
For any integer $\ell$ in the set $\{1, ..., n-1\}$, the inner product corresponding to ${{\mathbf{U}}}^\ell$ (as in Equation (\[eqn:abelianinnerprod\])) will take the following form:
$$\label{eqn:cyclicinnerprod} \frac{|{{\mathbf{v}}}^* {{\mathbf{U}}}^\ell {{\mathbf{v}}}|}{|| {{\mathbf{v}}}||_2^2} = \frac{1}{m} \left|\sum_{i = 1}^m \omega^{\ell \cdot k_{i}}\right|.$$
Notice the exponents of $\omega$ appearing in the above summation can be taken modulo $n$, since $\omega$ is an $n^{th}$ root of unity, and are then simply the elements of the $\ell^{th}$ coset of $K$ in $G$, $\ell K = \{\ell \cdot k_1, ..., \ell \cdot k_m\}$. The set of all cosets of $K$ in $G$ is denoted $G/K$. From elementary group theory, we know that the distinct cosets of $K$ form a disjoint partition of $G$, so the number of distinct cosets of $K$ in $G$ is the quotient of their sizes: $|G/K| = \frac{|G|}{|K|} = \frac{n-1}{m}$. Thus, the total number of distinct pairwise inner products that we now must control is $\frac{n-1}{m}$.
It only remains to show that each of the $\frac{n-1}{m}$ inner products occurs the same number of times. Let $\{\ell_1, ..., \ell_r\}$ be a complete set of coset representatives for $K$ in $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$. Here, $r$ is simply $\frac{n-1}{m}$. Then every element in $\{1, ..., n-1\}$ can be written uniquely as a product $\ell_i k_j$, and from Lemma \[lem:samemultiplicityinnerprods\] the $n-1$ inner products ${{\mathbf{v}}}^* {{\mathbf{U}}}^{\ell_i k_j} {{\mathbf{v}}}$ all arise the same number of times. As described above, the $\frac{n-1}{m}$ distinct inner product values correspond to the cosets of $K$, i.e., for a fixed $\ell_i$ the $m$ inner products ${{\mathbf{v}}}^* {{\mathbf{U}}}^{\ell_i k_1}{{\mathbf{v}}}, ..., {{\mathbf{v}}}^*{{\mathbf{U}}}^{\ell_i k_m}{{\mathbf{v}}}$ will give rise to one of the distinct inner product values. Thus, since each distinct value corresponds to $m$ inner products, each arising the same number of times, our result is proved.
We emphasize the power of this construction in reducing the number of inner products that we must control in order to maintain low matrix coherence. Since we are free to choose $m$ to be *any* divisor of $n-1$, then for properly chosen matrix dimensions, we can reasonably create matrices with just two or three distinct values of inner products between columns. In practice, this often creates matrices with remarkably low coherence, far outmatching that of any known randomly-generated matrices. In Table \[table:coherencelist\], we compare the coherences of the “Group Matrices" from our construction with those of randomly-generated complex Gaussian matrices and matrices designed by randomly selecting $m$ rows from the $n \times n$ Fourier matrix. (This latter construction is equivalent to randomly selecting the exponents $k_i$ in our cyclic generator matrix ${{\mathbf{U}}}$ in (\[eqn:cyclicU\]).) For convenience, we also list the lower bound on coherence from Theorem \[thm:framebound\], and we underline the coherences which achieve this bound. Figure \[fig:innerprod\_499\_166\] illustrates explicitly the inner products for a random Fourier matrix vs. a Group matrix.
---------------------- ------------------ ---------------- -------------- --------------------------------
$(n, m)$ Complex Gaussian Random Fourier Group Matrix $\sqrt{\frac{n - m}{m (n-1)}}$
\[0.5ex\] (251, 125) .2677 .1996
(499, 166) .3559 .1786 .0888 .0635
(499, 249) .2226 .1736
(503, 251) .2137 .1533
(521, 260) .2208 .1504 .0458 .0439
(521, 130) .3065 .2376 .1175 .0761
(643, 321) .2034 .1627
(643, 214) .2274 .1978 .0755 .0559
(701, 175) .2653 .2316 .0687 .0655
(701, 350) .1788 .1326 .0393 .0379
(1009, 504) .1565 .1147 .0325 .0315
(1009, 336) .2086 .1384 .0597 .0446
(1009, 252) .2287 .1631 .0846 .0546
---------------------- ------------------ ---------------- -------------- --------------------------------
: Coherences for Random and Group Matrices (for $n$ a Prime)
\[table:coherencelist\]
Sharper Bounds on Coherence for Frames from Cyclic Groups of Prime Order
========================================================================
In the special case where we construct our frame as in Theorem \[thm:nprimealgorithm\] (using Slepian’s approach with a group $\mathcal{U} \cong {\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$ and $n$ prime), we have a great deal of underlying algebraic structure in our frame. So it should come as no surprise that we can derive sharper bounds on our coherence and even compute it exactly in some cases.
As before, let $m$ be a divisor of $n-1$, and take $K = \{k_1, ..., k_m\}$ to be the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$. Define $r := \frac{n-1}{m}$, which is the number of distinct inner product values. If $r$ is small, it becomes relatively simple to analyze these values. For example:
Let $n$ be a prime, $m$ a divisor of $n-1$, and $\omega = e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{n}}$. Let $K = \{k_1, ..., k_m\}$ be the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$, and set ${{\mathbf{U}}}= {\operatorname{diag}}(\omega^{k_1}, ..., \omega^{k_m}) \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times m}$, ${{\mathbf{v}}}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} [1, ..., 1]^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times 1}$, and ${\mathbf{M}} = [{{\mathbf{v}}}, {{\mathbf{U}}}{{\mathbf{v}}}, ..., {{\mathbf{U}}}^{n-1} {{\mathbf{v}}}]$.
If $r := \frac{n-1}{m} = 2$, there are two distinct inner product values between the columns of ${\mathbf{M}}$, both of which are real. If $n-1$ is divisible by 4, these inner products are $\frac{-1 \pm \sqrt{1 + 2m}}{2m}$. In this case, ${\mathbf{M}}$ has coherence $\sqrt{\frac{n - m - \frac{1}{2}}{m(n-1)}} + \frac{1}{2m}$.
If $n-1$ is not divisible by 4, then the columns of ${\mathbf{M}}$ form an equiangular frame. The two inner products are $\pm \sqrt{\frac{1}{m} \left(\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2m}\right)} $, and the coherence is $\sqrt{\frac{n-m}{m(n-1)}}$. \[thm:r2innerprods\]
We will hold off on the details of the proof until Appendix \[sec:r2\] aside from mentioning that it is related to the connection made by Xia et al [@Giannakis] between tight equiangular harmonic frames and difference sets. In fact, in the case where $n-1$ is not divisible by 4, $K$ forms a known difference set in ${\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$. If we view ${\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$ as the additive group of $\mathbb{F}_n$, this particular case also overlaps with the tight equiangular frames classified in Theorem 3 of [@DingFeng].
As the number $r$ of inner products increases, it becomes more complicated to explicitly compute their values or even just the coherence of the resulting frame. While there were only two cases to consider when $r = 2$, there are many more even for $r$ as low as 3. We can, however, exploit the algebraic structure of our frames to yield bounds on their coherence which in practice prove to be nearly tight.
Let $n$ be a prime, $m$ a divisor of $n-1$, and $\omega = e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{n}}$. Let $K = \{k_1, ..., k_m\}$ be the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$, and set ${{\mathbf{U}}}= {\operatorname{diag}}(\omega^{k_1}, ..., \omega^{k_m}) \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times m}$, ${{\mathbf{v}}}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} [1, ..., 1]^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times 1}$, and ${\mathbf{M}} = [{{\mathbf{v}}}, {{\mathbf{U}}}{{\mathbf{v}}}, ..., {{\mathbf{U}}}^{n-1} {{\mathbf{v}}}]$.
If $r := \frac{n-1}{m} = 3$, then the coherence of ${\mathbf{M}}$ will satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\mu \le \frac{1}{3} \left(2\sqrt{\frac{1}{m} \left(3 + \frac{1}{m} \right)} + \frac{1}{m}\right) \approx \sqrt{\frac{4}{3m}}, \end{aligned}$$ and for large enough $m$, we will *asymptotically* have the following lower bound on coherence: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu \ge \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} \text{~(asymptotically), } \end{aligned}$$ which is strictly greater than the Welch bound. \[thm:r3cohbounds\]
We present the proof in Appendix \[sec:r3\].
From Theorem \[thm:r3cohbounds\] we see that unlike when $r=2$, we can never hope to achieve the Welch bound with these frames when $r=3$. But this is not a trend, for our frames will again be able to achieve the Welch bound for certain higher values of $r$, including $r = 4$ and $r = 8$. This again relates to the connection with difference sets from [@Giannakis]. As a result, the lower bound on coherence in Theorem \[thm:r3cohbounds\] does not generalize to all values of $r$. Fortunately, the upper bound does:
Let $n$ be a prime, $m$ a divisor of $n-1$, and $\omega = e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{n}}$. Let $K = \{k_1, ..., k_m\}$ be the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$, and set ${{\mathbf{U}}}= {\operatorname{diag}}(\omega^{k_1}, ..., \omega^{k_m}) \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times m}$, ${{\mathbf{v}}}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} [1, ..., 1]^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times 1}$, and ${\mathbf{M}} = [{{\mathbf{v}}}, {{\mathbf{U}}}{{\mathbf{v}}}, ..., {{\mathbf{U}}}^{n-1} {{\mathbf{v}}}]$.
If $r := \frac{n-1}{m}$, then the coherence $\mu$ of ${\mathbf{M}}$ satisfies the following upper bound: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu & \le \frac{1}{r} \left( (r-1) \sqrt{\frac{1}{m} \left(r + \frac{1}{m}\right)} + \frac{1}{m} \right). \end{aligned}$$ \[thm:coherenceupperbound\]
This theorem will be proved in Appendix \[sec:generalr\].
This bound is strictly lower than the one from Lemma \[lem:tightframecohbound\], which applies to all tight frames. In fact, when $n>2$, we can find an even lower bound on the coherence of our frames constructed in Theorem \[thm:nprimealgorithm\] which surprisingly depends only on whether $m$ is odd:
Let $n$ be an odd prime, $m$ a divisor of $n-1$, and $\omega = e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{n}}$. Let $K = \{k_1, ..., k_m\}$ be the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$, and set ${{\mathbf{U}}}= {\operatorname{diag}}(\omega^{k_1}, ..., \omega^{k_m}) \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times m}$, ${{\mathbf{v}}}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} [1, ..., 1]^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times 1}$, and ${\mathbf{M}} = [{{\mathbf{v}}}, {{\mathbf{U}}}{{\mathbf{v}}}, ..., {{\mathbf{U}}}^{n-1} {{\mathbf{v}}}]$. Set $r := \frac{n-1}{m}$.
If $m$ is odd, then the coherence of ${\mathbf{M}}$ is upper-bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\mu & \le \frac{1}{r} \sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{m} + \left(\frac{r}{2} - 1 \right) \beta \right)^2 + \left(\frac{r}{2}\right)^2 \beta^2}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\beta = \sqrt{\frac{1}{m} \left( r + \frac{1}{m} \right) }$. \[thm:coherenceupperboundmodd\]
We delay the proof of this theorem until Appendix \[sec:generalr\].
It is worth noting that this latter bound has no analog in the $r = 3$ situation because $m$ must always be even in that case. We explain the reason for this in the sequel, and give an alternate classification for exactly when this latter coherence bound applies. We illustrate the upper and lower bounds for $r=3$ in Figure \[fig:r3cohbounds\] and the two upper upper bounds from Theorem \[thm:coherenceupperboundmodd\] for when $r = 4$. When $r = 4$, we can also derive different lower bounds on the coherence for when $m$ is even or odd, and together with the two upper bounds from the theorems they form two non-overlapping regions in which the coherences can fall in the graph. While these regions will exist for every $r$, they will sometimes overlap (that is, the lower bound on coherence for $m$ even could be less than the upper bound for $m$ odd).
Generalized Dihedral Groups
===========================
Rather than dwell on clever constructions of general abelian groups, let us instead investigate what changes when $\mathcal{U}$ is nonabelian. In this case the irreducible representations at our disposal will no longer all be one-dimensional, so we will no longer have all the matrices ${{\mathbf{U}}}_i$ be simultaneously diagonal. Consequently, it is no longer clear that we can restrict our vector ${{\mathbf{v}}}$ to be real-valued.
One simple class of nonabelian groups is that of semidirect products of cyclic groups. On this note, consider the following group presentation (which arises in [@Hassibi]): $$\begin{aligned}
G_{n, r} = \langle \sigma, \tau~|~ \sigma^n = 1, \tau^D = 1, \tau \sigma \tau^{-1} = \sigma^r \rangle. \label{eqn:Gnr} \end{aligned}$$ Here, $n$ and $r$ are relatively prime integers, and $D$ is the multiplicative order of $r$ modulo $n$. $G_{n, r}$ is precisely a semidirect product in the form $\frac{{\mathbb{Z}}}{n{\mathbb{Z}}} \rtimes \frac{{\mathbb{Z}}}{D {\mathbb{Z}}}$, and if we take $D = 2$ and $r = n-1$, we see that we obtain the familiar dihedral group $D_{2n}$.
There are $n \cdot D$ group elements in $G_{n, r}$, each of which can be written in the form $\sigma^a \tau^b$ for some integers $0 \le a < n$ and $0 \le b < D$. $G_{n, r}$ has an irreducible representation in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma \mapsto {\mathbf{S}} & := \begin{bmatrix} \omega & & &\\ & \omega^{r} & & \\ & & \ddots & \\ & & & \omega^{r^{D - 1}} \end{bmatrix} \in {\mathbb{C}}^{D \times D},\\
\tau \mapsto {\mathbf{T}} & := \begin{bmatrix} & 1 & & & \\ & & 1 & & \\ & & &\ddots & \\ & & & & 1 \\ 1 & & & & \end{bmatrix} \in {\mathbb{C}}^{D \times D}, \label{eqn:sigmataueqn1} \end{aligned}$$ where $\omega = e^\frac{2 \pi i}{n}$ (see again [@Hassibi]). The informed reader might note that this representation is quite similar to that of Heisenberg groups, which have been extensively applied to the construction of frames [@BosWaldron; @Khatirinejad; @RenesBlumeKohoutScottCaves; @ScottGrassi]. Our following methods can be conceivably adjusted for use with Heisenberg frames as well.
In order to construct our frames, we would like to follow the example of our previous construction in Theorem \[thm:nprimealgorithm\] by selecting a representation for $G_{n, r}$ of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma \mapsto [\sigma] := \begin{bmatrix} {\mathbf{S}}^{k_1} & & \\ & \ddots & \\ & & {\mathbf{S}}^{k_m} \end{bmatrix}, ~ \tau \mapsto [\tau] := \begin{bmatrix} {\mathbf{T}} & & \\ & \ddots & \\ & & {\mathbf{T}} \end{bmatrix}, \label{eqn:sigmataueqn2} \end{aligned}$$ where $m$ and the $k_i$ are cleverly chosen integers. Then we will select a vector ${{\mathbf{v}}}\in {\mathbb{C}}^{Dm \times 1}$ and take our frame to be the columns of the matrix ${\mathbf{M}} := [ \hdots [\sigma]^a [\tau]^b {{\mathbf{v}}}\hdots]_{0 \le a < n, ~ 0 \le b < D}$. We must require that the greatest common divisor between the $k_i$ is relatively prime to $n$ in order for the columns to be distinct, and again we satisfy this by taking $n$ to be prime. Note that in our above notation, this will be a $Dm$-dimensional representation, so our resulting frame matrices will have dimensions $Dm \times Dn$.
At this point, we can see that in order to minimize coherence we must deviate from our original construction, for if we were to set ${{\mathbf{v}}}$ to the vector ${\mathbf{1}}$ of all ones it would be fixed by $[\tau]^b$ for any $b$, and the inner product corresponding to $[\tau]^b$ would be 1. We must therefore be more clever in how we construct ${{\mathbf{v}}}$. A natural form for ${{\mathbf{v}}}$ would be to find some $D$-dimensional vector ${{\mathbf{w}}}= [w_1, ..., w_D]^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{D \times 1}$ and set ${{\mathbf{v}}}$ equal to the periodic vector ${{\mathbf{v}}}= \begin{bmatrix} {{\mathbf{w}}}^T & {{\mathbf{w}}}^T & ...& {{\mathbf{w}}}^T \end{bmatrix}^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{Dm \times 1}$. The question now becomes how to choose ${{\mathbf{w}}}$?
In order to preserve as much of the structure from our previous construction as possible, we would like each entry of ${{\mathbf{w}}}$ to have the same norm. This will ensure that the inner products corresponding to the elements $[\sigma]^a$ will have the same values as those in our previous construction from Theorem \[thm:nprimealgorithm\] corresponding to when $\mathcal{U}$ was the cyclic group ${\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$ generated by $[\sigma]$. Let us require that $w_d$ be unit norm for each $d$, and consider attempting to force ${{\mathbf{w}}}$ to satisfy the constraint that $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{w}}}^* {\mathbf{T}}^b {{\mathbf{w}}}= \sum_d w^*_d w_{d+b} = 0, ~ \forall b \end{aligned}$$ where the indices are taken modulo $D$. It turns out that we can satisfy all our restrictions on ${{\mathbf{w}}}$ by selecting its indices to form a *Zadoff-Chu* (ZC) sequence [@Chu; @Kahn]:
$$\begin{aligned}
w_d =
\begin{cases}
e^\frac{i \pi d^2}{D}, & \text{ if $D$ is even} \\
e^\frac{i \pi d(d+1)}{D}, & \text{ if $D$ is odd}
\end{cases}
\label{eqn:ZCsequence}\end{aligned}$$
This is a well-known constant amplitude zero autocorrelation (CAZAC) sequence. Our frame elements will now take the form $$\begin{aligned}
[\sigma]^a [\tau]^b {{\mathbf{v}}}= \begin{bmatrix} {\mathbf{S}}^{a k_1} {{\mathbf{w}}}_{d+b} \\ \vdots \\ {\mathbf{S}}^{a k_m} {{\mathbf{w}}}_{d+b} \end{bmatrix}, \end{aligned}$$ where ${{\mathbf{w}}}_{d + b} = {\mathbf{T}}^b {{\mathbf{w}}}$ denotes the vector obtained by cyclically shifting the entries of ${{\mathbf{w}}}$ by $b$ positions. Thus, as the notation would suggest, the $d^{th}$ entry of ${{\mathbf{w}}}_{d + b}$ is $w_{d+b}$. (Note that by this notation, ${{\mathbf{w}}}_d$ is simply ${{\mathbf{w}}}$ itself). Our inner products will take the form $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{{\mathbf{v}}}^* [\sigma]^a [\tau]^b {{\mathbf{v}}}}{||{{\mathbf{v}}}||_2^2} = \frac{1}{m \cdot D} \sum_{j = 1}^m {{\mathbf{w}}}_d^* {\mathbf{ S}}^{a k_j} {{\mathbf{w}}}_{d + b}. \label{eqn:dihedralinnerprod} \end{aligned}$$
Our new frames remain tight:
Let $n$ and $r$ be relatively prime integers, and $D$ the order of $r$ modulo $n$. Let $[\sigma] \in {\mathbb{C}}^{Dm \times Dm}$ and $[\tau] \in {\mathbb{C}}^{Dm \times Dm}$ be the generating matrices for $G_{n, r}$ defined in (\[eqn:sigmataueqn1\]) and (\[eqn:sigmataueqn2\]). If ${{\mathbf{w}}}= [w_1, ..., w_D]^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{D \times 1}$ is a ZC-sequence (\[eqn:ZCsequence\]), and ${{\mathbf{v}}}= \begin{bmatrix} {{\mathbf{w}}}^T & ... & {{\mathbf{w}}}^T \end{bmatrix}^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{Dm \times 1}$, then the the columns of ${{\mathbf{M}}}= \begin{bmatrix} \hdots & [\sigma]^a [\tau]^b {{\mathbf{v}}}& \hdots \end{bmatrix} \in {\mathbb{C}}^{Dm \times Dn}$ form a tight frame.
This result follows from a direct calculation, but can also be deduced from Theorem 5.4 of [@CasazzaKutyniok] since all the representations are of the same dimension and the corresponding components ${{\mathbf{w}}}_d$ of ${{\mathbf{v}}}$ all have the same norm.
Exploiting the properties of our construction, we can bound the coherence of our new frames by that of our original frames arising from representations of cyclic groups.
Let $n$ be an integer, and $k_1, ..., k_m$ distinct integers modulo $n$ whose greatest common divisor is relatively prime to $n$. Take $r$ an integer relatively prime to $n$, and $D$ the multiplicative order of $r$ modulo $n$. Set $\omega = e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{n}}$. Consider the two frames:
1. The columns of the “cyclic frame” ${\mathbf{M}}_1 = [{{\mathbf{v}}}_1, {{\mathbf{U}}}{{\mathbf{v}}}_1, \hdots, {{\mathbf{U}}}^{n-1} {{\mathbf{v}}}_1] \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times n}$ where ${{\mathbf{U}}}= {\operatorname{diag}}(\omega^{k_1}, ..., \omega^{k_m}) \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times m}$ and ${{\mathbf{v}}}_1 = [1, ..., 1]^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{m \times 1}$.
2. The columns of the “generalized dihedral frame” ${\mathbf{M}}_2 = \begin{bmatrix} \hdots & [\sigma]^a [\tau]^b {{\mathbf{v}}}_2 & \hdots \end{bmatrix} \in {\mathbb{C}}^{Dm \times Dn}$ where ${{\mathbf{v}}}_2 = \begin{bmatrix} {{\mathbf{w}}}^T & ... & {{\mathbf{w}}}^T \end{bmatrix}^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{Dm \times 1}$ and ${{\mathbf{w}}}= [w_1, ..., w_D]^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{D \times 1}$ is a ZC-sequence.
If $\mu^{cyc}_K$ is the coherence of the cyclic frame ${\mathbf{M}}_1$ and $\mu^{D}_K$ the coherence of the generalized dihedral frame ${\mathbf{M}}_2$, then $\mu^{D}_K \le \mu^{cyc}_K$. \[thm:gendihedralcyclicbound\]
From (\[eqn:dihedralinnerprod\]), we see that the inner products for the generalized dihedral representation will take the form $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{{\mathbf{v}}}^* [\sigma]^a [\tau]^b {{\mathbf{v}}}}{||{{\mathbf{v}}}||_2^2} & = \frac{1}{m \cdot D} \sum_{k \in K} \sum_{d} w_d^* w_{d + b}\omega^{k a r^{d-1}} \\
& = \frac{1}{m \cdot D}\sum_{d} w_d^* w_{d + b} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{k a r^{d-1}} \\
& = \frac{1}{m \cdot D}\sum_{d} w_d^* w_{d + b} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{k a'}, \label{eqn:gendihedralcosetinnerprods} \end{aligned}$$ where $a' = a r^{d-1}$. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|{{\mathbf{v}}}^* [\sigma]^a [\tau]^b {{\mathbf{v}}}|}{||{{\mathbf{v}}}||_2^2} & \le \frac{1}{m \cdot D}\sum_{d} \left| w_d^* w_{d + b} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{k a'} \right| \\
& = \frac{1}{m \cdot D}\sum_{d} \left|\sum_{k \in K} \omega^{k a'} \right| \\
& \le \frac{1}{m \cdot D} \sum_{d} m \mu^{cyc}_K = \mu^{cyc}_K, \end{aligned}$$ so $\mu^{D}_K \le \mu^{cyc}_K$.
Theorem \[thm:gendihedralcyclicbound\] allows us to bound the coherence of our generalized dihedral frames using the same bounds from Theorems \[thm:coherenceupperbound\] and \[thm:coherenceupperboundmodd\]:
Let $n$ be a prime and $m$ a divisor of $n-1$, and let $K = \{k_1, ..., k_m\}$ be the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$. Set $s = \frac{n-1}{m}$. Take $r$ an integer relatively prime to $n$, and $D$ the multiplicative order of $r$ modulo $n$.
Let $[\sigma] \in {\mathbb{C}}^{Dm \times Dm}$ and $[\tau] \in {\mathbb{C}}^{Dm \times Dm}$ be the generating matrices for $G_{n, r}$ defined in (\[eqn:sigmataueqn1\]) and (\[eqn:sigmataueqn2\]). If ${{\mathbf{w}}}= [w_1, ..., w_D]^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{D \times 1}$ is a ZC-sequence (\[eqn:ZCsequence\]), and ${{\mathbf{v}}}= \begin{bmatrix} {{\mathbf{w}}}^T & ... & {{\mathbf{w}}}^T \end{bmatrix}^T \in {\mathbb{C}}^{Dm \times 1}$, then the the columns of ${{\mathbf{M}}}= \begin{bmatrix} \hdots & [\sigma]^a [\tau]^b {{\mathbf{v}}}& \hdots \end{bmatrix} \in {\mathbb{C}}^{Dm \times Dn}$ have at most $D \cdot \frac{n-1}{m}$ distinct inner product values between them, and the coherence $\mu$ of ${\mathbf{M}}$ is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\mu & \le \frac{1}{s} \left( (s-1) \sqrt{\frac{1}{m} \left(s + \frac{1}{m}\right)} + \frac{1}{m} \right). \label{eqn:gendihedralcycbound1} \end{aligned}$$
If $m$ is odd, then the coherence of ${\mathbf{M}}$ is upper-bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\mu & \le \frac{1}{s} \sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{m} + \left(\frac{s}{2} - 1 \right) \beta \right)^2 + \left(\frac{s}{2}\right)^2 \beta^2}, \label{eqn:gendihedralcycbound2} \end{aligned}$$ where $\beta = \sqrt{\frac{1}{m} \left( s + \frac{1}{m} \right) }$.
\[cor:gendihedralcoherenceupperbounds\]
From (\[eqn:gendihedralcosetinnerprods\]), we can write out the inner product corresponding to the group element $\sigma^a \tau^b$ in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{{\mathbf{v}}}^* [\sigma]^a [\tau]^b {{\mathbf{v}}}}{||{{\mathbf{v}}}||_2^2} = \frac{1}{m \cdot D}\sum_{d} w_d^* w_{d + b} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{k a'}, \end{aligned}$$ where $a' = a r^{d-1}$. In this form, we see that for each value of $d$ in the summation, there are $\frac{n-1}{m}$ possible distinct inner product values associated to the different cosets $a' K$, so there are at most $D\frac{n-1}{m}$ possible values. The last two bounds (\[eqn:gendihedralcycbound1\]) and (\[eqn:gendihedralcycbound2\]) follow from Theorem \[thm:gendihedralcyclicbound\] and the bounds given from Theorems \[thm:coherenceupperbound\] and \[thm:coherenceupperboundmodd\].
In the case of regular dihedral groups ($D = 2$), our ${{\mathbf{w}}}$ becomes $[1, i]^T$, and we can readily calculate our inner products to be
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \frac{{{\mathbf{v}}}^* [\sigma]^\ell {{\mathbf{v}}}}{||{{\mathbf{v}}}||_2^2} = \operatorname{Re} \left( \frac{1}{m} \sum_{j = 1}^m \omega^{\ell k_j}\right)~,~ \frac{{{\mathbf{v}}}^* [\sigma]^\ell [\tau] {{\mathbf{v}}}}{||{{\mathbf{v}}}||_2^2} = \operatorname{Im} \left( -\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j = 1}^m \omega^{\ell k_j} \right). \end{aligned}$$
As we can clearly see, each of these has magnitude bounded by that of the corresponding inner product in the cyclic counterpart, $\left|\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j = 1}^m \omega^{\ell k_j}\right|$. In general, the dihedral coherence could be substantially smaller than the corresponding cyclic coherence. Most importantly, by extending to generalized dihedral groups, we allow for frame matrices ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ with a greater variety of dimensions. In particular, the number of columns ($nD$) no longer need be prime.
Conclusion
==========
We have presented a method to select a set of representations of a finite cyclic group to construct tight, unit-norm group frames such that the frame elements take on very few distinct pairwise inner product values. Our construction ensures that each such inner product value arises the same number of times, allowing us to derive upper bounds on the coherence of the frames which approach the Welch lower bound. In certain cases, our construction has yielded instances of previously known tight, equiangular frames which achieve the Welch bound. We have then demonstrated how our method can be applied to constructing tight group frames from abelian and generalized dihedral groups to obtain a richer set of frames of different sizes and dimensions. We have derived similar bounds on coherence in these situations. Though we have omitted it in this paper due to space constraints, we have previously explored a way to use a variation of our method to conduct efficient searches over subsets of the representations of a finite cyclic group to quickly find group frames which achieve even lower coherence than those constructed in this paper (see [@Thill_ISIT2013]). In the sequel to this paper [@ThillGroupFourierFrames], we will realize our method in a more general context, showing how to choose representations of a general group to construct group frames. We will develop a general framework which will tie all of our previous constructions together, and it will become apparent why our cyclic group construction extends so naturally to generalized dihedral groups. Furthermore, we will identify other groups for which our method produces frames with particularly low coherence, including certain other tight, equiangular frames. An interesting future direction would be to see whether the methods we have employed in this paper could be used to control the *average coherence* of a frame, as defined in [@MixonBajwaCalderbank; @BajwaCalderbankJafarpour]. This could allow us to construct frames satisfying the Strong Coherence Property [@MixonBajwaCalderbank; @BajwaCalderbankJafarpour], which have certain guaranteed performance in sparse signal processing.
The Fourier Pairing of (\[eqn:alphaintermsofa\]) and (\[eqn:aintermsofalpha\]) for Cyclic Groups of Prime Order
===============================================================================================================
We will now begin to develop the tools needed to prove Theorems \[thm:r2innerprods\], \[thm:r3cohbounds\], \[thm:coherenceupperbound\] and \[thm:coherenceupperboundmodd\]. We will explicitly prove Theorems \[thm:r2innerprods\] and \[thm:r3cohbounds\] and defer the proofs of Theorems \[thm:coherenceupperbound\] and \[thm:coherenceupperboundmodd\] to the sequel to this paper. Let us return to representations of the cyclic group ${\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$, where $K = \{k_1, ..., k_m\}$ (not necessarily a group), ${{\mathbf{U}}}= {\operatorname{diag}}(\omega^{k_{1}}, \omega^{k_{2}}, ..., \omega^{k_{m}})$, with the powers $\omega^{k_i}$ distinct, and $\mathcal{U} = \{{{\mathbf{U}}}, {{\mathbf{U}}}^2, ..., {{\mathbf{U}}}^{n-1}, {{\mathbf{U}}}^n = {\mathbf{I_m}}\}$. As before, taking ${{\mathbf{v}}}$ to be the normalized vector of all ones, ${{\mathbf{U}}}^\ell {{\mathbf{v}}}= \begin{bmatrix} \omega^{k_{1} \ell} & \omega^{k_{2} \ell} & \hdots & \omega^{k_{m} \ell} \end{bmatrix}^T$. Then if we index the columns as $\ell = 0, 1, ..., n-1$, we have ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ as in (\[eqn:cyclicframemat\]). The inner product associated to the element ${{\mathbf{U}}}^\ell$ takes the form $c_{\ell} := \frac{{{\mathbf{v}}}^* {{\mathbf{U}}}^{\ell} {{\mathbf{v}}}}{||{{\mathbf{v}}}||_2^2} = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{\ell k}$. We define $\alpha_\ell := |c_\ell|^2$ to be the squared norm of the $\ell^{th}$ inner product. If for any $t \in {\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$ we define the set $A_t := \{(k_i, k_j) \in K \times K ~|~ k_i - k_j \equiv t \mod n \}$ with size $a_t := |A_t |$, then we have the Fourier pairing given by Equations (\[eqn:alphaintermsofa\]) and (\[eqn:aintermsofalpha\]).
Now consider the framework of Section \[sec:cyclicprimegrp\] where $n$ is a prime, $m$ is a divisor of $n-1$, and $K$ is the unique cyclic subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$. If $r = \frac{n-1}{m}$, then $K$ consists of the nonzero $r^{th}$ powers in ${\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$. Let $x$ be a generator of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$. Then the distinct cosets of $K$ in $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ are $\{K, xK, x^2K, ..., x^{r-1}K\}$. If $\ell \in x^d K$, then we see that $c_\ell = c_{x^d}$ and hence $\alpha_\ell = \alpha_{x^d}$. Likewise, if $t \in x^d K$, it is not too difficult to see that we have a bijection $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber A_t \to A_{x^d}: \hspace{.1in} (k_i, k_j) \mapsto (x^d t^{-1} k_i, x^d t^{-1} k_j).\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
a_t = a_{x^d} \text{ if } t \in x^d K. \label{eqn:atxdeqn} \end{aligned}$$
It is straightforward to see from their definitions that $c_0 = \alpha_0 = 1$ and $a_0 = m$. With this in mind, we may write the condensed forms of (\[eqn:alphaintermsofa\]) and (\[eqn:aintermsofalpha\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \alpha_\ell &= \frac{1}{m^2} \left(a_0 + \sum_{d = 0}^{r-1} a_{x^d} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{x^d \ell k}\right), \\ \nonumber a_t &= \frac{m^2}{n} \left( \alpha_0 + \sum_{d = 0}^{r-1} \alpha_{x^d} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{-x^d t k}\right). \end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{x^{d'}} & = \frac{1}{m^2} \left(a_0 + \sum_{d = 0}^{r-1} a_{x^d} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{x^{d+d'} k}\right) \\
& = \frac{1}{m} \left(1 + \sum_{d = 0}^{r-1} a_{x^d} c_{x^{d+d'}} \right), \label{eqn:innerproductmagsq} \\
a_{x^{d'}} & = \frac{m^2}{n} \left( \alpha_0 + \sum_{d = 0}^{r-1} \alpha_{x^d} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{-x^{d+d'} k}\right) \\
& = \frac{m^2}{n} \left( 1 + m \sum_{d = 0}^{r-1} \alpha_{x^d} c^*_{x^{d + d'}} \right).
\end{aligned}$$
On one final note, since the roots of unity sum to 0: $$\begin{aligned}
1 + m c_1 + m c_{x} + m c_{x^2} + ... + m c_{x^{r-1}} = 0. \label{eqn:ceqn} \end{aligned}$$
$r = 2$, and Proof of Theorem \[thm:r2innerprods\] {#sec:r2}
==================================================
As before, take $n$ to be a prime, $m$ a divisor of $n-1$, and $K = \{k_1, ..., k_m\}$ the unique multiplicative subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$. Let us examine the case where $r := \frac{n-1}{m} = 2$. Fix a multiplicative generator $x$ for $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$. In this case, $K$ has two distinct cosets: $K$ and $xK$. Our frame will correspondingly have two distinct inner product values: $c_1 = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{k}$ and $c_x = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{x k}$. There are two equations of the form (\[eqn:innerproductmagsq\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \alpha_1 & = \frac{1}{m} \left( 1 + a_1 c_1 + a_x c_x \right)~,~ \alpha_x = \frac{1}{m} \left( 1 + a_1 c_x + a_x c_1 \right). \end{aligned}$$ From (\[eqn:ceqn\]), substituting $c_x = - \left(\frac{1}{m} + c_1 \right)$ gives us $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1 & = \frac{1}{m} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{m} a_x + (a_1 - a_x) c_1 \right), \label{eqn:f1eqn} \\
\alpha_x & = \frac{1}{m} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{m} a_1 + (a_x - a_1) c_1 \right). \label{eqn:fxeqn} \end{aligned}$$ From (\[eqn:f1eqn\]) and (\[eqn:fxeqn\]), we can see that since $\alpha_1, \alpha_x, a_1,$ and $a_x$ are real, then $c_1$ must be real as well (and thus so is $c_x$). This allows us to write $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1 & = c_1^2, \hspace{.25in} \alpha_x = c_x^2 = \left(\frac{1}{m} + c_1 \right)^2. \label{eqn:alpha1c1}\end{aligned}$$
Let $n$ be a prime, and $r$ and $m$ satisfy $r = \frac{n-1}{m} = 2$. Let $K$ be the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$. As before, let $a_t$ be the number of pairs $(k_1, k_2) \in K \times K$ such that $k_1 - k_2 = t$. Let $x$ be the multiplicative generator of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$. Then
- If $n-1$ is divisible by 4, $a_1 = \frac{1}{2} (m-2)$ and $a_x = \frac{1}{2} m$.
- Otherwise, $a_1 = a_x = \frac{1}{2} (m-1), ~ (-1 \notin K)$.
\[lem:asizer2lemma\]
Let us first count the number of pairs $(k_1, k_2)$ such that $k_1 - k_2 \in K$, which will give us $\sum_{k \in K} a_k$. From (\[eqn:atxdeqn\]), this is precisely equal to $m a_1$. Since $K$ is the group of nonzero squares in ${\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}$, we can write $k_1 = a^2$ and $k_2 = b^2$ for some choice of $a, b \in ({\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$. If we let $x_1 = a - b$ and $x_2 = a + b$, then $k_1 - k_2 = (a - b)(a + b) = x_1 \cdot x_2$. Equivalently, we may write $$\begin{bmatrix} 1 & -1 \\ 1 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} a \\ b \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} x_1 \\ x_2 \end{bmatrix}.$$ We see that for any choice of the pair $(x_1, x_2)$, there is a unique pair $(a, b)$ which maps to it. Since we need to consider only pairs where $a$ and $b$ are nonzero, we must eliminate the cases where $x_1 = x_2$ (corresponding to when $b = 0$) and $x_1 = - x_2$ (corresponding to when $a = 0$).
In order to have $x_1 \cdot x_2 \in K$, we must either have $x_1$ and $x_2$ both in $K$ or both in $xK$. If $-1 \in K$, a quick counting argument shows that there are $2m(m-2)$ valid choices for $(x_1, x_2)$ which satisfy $x_1 \cdot x_2 \in K$, each yielding a pair $(a, b)$ with $a$ and $b$ nonzero. But we are concerned only with their squares $a^2$ and $b^2$, so we can group these ordered pairs into sets of four, $\{ (\pm a, \pm b)\}$, and the number of distinct pairs $(a^2, b^2)$ with $a^2$ and $b^2$ nonzero and $a^2 - b^2 \in K$ is thus $$m a_1 = \frac{1}{4} (2 m(m-2)) = \frac{m}{2}(m-2), \text{ if } -1 \in K.$$
Likewise, $x_1 \cdot x_2 \in xK$ precisely when $x_1$ and $x_2$ are in opposite cosets of $K$. If this is true, and $-1 \in K$, then we cannot have $x_1 = x_2$ or $x_1 = -x_2$, since this would imply that $x_1$ and $x_2$ are in the same coset. Thus, any pair $(x_1, x_2)$ in either $K \times xK$ or $xK \times K$ will yield $x_1 \cdot x_2 \in xK$, so there are $2m^2$ possible pairs, each yielding a pair $(a, b)$. Again, we must divide by $4m$ to get the number of feasible pairs $(a^2, b^2)$ such that $a^2 - b^2 = x$, and we find that $$a_x = \frac{1}{2} m, ~ (-1 \in K).$$
If $-1 \notin K$, then the calculations for $a_1$ and $a_x$ change slightly: Now the condition $x_1 = -x_2$ implies that $x_1$ and $x_2$ are in opposite cosets of $K$. Thus, we have one extra case to consider when calculating $a_1$, and one less case when calculating $a_x$, so we find $$a_1 = a_x = \frac{1}{2} (m-1), ~ (-1 \notin K).$$
Note that $-1 \in K$, or rather -1 is a square modulo $n$, precisely when $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ contains a fourth root of unity, and since $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ is a cyclic multiplicative group of size $n-1$, this occurs precisely when $n-1$ is divisible by 4.
*(Theorem \[thm:r2innerprods\])* From (\[eqn:f1eqn\]), (\[eqn:fxeqn\]), (\[eqn:alpha1c1\]), and Lemma \[lem:asizer2lemma\], we have that if $n-1$ is divisible by 4, $$c_1^2 = \frac{1}{m}\left(\frac{1}{2} - c_1 \right),$$ and making the substitution $c_1 = - \left( \frac{1}{m} - c_x \right)$ from (\[eqn:ceqn\]) yields the same quadratic equation in $c_x$. Solving this reveals that $c_1$ and $c_x$ will take on the values $\frac{-1 \pm \sqrt{1 + 2m}}{2m}$, and the solution with the larger norm is $\frac{-1 - \sqrt{1 + 2m}}{2m}$, which indicates that the coherence is
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \mu = \left| \frac{-1 - \sqrt{1 + 2m}}{2m} \right| = \sqrt{\frac{n - m - \frac{1}{2}}{m(n-1)}} + \frac{1}{2m} \hspace{10pt} (n \equiv 1 \mod 4). \end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, if $n-1$ is not divisible by 4, then from Lemma \[lem:asizer2lemma\] equations (\[eqn:fxeqn\]) and (\[eqn:fxeqn\]) become $$c_1^2 = c_x^2 = \frac{1}{m} \left(\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2m}\right),$$ so this gives us coherence $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \mu = \sqrt{\frac{1}{m} \left(\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2m}\right)} = \sqrt{\frac{n-m}{m(n-1)}} \hspace{10pt} (n \not \equiv 1 \mod 4). \end{aligned}$$
$r = 3$, and Proof of Theorem \[thm:r3cohbounds\] {#sec:r3}
=================================================
Take $n$ to be a prime, $m$ a divisor of $n-1$, and $K = \{k_1, ..., k_m\}$ the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$. We now consider the case where $r = \frac{n-1}{m} = 3$, so that if $x$ is a generator of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$, then $K$ is cyclically generated by $x^3$, and consists of the cubes of all the nonzero integers modulo $n$. In this case our distinct inner products will be $c_1, c_x$, and $c_{x^2}$, with corresponding squared norms $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_x$, and $\alpha_{x^2}$. Our goal in this section will be to prove Theorem \[thm:r3cohbounds\].
We first make the following remark:
Let $n$ be a prime, $\omega = e^\frac{2 \pi i}{n}$, and $r$ and $m$ satisfy $r = \frac{n-1}{m} = 3$. If we take $K$ to be the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$, then the inner product values $c_\ell = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{\ell k}$ are all real. \[lem:r3realinnerprods\]
$K$ is the set of cubes in $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$, and since $-1$ is its own cube it will lie in $K$. Multiplication by $-1$ will therefore permute the elements of $K$, so we have $$\begin{aligned}
c_{\ell}^* & = \left(\frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{\ell k}\right)^* = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{-\ell k} = c_{\ell}. \end{aligned}$$
We begin by making the following definition:
For any two cosets $t_1 K $ and $t_2 K$, we define the *translation degree from $t_1 K$ to $t_2 K$*, to be the quantity $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber a_{t_1 K, t_2 K} &:= | (1 + t_1 K) \cap t_2 K| = \#\{ \alpha \in t_1 K~|~1+\alpha \in t_2 K\}. \end{aligned}$$ Similarly, for any coset $tK$, define the *translation degree from $t K$ to 0* to be the quantity $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber a_{tK, 0} := |(1+t K) \cap \{0\}| =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{ if } -1 \in tK, \\
0 & \text{ otherwise. }
\end{cases} \end{aligned}$$
We can express our previously defined values $a_t$ in terms of the translation degrees as follows:
Let $n$ be a prime, and $m$ and $r$ satisfy $r = \frac{n-1}{m} = 3$. Let $K$ be the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$. Define $a_{t} = \#\{(k_1, k_2) \in K \times K~|~k_1 - k_2 \equiv t \mod n\}$ Then $a_{t} = a_{K, t K}$. \[lem:linktotransdeg\]
For every pair $(k_1, k_2) \in K \times K$ we have that $k_1 - k_2 \in tK$ if and only if $1 - k_2 k_1^{-1} \in tK$. There are $m a_t$ such pairs in total ($a_t$ pairs for every element in $tK$). Note that $- k_2 k_1^{-1} \in K$, since $-1 \in K$. If we select any of the $m$ candidates for $k_1 \in K$, then there are $a_{K, tK}$ choices for $k_2$ that will satisfy this requirement. Thus, we have $m a_t = m a_{K, tK}$, and the result follows.
Some other facts about translation degrees:
Let $n$ be a prime, $m$ a divisor of $n-1$ such that $\frac{n-1}{m} = 3$, and $K$ the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$. Then $a_{t_1K, t_2K} = a_{t_2 K, t_1 K}$ for all $t_1, t_2 \in {\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$. \[lem:transdegcommutingcosets\]
Suppose $b_1 \in t_1K$ such that $1+b_1 = b_2 \in t_2 K$. Then $1 - b_2 = -b_1$, with $-b_2 \in t_2K$ and $-b_1 \in t_1 K$ (since $-1$ is a cube and is thus in $K$). In fact, we see that we have a bijection between the sets $\{(b_1, b_2) \in t_1 K \times t_2 K ~|~ 1 + b_1 = b_2\}$ and $\{(c_1, c_2) \in t_2 K \times t_1 K ~|~ 1 + c_1 = c_2\}$ which sends $(b_1, b_2) \mapsto (c_1, c_2) = (-b_2, -b_1)$. This gives us $a_{t_1K, t_2K} = a_{t_2 K, t_1 K}$.
Let $n$ be a prime, $m$ a divisor of $n-1$ such that $r = \frac{n-1}{m}$, and $K$ the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$. If $x$ is the multiplicative generator of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$, then $a_{x^i K, x^j K} = a_{x^{r - i} K, x^{r - i + j} K}$. \[lem:transdegshiftingcosets\]
Let $a \in K$ such that $1 + x^i a = x^j b$, with $b \in K$. Then multiplying both sides of this equation by $x^{r - i}$, we get $x^{r-i} + x^r a = x^{r - i + j} b$. Note that $x^r a \in K$. Now, multiplying both sides of this equation by $(x^r a)^{-1} \in K$, we obtain $1 + x^{r-i}(x^r a)^{-1} = x^{r - i + j} b (x^r a)^{-1}$, where $x^{r-i}(x^r a)^{-1} \in x^{r-i}K$ and $x^{r - i + j} b (x^r a)^{-1} \in x^{r - i + j}K $. We see that we in fact have a bijection between the sets $\{(x^i a, x^j b) \in x^i K \times x^j K~|~ 1+x^i a = x^j b\}$ and $\{(x^{r-i} c, x^{r-i+j}d) \in x^{r-i} K \times x^{r-i+j} K~|~ 1+x^{r-i} c =x^{r-i+j}d\}$ which sends $(x^i a, x^j b) \mapsto (x^{r-i}(x^r a)^{-1}, x^{r - i + j} b (x^r a)^{-1}). $
Let $n$ be a prime, $m$ a divisor of $n-1$ such that $r = \frac{n-1}{m} $, and $K$ the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$. Set $G = ({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$, with multiplicative generator $x$. For any coset $t_0 K$, we have $a_{t_0 K, 0} + \sum_{i = 1}^r a_{t_0 K, x^i K} = |t_0 K|$. \[lem:sumoftransdegs\]
This simply follows from the observation that any element of $t_0 K$, when translated by 1, must be sent to either 0 or exactly one of the cosets $x^i K \in G/K$.
Let $n$ be a prime, and $m$ a divisor of $n-1$ such that $r := \frac{n-1}{m} = 3$. Take $K$ to be the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$, and $x$ a multiplicative generator for $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
a_{xK, x^2 K} - a_{K, K} & = 1. \label{eqn:transdegeq1}\end{aligned}$$ \[lem:transdegeqnlemmar3\]
We prove this by counting the size of the set $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber A_K := \{(k_1, k_2) \in K \times K~|~ k_1 - k_2 \in K \}\end{aligned}$$ in two ways. First, using Equation (\[eqn:atxdeqn\]), we can simply count the elements in this set as $$\begin{aligned}
|A_K| = \sum_{k \in K} a_K = m a_1. \label{eqn:AKformula1} \end{aligned}$$
Alternatively, we note that when $r = 3$, the difference between any two elements in $K$ takes the form $$a^3 - b^3 =(a - b)(a - \zeta b)(a - \zeta^2 b),$$ where $\zeta$ is a primitive third root of unity, and $a$ and $b$ are nonzero. Let us define $$\begin{aligned}
x_1 := a - b, ~x_2 := a - \zeta b, ~ x_3 := a - \zeta^2 b. \label{eqn:x1x2x3} \end{aligned}$$ We can express this using matrices as $$\begin{bmatrix} 1 & -1 \\ 1 & -\zeta \\ 1 & - \zeta^2 \end{bmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} a \\ b \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} x_1 \\ x_2 \\ x_3 \end{bmatrix}.$$ In this form we can see that $a$ and $b$, and $x_3$ are uniquely determined by $x_1$ and $x_2$. In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
x_3 = -\zeta(x_1 + \zeta x_2). \end{aligned}$$
Now, if $a^3 - b^3 \in K$, then we have the following possibilities for which cosets of $K$ $x_1, x_2$, and $x_3$ must belong to (up to a permutation of the cosets):
$x_1$ $x_2$ $x_3$ Multiplicity
-------- -------- -------- --------------
$K$ $K$ $K$ 1
$xK$ $xK$ $xK$ 1
$x^2K$ $x^2K$ $x^2K$ 1
$K$ $xK$ $x^2K$ 6
: $a^3 - b^3 \in K$
The last case is representative of six possible cases which we obtain by permuting the order of the cosets (thus it has “multiplicity 6"). In short, we must have $x_1, x_2$, and $x_3$ all in the same coset, or all in different cosets of $K$ in order to have $a^3 - b^3 \in K$. Let us attempt to count the quantity $$\#\{(x_1, x_2) \in K \times K ~|~ x_3 = -\zeta(x_1 + \zeta x_2) \in K, ~a \ne 0, b \ne 0 \}.$$ Since $x$ generates $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times \cong \mathbb{F}_n^\times$, and $r$ divides $n-1$, the order of this group, then any $r^{th}$ root of unity will be contained in $\mathbb{F}_n^\times$, so $\zeta$ will lie in one of the cosets of $K$.
We will first consider the case where $\zeta \in K$. Since $r = 3$, $-1 \in K$, so $- \zeta \in K$. Thus, the condition that $-\zeta(x_1 + \zeta x_2) \in K$ is equivalent to the condition that $x_1 + \zeta x_2 \in K \iff 1 + \zeta x_2 x_1^{-1} \in K$. If we fix $x_1$ to be any one of the $m$ elements in $K$, we have exactly $a_{K,K}$ choices for $x_2$ which satisfy this condition (for every $k \in K$ such that $1 + k \in K$, simply set $x_2 = k x_1 \zeta^{-1}$). This gives us a total of $m a_{K, K}$ ordered pairs $(x_1, x_2) \in K \times K$, each corresponding to a unique pair $(a, b)$ with $a^3 - b^3 \in K$. But we must rule out those which have either $a$ or $b$ equal to zero. If $a = 0$, then any choice of $b \in K$ will satisfy that all the $x_i$ are in $K$. Likewise, if $b = 0$, then any choice of $a \in K$ will do the same. Thus, there are $2m$ cases to eliminate, so $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \#\{(x_1, x_2) \in K \times K ~|~ x_3 \in K, ~a \ne 0, b \ne 0 \} \\
= m a_{K, K} - 2m. \label{eqn:allinK} \end{aligned}$$
By mimicking these calculations, it is not too difficult to see that we also have
$$\begin{aligned}
&~\#\{(x_1, x_2) \in xK \times xK ~|~ x_3 \in xK, ~a \ne 0, b \ne 0 \} \label{eqn:allinxK} \\
=& ~\#\{(x_1, x_2) \in x^2 K \times x^2 K ~|~ x_3 \in x^2 K, ~a \ne 0, b \ne 0 \} \label{eqn:allinx2K} \\
=& ~ m a_{K, K} - 2m. \end{aligned}$$
Now consider the case where $x_1$, $x_2$, and $x_3$ are each in different cosets of $K$. We see that this rules out the case where either $a$ or $b$ is zero, since this would force all the $x_i$ to be in the same coset. Suppose $x_1 \in K$, $x_2 \in xK$, and $x_3 \in x^2 K$. Since $x_3 = - \zeta (x_1 + \zeta x_2)$, we must have $1 + \zeta x_2 x_1^{-1} \in x^2 K$, where we note that $x_2 x_1^{-1} \in xK$. For any fixed $x_1 \in K$, there are $a_{xK, x^2 K}$ choices for $x_2$ that satisfy this constraint. Thus, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber &\#\{(x_1, x_2) \in K \times xK ~|~ x_3 \in x^2 K, ~a \ne 0, b \ne 0 \} \\
&= m a_{xK, x^2 K}. \label{eqn:diffKcosets} \end{aligned}$$ With a little work exploiting Lemma \[lem:transdegcommutingcosets\], we see that we will arrive at the same result for any of the six permutations of the cosets corresponding to $x_1$, $x_2$, and $x_3$.
We comment that for any ordered pair $(k_1, k_2) \in K \times K$ such that $k_1 - k_2 \in K$ the nine pairs $(a, b) = (\zeta^{n_1} k_1^{1/3}, \zeta^{n_2} k_2^{1/3})$, for $n_1$ and $n_2$ ranging independently between 0 and 2, will all satisfy $(a^3, b^3) = (k_1, k_2)$. Thus, in counting the size of $A_K$, we will have to add up our previous quantities from (\[eqn:allinK\]), (\[eqn:allinxK\]), (\[eqn:allinx2K\]), and (\[eqn:diffKcosets\]) (with multiplicities) and then divide by 9. This gives us $$\begin{aligned}
|A_K| = \frac{1}{9} \left( 3(m a_{K, K} - 2m) + 6m a_{xK, x^2 K}\right). \label{eqn:AKformula2} \end{aligned}$$ Finally, combining (\[eqn:AKformula1\]) and (\[eqn:AKformula2\]), and using Lemma \[lem:linktotransdeg\] to make the substitution $a_1 = a_{K, K}$, we obtain the result for the case where $\zeta \in K$.
For the case where $\zeta \notin K$ we can verify that the relation does in fact still hold. It suffices to prove the result for when $\zeta \in xK$, for the result will also hold when $\zeta \in x^2 K$ due to the interchangeability of $xK$ and $x^2K$ which arises from both being multiplicative generators of $G/K$. In this case, we can show using similar counting arguments as before that for $d = 0, 1, 2,$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber &\#\{(x_1, x_2) \in x^d K \times x^{d} K~|~x_3 \in x^{d} K, a \ne 0, b \ne 0\} \\
= & ~ m a_{xK, x^2 K} - m, \\
\nonumber &\#\{(x_1, x_2) \in x^d K \times x^{d+1} K~|~x_3 \in x^{d+2} K, a \ne 0, b \ne 0\} \\
= & ~ m a_{x^2 K, x K} - m, \\
\nonumber &\# \{(x_1, x_2) \in x^d K \times x^{d+2} K~|~x_3 \in x^{d+1} K, a \ne 0, b \ne 0\} \\
= & ~ m a_{K, K}.\end{aligned}$$ Summing these values up for $d = 1, 2, 3$, and again dividing by 9 and equating the value to (\[eqn:AKformula1\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber m a_1 & = \frac{1}{9} \left( 3( m a_{xK, x^2K} - m) \right) \\
& + \frac{1}{9} \left( 3( m a_{x^2K, xK} - m) +3 m a_{K, K} \right), \end{aligned}$$ which after substituting $a_1 = a_{K, K}$ and $a_{x^2K, xK} = a_{xK, x^2K}$ (from Lemmas \[lem:linktotransdeg\] and \[lem:transdegcommutingcosets\]) reduces to the desired relation $a_{xK, x^2K} - a_{K, K} = 1$.
Let $n$ be a prime, $m$ a divisor of $n-1$ such that $\frac{n-1}{m} = 3$, and $K$ the subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$. Then if $x$ is a multiplicative generator for $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$, $\omega = e^\frac{2 \pi i}{n}$, and $c_{\ell} = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{\ell k}$ is the inner product value corresponding to $\ell \in {\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{c}}}{{\mathbf{c}}}^* = \frac{1}{m} [ I - {\operatorname{diag}}({{\mathbf{c}}}) + P(I + A)C], \label{eqn:cmatrixeqn} \end{aligned}$$ where ${{\mathbf{c}}}= [c_1, c_x, c_{x^2}]^T$, $I$ is the $3 \times 3$ identity matrix, and $$A = \begin{bmatrix} a_1 & a_{x^2} & a_x \\ a_x & a_1 & a_{x^2} \\ a_{x^2} & a_x & a_1 \end{bmatrix} , ~ C = \begin{bmatrix} c_1 & c_{x^2} & c_x \\ c_x & c_1 & c_{x^2} \\ c_{x^2} & c_x & c_1 \end{bmatrix},$$ $$P = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}.$$
The terms of ${{\mathbf{c}}}{{\mathbf{c}}}^*$ will take the form $$\begin{aligned}
c_{x^i} c_{x^j}^* = \frac{1}{m^2} \sum_{(k_1, k_2) \in K \times K } \omega^{x^i k_1 - x^j k_2}. \label{eqn:unrefinedcterms} \end{aligned}$$ If $i \ne j$, note that, $x^i k_1 - x^j k_2 \in x^d K$ if and only if $1 - x^{j- i} k_2 k_1^{-1} \in x^{d - i} K$, and there are $m a_{x^{j-i}K, x^{d-i}K}$ choices for $(k_1, k_2)$ that satisfy this. Thus, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
c_{x^i} c_{x^j}^* & = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{d = 0}^{r-1} a_{x^{j-i}K, x^{d-i}K} c_{x^d}. ~ (i \ne j) \label{eqn:crossterms}\end{aligned}$$ If $i = j = d'$, (\[eqn:unrefinedcterms\]) becomes $\frac{1}{m^2} \sum_{(k_1, k_2) \in K \times K } \omega^{x^{d'} (k_1 - k_2)}$. Separating the terms where $k_1 = k_2$, we can apply the same reasoning as above and use Lemma \[lem:linktotransdeg\] to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|c_{x^{d'}}|^2 = \frac{1}{m} \left(1 + \sum_{d = 0}^{r-1} a_{x^d} c_{x^{d+d'}}\right). \label{eqn:diagterms} \end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[eqn:cmatrixeqn\]) can now be verified from (\[eqn:crossterms\]) and (\[eqn:diagterms\]) using Lemmas \[lem:linktotransdeg\], \[lem:transdegcommutingcosets\], \[lem:transdegshiftingcosets\], \[lem:sumoftransdegs\], and \[lem:transdegeqnlemmar3\].
*(Theorem \[thm:r3cohbounds\])* Notice in (\[eqn:cmatrixeqn\]) that $A$ and $C$ are circulant matrices (as is $I + A$), and hence they can be diagonalized by Fourier matrices. Let $\gamma = e^{2 \pi i /3}$ and $$F = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & \gamma & \gamma^2 \\ 1 & \gamma^2 & \gamma^4 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & \gamma & \gamma^{-1} \\ 1 & \gamma^{-1} & \gamma \end{bmatrix},$$ so that $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} F$ is the $3 \times 3$ discrete Fourier matrix. We first note that the matrix $P$ from above is simply $\frac{1}{3} F^2 = \frac{1}{3}F^{*2}$. Now it is easy to verify that since ${{\mathbf{c}}}$ has real components by Lemma \[lem:r3realinnerprods\], then if we write $F {{\mathbf{c}}}= [w_1, w_2, w_3]^T$, then we have that $w_1$ is real and $w_2 = w_3^*$. So we may write $w_1 = \alpha$, $w_2 = \beta e^{i \theta}$, and $w_3 = \beta e^{-i \theta}$, where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are real and $\beta$ is nonnegative. If we let ${{\mathbf{a}}}= [a_1, a_x, a_{x^2}]^T$, then we can easily verify that by pre-multiplying Equation (\[eqn:cmatrixeqn\]) by $F$ and post-multiplying by $F^*$, noting that $FF^* = 3 I$, $FPF^* = 3P$, $FCF^* = 3 {\operatorname{diag}}(F {{\mathbf{c}}})$ and $FAF^* = {\operatorname{diag}}(F {{\mathbf{a}}})$, we can rewrite it as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber (F {{\mathbf{c}}})(F {{\mathbf{c}}})^* & = \frac{1}{m} [3 I - F {\operatorname{diag}}({{\mathbf{c}}}) F^* \\
& + 27 P (I + {\operatorname{diag}}(F {{\mathbf{a}}})) {\operatorname{diag}}(F {{\mathbf{c}}})]. \label{eqn:cmatrixeqn2}\end{aligned}$$
One can further check that $F {\operatorname{diag}}({{\mathbf{c}}}) F^*$ is circulant with first column $F {{\mathbf{c}}}$, and if we write $F {{\mathbf{a}}}= [y_1, y_2, y_3]^T$, then (\[eqn:cmatrixeqn2\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix} w_1 \\ w_2 \\ w_3 \end{bmatrix} [w_1^*, w_2^*, w_3^*] = & \frac{1}{m} [ \begin{bmatrix} 3 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 3 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 3 \end{bmatrix} - \begin{bmatrix} w_1 & w_3 & w_2 \\ w_2 & w_1 & w_3\\ w_3 & w_2 & w_1 \end{bmatrix} \label{eqn:cmatrixeqn3} \end{aligned}$$ $$+ 27 \begin{bmatrix} (1+y_1)w_1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & (1+y_3) w_3 \\ 0 & (1+y_2) w_2 & 0 \end{bmatrix} ].$$ If we consider only the coordinates of the above matrices which do not involve $y_1, y_2$ or $y_3$, then after substituting $w_1 = \alpha$, $w_2 = \beta e^{j \theta}$ and $w_3 = \beta e^{-j \theta}$, we can solve the resulting equations to obtain the relations $$\alpha = - \frac{1}{m}, \hspace{.25in} \beta = \sqrt{\frac{1}{m} \left(3 + \frac{1}{m} \right)}. \label{eqn:alphaeqn}$$
We can use these to bound the coherence as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix} c_1 \\ c_x \\ c_{x^2} \end{bmatrix} & = F^{-1} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha \\ \beta e^{j \theta} \\ \beta e^{-j \theta} \end{bmatrix} = \frac{1}{3} \begin{bmatrix} \alpha + 2 \beta \cos(\theta) \\ \alpha + 2 \beta \cos(\theta - \frac{2\pi}{3}) \\ \alpha + 2 \beta \cos(\theta + \frac{2 \pi}{3}) \end{bmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\min_\theta \max\{|c_1|, |c_x|, |c_{x^2}|\} \le \mu \le \max_\theta \max\{|c_1|, |c_x|, |c_{x^2}|\} \end{aligned}$$
From (\[eqn:alphaeqn\]), we know that $\alpha$ is negative, and $\beta$ is positive by definition. Since $|\alpha| < |\beta|$, then by inspection we have $$\begin{aligned}
\max_\theta \max\{|c_1|, |c_x|, |c_{x^2}|\} & = \frac{1}{3} |\alpha + 2 \beta (-1)| \\
& = \frac{1}{3} \left(2\sqrt{\frac{1}{m} \left(3 + \frac{1}{m} \right)} + \frac{1}{m}\right). \end{aligned}$$
This gives us our upper bound. Asymptotically, we can ignore the term $\alpha = - \frac{1}{m}$ in our expressions for $c_1, c_x$, and $c_{x^2}$, and if we do so, we find that $$\arg \min_\theta \max\{|c_1|, |c_x|, |c_{x^2}|\} \approx \frac{\pi}{2},$$ which follows from noting that since $|c_1|, |c_x|$, and $|c_{x^2}|$ are continuous functions of $\theta$, the smallest value of their maximum must occur when two of them are set equal to each other (in this case, when $|c_x| = |c_{x^2}|$, so that asymptotically $| \cos(\theta + \frac{2 \pi}{3})| = | \cos(\theta - \frac{2 \pi}{3})|$). Substituting $\frac{\pi}{2}$ for $\theta$ gives us our (asymptotic) lower bound on $\mu$: $$\begin{aligned}
\min_\theta \max\{|c_1|, |c_x|, |c_{x^2}|\} \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}. \end{aligned}$$ We easily verify that this is greater than the Welch bound, which in this case becomes $$\sqrt{\frac{n-m}{m(n-1)}} = \sqrt{ \frac{2}{3m} + \frac{1}{3m^2}}.$$
Proof of Theorems \[thm:coherenceupperbound\] and \[thm:coherenceupperboundmodd\] {#sec:generalr}
=================================================================================
We now exploit the tools developed in the preceding two appendix sections to generalize our bound from Theorem \[thm:r3cohbounds\] to general values of $r$. We first examine the Fourier transform of our vector $[c_1, c_x, ..., c_{x^{r-1}}]^T$ of our inner product values.
Let $n$ be a prime, $m$ a divisor of $n-1$, and $r := \frac{n-1}{m}$. Let $x$ be a multiplicative generator of the cyclic group $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$, $K$ the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$, and $c_{x^d}$ be the inner product value $\frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{x^d \cdot k}$ where $d \in \{0, ..., r-1\}$ and $\omega = e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{n}}$. Finally, let ${{\mathbf{c}}}= [c_1, c_x, c_{x^2}, ..., c_{x^{r-1}}]^T$, and let $F$ be the scaled $r \times r$ Fourier matrix with entries defined by $F_{ij} = \gamma^{(i - 1) (j- 1)}$, where $\gamma = e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{r}}$. Then, if we let ${{\mathbf{w}}}:= [w_1, ..., w_r]^T = F {{\mathbf{c}}}$ so that $w_{d + 1} = \sum_{t = 0}^{r-1} \gamma^{t d} c_{x^{t}}$ for $d = 0, 1, ..., r-1$, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
w_1 &= - \frac{1}{m}, & \label{eqn:wvec1} \\
|w_i| &= \sqrt{\frac{1}{m} \left(r + \frac{1}{m} \right)}, & i \ne 1. \label{eqn:wvecnot1} \end{aligned}$$
\[lem:wvec\]
Note that (\[eqn:wvec1\]) follows from (\[eqn:ceqn\]) since $w_1 = \sum_{t = 0}^{r-1} c_{x^t} = - \frac{1}{m}$.
Now, for any $d \in \{0, ..., r-1\}$,
$$\begin{aligned}
|w_{d+1}|^2 & = \left(\sum_{t = 0}^{\kappa-1} \gamma^{t d} c_{x^{t}} \right) \left( \sum_{\ell = 0}^{\kappa-1} \gamma^{\ell d} c_{x^{\ell}} \right)^* \\
& = \sum_{t = 0}^{\kappa-1} \sum_{\ell = 0}^{\kappa-1} \gamma^{(t - \ell) d} c_{x^t} c_{-x^\ell}\\
& = \sum_{s = 0}^{\kappa-1} \gamma^{s d} \sum_{\ell = 0}^{\kappa-1} c_{x^{s+\ell}} c_{- x^\ell} \label{eqn:wnormsq} \end{aligned}$$
Also, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
m^2 c_{x^{s + \ell}} c_{- x^{\ell}} & = \left(\sum_{k \in K} \omega^{x^{s+ \ell} k}\right) \left(\sum_{k' \in K} \omega^{-x^\ell k'} \right) \\
& = \sum_{k, k' \in K} \omega^{-x^\ell k' (1 - x^{s} k k'^{-1})} \\
& = \sum_{t = 0}^{r - 1} \sum_{\substack{\{k', k'' \in K ~: \\ 1 - x^s k'' \in x^t K\}}} \omega^{-x^\ell k' (1 - x^{s} k'')} \\
\nonumber & \hspace{40pt}+ \sum_{\substack{\{k', k'' \in K ~: \\ 1 - x^s k'' = 0\}}} 1 \\
& = \sum_{t = 0}^{r-1} a_{-x^s K, x^t K} \left( \sum_{k''' \in K} \omega^{-x^t x^\ell k'''} \right) \\
& \hspace{40pt} + \sum_{k' \in K} a_{-x^s K, 0} \\
& = m \sum_{t = 0}^{r-1} a_{-x^s K, x^t K} \cdot c_{-x^{t +\ell}} + m a_{-x^s K, 0} \end{aligned}$$
Dividing both sides by $m^2$ and substituting into (\[eqn:wnormsq\]), we obtain:
$$\begin{aligned}
|w_{d+1}|^2 & = \sum_{s = 0}^{r-1} \gamma^{s d} \sum_{\ell = 0}^{r-1} \left( \frac{1}{m} \left(\sum_{t = 0}^{r-1} a_{-x^s K, x^t K} \cdot c_{-x^{t +\ell}} + a_{-x^s K, 0} \right) \right) \\
& = \sum_{s = 0}^{r-1} \gamma^{s d} \frac{1}{m} \left(\sum_{t = 0}^{r-1} a_{-x^s K, x^t K} \sum_{\ell = 0}^{r-1} c_{-x^{t +\ell}} + \sum_{\ell = 0}^{r-1} a_{-x^s K, 0} \right) \\
& = \sum_{s = 0}^{r-1} \gamma^{s d} \frac{1}{m} \left(\sum_{t = 0}^{r-1} a_{-x^s K, x^t K} \left( -\frac{1}{m} \right) + r a_{-x^s K, 0} \right) \label{eqn:wnormsqeq2} \\
& = - \frac{1}{m^2} \sum_{s = 0}^{r-1} \gamma^{s d} \left(m - a_{-x^s K, 0} \right) + \frac{r}{m} \sum_{s = 0}^{r-1} \gamma^{s d} a_{-x^s K, 0} \label{eqn:wnormsqeq4}\end{aligned}$$
where (\[eqn:wnormsqeq2\]) follows from Equation (\[eqn:ceqn\]), and (\[eqn:wnormsqeq4\]) follows from Lemma \[lem:sumoftransdegs\]. Since $a_{-x^s K, 0}$ is equal to $1$ if $s = 0$ and equal to 0 otherwise, (\[eqn:wnormsqeq4\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
|w_{d+1}|^2 & = -\frac{1}{m^2} \left( (m-1) + m \sum_{s = 1}^{r-1} \gamma^{s d} \right) + \frac{r}{m}. \label{eqn:wnormsqeq5} \end{aligned}$$
When $d \ne 0$ we have $\sum_{s = 1}^{r-1} \gamma^{s d} = -1$, and after rearranging terms we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|w_{d+1}|^2 & = \frac{1}{m} \left( r + \frac{1}{m} \right), \end{aligned}$$ giving us (\[eqn:wvecnot1\]).
The proof of Theorem \[thm:coherenceupperbound\] follows immediately from this lemma:
*(Theorem \[thm:coherenceupperbound\])* Using the notation of Lemma \[lem:wvec\], write $\mathbf{c} = \frac{1}{r} F^* \mathbf{w}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
|c_{x^d}| & = \frac{1}{r} \left| \sum_{j = 1}^r \gamma^{d (j-1)} w_j \right| \\
& \le \frac{1}{r} \sum_{j = 1}^r |w_j| \label{eqn:cohprooftriineq} \\
& = \frac{1}{r} \left( (r-1) \sqrt{\frac{1}{m} \left(r - \frac{1}{m}\right)} + \frac{1}{m} \right), \label{eqn:cohproofwveclemma} \end{aligned}$$ where (\[eqn:cohproofwveclemma\]) follows from Lemma \[lem:wvec\]. Since the coherence is equal to the largest value among the $|c_{x^d}|$, $d = 0, ..., r - 1$, we are done.
Now, toward proving Theorem \[thm:coherenceupperboundmodd\], we present the following classification of when $|K|$ is even or odd:
Let $n$ be a prime, $m$ a divisor of $n - 1$, and $r := \frac{n - 1}{m}$. Let $x$ be a generator for the cyclic multiplicative group $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$, and let $K$ be the unique subgroup of $({\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ of size $m$. Then $-1 \in K$ if and only if either $n$ or $m$ is even. If $n$ and $m$ are both odd, then $r$ is even and $-1 \in x^\frac{r}{2} A$. \[lem:mevennegoneinA\]
If $n$ is even, that is $n = 2$, then $-1 \equiv 1$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$, so trivially $-1 \in K$. If $n$ is odd, then the size $m$ of $K$ is even if and only if $K$ contains the unique cyclic subgroup of size $2$, which is $\{\pm 1\}$.
If both $m$ and $n$ are odd, then $n - 1$ must be even, hence so is $r = \frac{n- 1}{m}$. By the argument above, $-1 \notin K$. In this case, since $(-1)^2 = 1 \in K$ (and noting that $K = x^r K$), we must have $-1 \in x^\frac{r}{2} K$.
Let $n$, $m$, $r$, $x$ and $K$ be defined as in Lemma \[lem:mevennegoneinA\] and $\mathbf{c} = [c_1, c_{x}, ..., c_{x^{r-1}}]^T$ and ${{\mathbf{w}}}= [w_1, ..., w_r]^T$ be defined as in Lemma \[lem:wvec\]. If either $n$ or $m$ is even ($-1 \in K$) then for any $d = 0, 1, ..., r-1$, we have $c_{x^d} = c^*_{x^d}$, and for any $i = 2, 3, ..., r$ we have $w^*_i = w_{r-i + 2}$. If $n$ and $m$ are both odd ($-1 \in x^\frac{r}{2} K$), then $c_{x^d} = c^*_{x^{d + r/2}}$ and $w^*_i = (-1)^{i - 1} w_{r-i + 2}$. \[lem:cstarwstar\]
As usual, set $\omega = e^{2 \pi i / n}$ and $\gamma := e^{2 \pi i / r}$. If $-1 \in K$, then multiplication by $-1$ permutes the elements of $K$, so we have $$\begin{aligned}
c_{x^d}^* = \left(\frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{-x^d k}\right) = c_{x^d} \\ \end{aligned}$$ It follows that $c_{x^d}$ is real. Furthermore, in this case we have
$$\begin{aligned}
w_i^* & = \sum_{j = 1}^r \gamma^{-(i-1)(j-1)} c_{x^{j-1}}^* \\
& = \sum_{j = 1}^r \gamma^{((r - i+2) - 1)(j-1)} c_{x^{j-1}} \\
& = w_{r - i + 2}. \end{aligned}$$
If instead $-1 \in x^{\frac{r}{2}} K$, multiplication by $-x^\frac{r}{2}$ permutes the elements of $K$, so $$\begin{aligned}
c_{x^d} & = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{- x^d x^{\frac{r}{2}} k} = c_{x^{d + r/2}}^*. \end{aligned}$$
In this case, $$\begin{aligned}
w_i^* & = \sum_{j = 1}^r \gamma^{-(i-1)(j-1)} c_{x^{j-1}}^* \\
& = \gamma^{(i-1) \frac{r}{2}} \sum_{j = 1}^r \gamma^{(r - i + 1)(j-1 + \frac{r}{2})} c_{x^{j-1 + \frac{r}{2}}} \\
& = (-1)^{i-1} w_{r - i + 2}. \end{aligned}$$
We are now ready to prove our theorem:
*(Theorem \[thm:coherenceupperboundmodd\])* Since both $n$ and $m$ are odd, then from Lemma \[lem:mevennegoneinA\] we know that $r$ is even and $-1 \in x^{\frac{r}{2}} K$. As before, set $\omega = e^{2 \pi i/n}$, $c_{x^d} = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{k \in K} \omega^{x^d k}$, and ${{\mathbf{c}}}= [c_1, c_x, c_{x^2}, ..., c_{x^{r-1}}]^T$. Let $\gamma = e^{2 \pi i / r}$, $F$ the $r \times r$ Fourier matrix with entries $F_{ij} = \gamma^{(i-1)(j-1)}$, and ${{\mathbf{w}}}= [w_1, ..., w_r]^T = F {{\mathbf{c}}}$.
From an inverse Fourier transform, we have $c_{x^{i-1}} = \frac{1}{r} \sum_{j = 1}^{r} \gamma^{-(i-1)(j-1)} w_j$, and in light of Lemmas \[lem:wvec\] and \[lem:cstarwstar\], we can write this as
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber c_{x^{i-1}} & = \frac{1}{r} \bigg[ w_1 + \gamma^{-(i-1)\frac{r}{2}} w_{\frac{r}{2} + 1} \\
& \hspace{5pt} + \sum_{j = 2}^{\frac{r}{2}} \left( \gamma^{-(i-1)(j-1)} w_j + \gamma^{-(i-1)((r - j + 2) -1)} w_{r - j + 2} \right) \bigg] \label{eqn:cwsummation0} \\
\nonumber & = \frac{1}{r} \bigg[ - \frac{1}{m} + (-1)^{i-1} w_{\frac{r}{2} + 1} \\
& \hspace{5pt} + \sum_{j = 2}^{\frac{r}{2}} \left( \gamma^{-(i-1)(j-1)} w_j + (-1)^{j-1} \left(\gamma^{-(i-1)(j-1)} w_j \right)^* \right) \bigg]. \label{eqn:cwsummation1}\end{aligned}$$
From Lemma \[lem:wvec\], we may write $\gamma^{-(i-1)(j-1)} w_j = \beta e^{i \theta_j}$ for each $j = 2, ..., \frac{r}{2}$, where $\beta = \sqrt{\frac{1}{m} \left( r + \frac{1}{m} \right) }$. Then (\[eqn:cwsummation1\]) becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{r} \bigg[ - \frac{1}{m} + (-1)^{i-1} w_{\frac{r}{2} + 1} + \sum_{j~ \text{even}} 2 i \beta \sin(\theta_j)+ \sum_{j~ \text{odd}} 2 \beta \cos(\theta_j) \bigg]. \label{eqn:cwsummation2}\end{aligned}$$
Let $n_e$ be the number of even integers $j$ in the set $\{2, ..., \frac{r}{2}\}$, and $n_o$ the number of odd such integers. Lemma \[lem:wvec\] tells us that $|w_{\frac{r}{2} + 1}| = \beta$. From Lemma \[lem:cstarwstar\] we know that when $\frac{r}{2}$ is even $w_{\frac{r}{2} + 1}$ is purely real, and when $\frac{r}{2}$ is odd it is imaginary. In the former case, we may upper-bound $|c_{x^{i-1}}|$ by
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{r} \left| \frac{1}{m} + \beta + n_e 2i \beta + n_o 2 \beta \right| & = \frac{1}{r} \sqrt{ \left(\frac{1}{m} + \beta (1 + 2 n_o) \right)^2 + (2 n_e \beta)^2 }, \label{eqn:cohboundrdiv2even_2} \end{aligned}$$
and in the latter case we obtain the upper bound
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{r} \left| \frac{1}{m} + i \beta + n_e 2i \beta + n_o 2 \beta \right| = \frac{1}{r} \sqrt{ \left(\frac{1}{m} + 2 n_o \beta \right)^2 + \beta^2 (1 + 2 n_e)^2 }. \label{eqn:cohboundrdiv2odd_2}\end{aligned}$$
It is not too hard to see that when $\frac{r}{2}$ is even, we have $n_e = \frac{r}{4}$ and $n_o = \frac{r}{4} - 1$. When $\frac{r}{2}$ is odd we obtain $n_e = n_o = \frac{r}{4} - \frac{1}{2}$. We can now substitute these sets of values into (\[eqn:cohboundrdiv2even\_2\]) and (\[eqn:cohboundrdiv2odd\_2\]) respectively, and in either case we obtain the upper bound $$\begin{aligned}
|c_{x^{i-1}}| & \le \frac{1}{r} \sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{m} + \left(\frac{r}{2} - 1 \right) \beta \right)^2 + \left(\frac{r}{2}\right)^2 \beta^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Since our coherence is the maximum of the $|c_{x^{i-1}}|$, we are done.
[1]{}
[Matthew Thill]{} was born in Arlington Heights, IL. He received the B.S. degree in mathematics and the M.S. degree in electrical engineering in 2009 and 2012 respectively, both from the California Institute of Technology. He is currently completing his graduate studies in electrical engineering, also at Caltech, with research interests in communications, signal processing, coding theory, and network information theory. He was an NDSEG fellow from 2011 to 2014.
[Babak Hassibi]{} was born in Tehran, Iran, in 1967. He received the B.S. degree from the University of Tehran in 1989, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Stanford University in 1993 and 1996, respectively, all in electrical engineering.
He has been with the California Institute of Technology since January 2001, where he is currently the Gordon M Binder/Amgen Professor Of Electrical Engineering. From 2008-2015 he was Executive Officer of Electrical Engineering, as well as Associate Director of Information Science and Technology. From October 1996 to October 1998 he was a research associate at the Information Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, and from November 1998 to December 2000 he was a Member of the Technical Staff in the Mathematical Sciences Research Center at Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ. He has also held short-term appointments at Ricoh California Research Center, the Indian Institute of Science, and Linkoping University, Sweden. His research interests include wireless communications and networks, robust estimation and control, adaptive signal processing and linear algebra. He is the coauthor of the books (both with A.H. Sayed and T. Kailath) [*Indefinite Quadratic Estimation and Control: A Unified Approach to H$^2$ and H$^{\infty}$ Theories*]{} (New York: SIAM, 1999) and [*Linear Estimation*]{} (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000). He is a recipient of an Alborz Foundation Fellowship, the 1999 O. Hugo Schuck best paper award of the American Automatic Control Council (with H. Hindi and S.P. Boyd), the 2002 National ScienceFoundation Career Award, the 2002 Okawa Foundation Research Grant for Information and Telecommunications, the 2003 David and Lucille Packard Fellowship for Science and Engineering, the 2003 Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), and the 2009 Al-Marai Award for Innovative Research in Communications, and was a participant in the 2004 National Academy of Engineering “Frontiers in Engineering” program.
He has been a Guest Editor for the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory special issue on “space-time transmission, reception, coding and signal processing” was an Associate Editor for Communications of the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory during 2004-2006, and is currently an Editor for the Journal “Foundations and Trends in Information and Communication” and for the IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering. He is an IEEE Information Theory Society Distinguished Lecturer for 2016-2017.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we give a simple description of the deformations of a map between two smooth curves with partially prescribed branching, in the cases that both curves are fixed, and that the source is allowed to vary. Both descriptions work equally well in the tame or wild case. We then apply this result to obtain a positive-characteristic Brill-Noether-type result for ramified maps from general curves to the projective line, which even holds for wild ramification indices. Lastly, in the special case of rational functions on the projective line, we examine what we can say as a result about families of wildly ramified maps.'
author:
- Brian Osserman
bibliography:
- 'hgen.bib'
title: 'Deformations of covers, Brill-Noether theory, and wild ramification'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In studying ramified maps of curves, questions frequently arise which demand fixing ramification on the source, or branching on the target. In the case that the target curve is $\P^1$, the former is treated by the theory of linear series, which naturally works up to automorphism of the image, so we will refer to this as the linear series perspective. In contrast, we will refer to working with fixed branching on the target (and typically allowing the source curve itself to vary) as the branched covers perspective. Often, and particularly in the context of degeneration arguments over $\C$ [@e-h1], these perspectives have been considered more or less interchangeable. However, recently a number of fundamental differences have come to light (see for instance [@os7 Prop. 5.4, Rem. 8.3]), particularly in positive characteristic, and it has also proven fruitful to pass between the perspectives to take advantages of the distinct features of each, perhaps most notably in Tamagawa’s [@ta1]. In this note, we examine the deformation theory of covers with partial branching specified, and then apply it to the perspective of linear series to obtain a ramified Brill-Noether theorem in positive characteristic, in the case of one-dimensional target.
Our deformation theory result is straightforward to obtain from extremely well-known results, but does not appear to be stated in the literature. It is the following.
\[main-def\] Given $C, D$ smooth curves over a field $k$, and $f:C \rightarrow D$ of degree $d$, together with $k$-valued points $P_1, \dots, P_n$ of $C$ such that $f$ is ramified to order at least $e_i$ at each $P_i$ for some $e_i$, then the space of first-order infinitesmal deformations of $f$ together with the $P_i$ over $k$, such that $f(P_i)$ remains fixed and the $P_i$ remain ramified to order at least $e_i$, is parametrized by $$\label{main-eq} H^0(C, f^* T_D (-\sum_i
(e_i-\delta_i)P_i))\oplus k^{\sum_i(1-\delta_i)},$$ where $\delta_i=0$ if $p | e_i$ or $f$ is ramified to order higher than $e_i$ at $P_i$ and is $1$ otherwise.
Furthermore, the space of first-order infinitesmal deformations of $C,$ the $P_i$ and $f$, fixing $f(P_i)$ and preserving the ramification condition at each $P_i$, is parametrized by $$\label{main-eq2} \H^1(C, T_C(-\sum_i P_i) \rightarrow
f^* T_D(-\sum_i e_i P_i)) \cong k^{d(2-2g_D)-(2-2g_C)-\sum_i (e_i-1)},$$ where the last isomorphism requires also that $f$ be separable.
Finally, both statements still hold when some $e_i$ are allowed to be $0$, which we interpret to put no condition on the $P_i$ at all.
In the case that $f$ is tame and ramified to order exactly $e_i$ at the $P_i$, this is well-known. The main observation of the theorem, particularly in the first case, is that in order to obtain a useful theory, it is important to also consider the moduli of the ramification points, even when the branch points remain fixed. In the classical setting, this issue does not arise.
Next, if one considers the situation with $D=\P^1$, and ramification points specified on $C$, the perspective changes from branched covers to linear series with prescribed ramification. From this point of view, classical Brill-Noether theory gives a lower bound on the dimension of the space of maps as the $P_i$ (and even $C$) are allowed to move. The deformation theory of Theorem \[main-def\] gives the necessary upper bound, and allows us to conclude the following Brill-Noether result, generalizing [@e-h1 Thm. 4.5] to positive characteristic in the case $r=1$.
\[brill-noether\] Fix $d, n$ and $e_1, \dots, e_n$, together with $n$ general points $P_i$ on a general curve $C$ of genus $g$. Then the space of separable maps of degree $d$ from $C$ to $\P^1$, ramified to order at least $e_i$ at $P_i$, and taken modulo automorphism of the image space, is pure of dimension $2d-2-g-\sum_i (e_i-1)$.
Finally, we note that although from the perspective of branched covers, tame ramification is always well-behaved and wild ramification seems more pathological, the situation is not the same from the perspective of ramified linear series. Indeed, from this perspective a simple dimension count justifies the fact that wildly-ramified maps always come in infinite families. On the other hand, we have examples from [@os7 Prop. 5.4] of cases where tame ramification could only produce infinite families of separable maps with fixed ramification, and as a result of Brill-Noether theorem, can exist only for special configurations of $P_i$. We make some elementary observations that, at least in certain cases when $C=D=\P^1$, wildly ramified linear series are in fact rather well-behaved. One such result is the following.
\[wild\] Fix $d,n,m$, together with $n$ general points $P_i$ on $\P^1$, and $e_1, \dots, e_n$, with $e_i$ wild for $i \leq m$, and $e_i$ tame for $i>m$, and satisfying $2d-2 = m+\sum_i (e_i-1)$. Then the dimension of the space of separable maps of degree $d$ from $\P^1$ to $\P^1$, ramified to order exactly $e_i$ at $P_i$ and unramified elsewhere, and taken modulo automorphism of the image space, is exactly $m$. Moreover, if $m=1$, $e_1=p$, and $e_i<p$ for $i>1$, this space is non-empty if and only if the corresponding space is non-empty when one replaces $e_1=p$ with $e_1=p-1$, and considers maps of degree $d-1$.
Note that except when explicitly stated otherwise, we make no assertions about the non-emptyness of the space of maps with given ramification. However, the last statement of Theorem \[wild\] certainly produces cases of wild ramification in which for general $P_i$, the space of maps is non-empty of the expected dimension. This is thus better behavior than the pathological tame examples mentioned above. The subject of existence and non-existence will be taken up in [@os12]. Although the proof given here of Theorem \[brill-noether\] is not necessary for [@os12], it does provide the only purely algebraic, instrinsically characteristic-$p$ argument for the existence and non-existence results in question.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I would like to thank Johan de Jong for his tireless and invaluable guidance, and Ravi Vakil for his helpful conversations.
Deformation Theory
==================
Let $C, D$ be smooth curves over a field $k$, and $f:C \rightarrow D$ a morphism of degree $d>0$. We begin by reviewing some standard deformation theory, so that we can use formal local analysis to obtain Theorem \[main-def\]. It is well-known (see, e.g., [@va2 Appendix]) that the first-order infinitesmal deformations of $f$ are parametrized by $H^0(C, f^*(T_D))$, deformations of a pointed curve $(C,\{P_i\})$ by $H^1(C,T_C(-\sum_i P_i))$, and deformations of $(C,\{P_i\},f)$ by the hypercohomology group $\H^1(C,T_C(-\sum_i P_i)\rightarrow f^*T_D)$. By the same token, deformations of $k$-valued points $P_i$ are parametrized simply by $H^0(\Spec k, f^* (T_C)) \cong k$ (note that this is different from the case of deforming $C$ along with the $P_i$ because in this case, there are no automorphisms of $C$ to mod out by). These may be verified directly on the Cech cocycle level using the facts that $T_C$ is the sheaf of infinitesmal automorphisms of $C$, and that deformations of smooth, pointed curves are always locally trivial. In the case of pointed curves, one trivializes the deformation (including of the points) locally on $C$, and obtains the $1$-cocycle by considering the resulting transition functions, taking values in infinitesmal automorphisms; in order to give well-defined deformations of the $P_i$, these transition functions must vanish along them.
To prove Theorem \[main-def\], we therefore simply need to determine the locus inside $H^0(C, f^*(T_D)) \oplus
k^n$ corresponding to maps which fix $f(P_i)$ and preserve the ramification at $P_i$, and similarly for $\H^1(C,T_C(-\sum_i P_i)\rightarrow f^*T_D)$. We accomplish this easily by formal local analysis.
Since the first statement we are trying to prove gives a self-contained, purely local description of a subspace of $H^0(C, f^*(T_D)) \oplus k^n$, and fixing $f(P_i)$ and the ramification at $P_i$ are likewise purely local conditions, it suffices to check agreement formally locally around each $P_i$ and $f(P_i)$. Accordingly, let $s,t$ be formal coordinates at $P_i$, $f(P_i)$ respectively. We then have $f(s)=\sum_{j \geq 0} a_j s^j$ for some $a_j \in
k$ with $a_j=0$ for $j<e_i$. First, a deformation of $f$ will be of the form $\tilde{f}(s)=f(s)+\epsilon \sum_{j \geq 0} b_j s^j$, with the vanishing order of the $b_j$ being the vanishing order of the section of $H^0(C,
f^*(T_D))$ inducing the deformation. Since $P_i$ corresponds to $s=0$, a deformation of $P_i$ can be written simply as $\epsilon x$ for $x \in k$.
If we fix both $P_i$ and $f(P_i)$, then requiring that ramification of order $e_i$ be preserved is simply equivalent to requiring that $b_j=0$ for $j <
e_i$. If we fix $f(P_i)$, but allow $P_i$ to move, the condition that $f(P_i)$ is fixed is simply $\tilde{f}(\epsilon x)=0$, while the condition that $f$ remain ramified to order at least $e_i$ at $P_i$ may be expressed vanishing to order at least $e_i$ of $\tilde{f}$ when expanded around $s-\epsilon x$. Taylor expansion yields $\tilde{f}(s)= \sum_{j\geq 0} (a_j +
\epsilon (b_j+(j+1)a_{j+1} x))(s-\epsilon x)^j$. We see that for the first $e_i-1$ terms to vanish, we need $b_j=0$. For the $e_i$th term, which is $j=e_i-1$, we need $b_{e_i-1}+(e_i)a_{e_i} x=0$. The condition that $\tilde{f}(\epsilon x)=0$ may be written $b_0+a_1 x=0$. In the case $e_i>1$, this is automatically satisfied, while for $e_i=1$, it is redundant with the ramification condition. Now, if $e_i a_{e_i}$ is non-zero, we see that $b_{e_i-1}$ may be chosen arbitrarily, and uniquely determines $x$, giving the classical case of the theorem, where $\delta=1$. On the other hand, if $e_i a_{e_i}=0$, then we must have $b_{e_i-1}=0$, but $x$ can be arbitrary, giving the $\delta=0$ case and completing the proof of the theorem.
Given the deformation-theoretic machinery we have already recalled, the second statement of the theorem is even easier. Indeed, in our formal-local trivialization, we assume by construction that the sections also correspond to the trivial deformation, so that we are in the case above that we have fixed both $P_i$ and $f(P_i)$, where we already noted we simply find that $b_j=0$ for all $j<e_i$, which is equivalent to saying that our $0$-cochain of $f^*T_D$ must vanish to order $e_i$ at $P_i$, as desired. If $f$ is separable, the map $T_C(-\sum_i P_i) \rightarrow f^* T_D(-\sum_i e_i P_i))$ is injective, with cokernel equal to the skyscraper sheaf of length $\delta_{P_i}-(e_i-1)$ at each $P_i$, where $\delta_{P_i}$ is the order of the different of $f$ at $P_i$. The Riemann-Hurwitz formula then gives the desired value for the dimension of the deformation space.
Finally, it is also clear from our construction that both statements work when some $e_i=0$ and no condition is placed on the corresponding $P_i$.
Brill-Noether Theory
====================
In this section, we prove Theorem \[brill-noether\], using classical Brill-Noether theory together with Theorem \[main-def\]. Given two smooth curves $C,D$ over a finite-type $k$-scheme $S$, and integers $d,n$ and $e_1,
\dots e_n$, we have a moduli scheme $MR:=MR(C,D,d,e_1,\dots e_n)$ parametrizing $(n+1)$-tuples $(f, P_1, \dots P_n)$, where $f:C \rightarrow
D$ is a separable morphism of degree $d$, the $P_i$ are distinct sections of $C$, and $f$ is ramified to order at least $e_i$ at $P_i$ (and possibly elsewhere); see [@os7 Appendix]. This comes with natural forgetful morphisms $\ram: MR \rightarrow C^n$ and $\branch: MR \rightarrow
D^n$ giving the portion of the ramification and branch loci of the map $f$ which is mandated by the definition of $MR$; that is to say, the $P_i$ and $f(P_i)$ respectively. If we fix a scheme-valued point $b$ in $D^n$, $\branch^{-1}(b)$ is then the locus of maps $f:C \rightarrow D$ with the specified branching above each of the $n$ points corresponding to $b$.
Recall that in the case that $D=\P^1$, $MR$ admits a natural quotient scheme $\overline{MR}$ which parametrizes the appropriate linear series on $C$, together with ramification sections; that is to say, $\overline{MR}$ represents the quotient functor obtained simply by modding out by postcomposition with $\Aut(\P^1)$. This may be realized as a classical relative $G^r_d$ scheme over the base $C^n$, with prescribed ramification at the corresponding $n$ sections. Since this group action fixes $\ram$, we have that $\ram$ factors through $\overline{MR}$.
We present the $g=0$ case of Theorem \[brill-noether\] first, as a simpler and more direct illustration of the general idea, using the first statement of Theorem \[main-def\] directly. We thus specialize to the case that $C=\P^1$. It is not hard to see that separable maps from $\P^1$ to itself of degree $d$ are parametrized by an open subscheme of the Grassmannian $\G(1,d)$, and a ramification condition of order $e_i$ corresponds to a Schubert cycle of codimension $e_i-1$; see, e.g., [@os7 §2]. Moreover, this description works in the relative setting, so we conclude that $\overline{MR}$ has codimension $\sum_i (e_i-1)$ in the trivial $\G(1,d)$ bundle over $C^n=(\P^1)^n$. With these observations, we may easily prove the theorem.
Since $\G(1,d)$ is smooth of relative dimension $2d-2$ over $(\P^1)^n$, $\overline{MR}$ has dimension at least $n+2d-2-\sum_i (e_i-1)$, and it follows that $\dim MR = \dim
\overline{MR} + \dim \Aut(\P^1) \geq n+2d+1 -\sum_i(e_i-1)$. On the other hand, by Theorem \[main-def\] if we are given an $f \in MR$ the dimension of the tangent space of its fiber of $\branch$ is $h^0(\P^1, f^*
T_{\P^1} (-\sum_i (e_i-\delta_i)))+\sum_i(1-\delta_i)$ where $\delta_i=0$ if $p | e_i$ or $f$ is ramified to order higher than $e_i$ at $P_i$ and is $1$ otherwise. Since $T_{\P^1} \cong \O(2)$, we have $f^* T_{\P^1} (-\sum_i
(e_i-\delta_i)) \cong \O(2d- \sum_i(e_i-\delta_i))$. If $2d-\sum_i(e_i-\delta_i)$ is negative, Riemann-Hurwitz implies that $MR$ is empty, and otherwise we find that our $h^0$ is given by $2d+1-\sum_i(e_i-\delta_i)$, and the dimension of our tangent space by $2d+1-\sum_i(e_i-1)$. Thus $MR$ has dimension at most $n+2d+1-\sum_i (e_i-1)$, and this must give its dimension precisely. The theorem then follows.
We now consider the higher-genus case, assuming initially that $g \geq 2$. Instead of working over $\Spec k$, we let our base $S$ be a scheme étale over the moduli space $\M_{g,0}$ over $k$, and let $C$ be the corresponding universal curve over $S$. Even in this relative setting, if we twist by a sufficiently ample divisor $D$ on $C$ (since $g \geq 2$, we could use high powers of the anticanonical sheaf), and then impose vanishing along $D$, we can realize $\overline{MR}$ as a closed subscheme of a Grassmannian bundle over $\Pic_S(C)\times _S C^n$, with the ramification conditions corresponding to relative Schubert cycles. This construction is carried out in the more general setting of limit linear series on families of curves of compact type by Eisenbud and Harris in the proof of [@e-h1 Thm. 3.3].
The above classical description again gives a dimensional lower bound for $\overline{MR}$, this time as $(n+3g-3)+(2d-2-g)-(\sum_i(e_i-1))$, giving that $\dim MR \geq n+2g+2d-2-\sum_i(e_i-1)$. On the other hand, we see that the tangent space to a fiber of $MR$ over a point $(\P^1)^n$ (under the branch morphism composed with $S \rightarrow \Spec k$) is precisely a deformation of the corresponding curve $C_0$ with marked points $P_i$, together with the map to $\P^1$, fixing the $f(P_i)$ and the ramification conditions at the $P_i$. Since $g \geq 2$, there are no infinitesmal automorphisms to mod out by in the corresponding deformation theory problem of Theorem \[main-def\], so we find that the tangent space of the fiber is described by that theorem, and thus has dimension $2d-2+2g-\sum_i (e_i-1)$. We find as before that the dimension of $MR$ is at most, hence exactly, $n+2d-2+2g-\sum_i(e_i-1)$, and a fiber of $\overline{MR}$ over a general point of $C^n$ must have dimension $n+2d-2+2g-\sum_i(e_i-1)-(n+3g-3)-3=2d-2-g-\sum_i(e_i-1)$, as desired.
We conclude with the $g=1$ case (we could handle the $g=0$ case similarly, but since we have already given a proof in that case, we will not do so). Here, we argue as when $g \geq 2$, but let $S$ be étale over $\M_{1,1}$. The Brill-Noether lower bound works as before to give the relative dimension of $2d+1-g-\sum_i(e_i-1)$ for $MR$ over $C^n$, with the ample divisor in the construction arising from our given section. Because $S$ has dimension $3g-3+1$ in this case, we find we need the fiber of $MR$ over a point $(\P^1)^n$ to have dimension $1$ greater than before. The tangent space of this fiber at a point $(C_0,\{P_i\}_i,f)$ now includes a $P_0$ with $e_0=0$, giving the extra dimension, as desired.
One observes in the $g=1$ case above that even if all ramification is specified, the fiber dimension for fixed branching is 1. The reason for this is that the construction of $MR$ doesn’t see the marked point on the genus 1 curve which comes from a point of $S$, and still allows changing the ramification sections $P_1,\dots,P_n$ by automorphism of the underlying curve $C_0$.
We remark that although the $g=0$ case of this theorem is extremely easy in characteristic $0$, the situation is more delicate in characteristic $p$. In particular, in the intersection of the ramification Schubert cycles frequently has an excess intersection corresponding to inseparable maps of lower degree. Furthermore, examples such as $x^{p+2}+tx^p+x$ give tamely ramified situations where all non-empty fibers of $\ram$ have greater than the expected dimension; in such situations, $\ram(MR)$ necessarily fails to dominate $(\P^1)^n$ even though the expected dimension is non-negative. However, the argument of Theorem \[brill-noether\] implies that this can never happen for $\branch(MR)$.
In the situation of Theorem \[brill-noether\], but allowing the $P_i$ and $C$ to vary as in the proof, if $f\in MR$ is any point with any neighborhood $U \subset MR$, then $U$ dominates $(\P^1)^n$ under the $\branch$ morphism, with all fibers smooth of dimension $2d-2+2g-\sum(e_i-1)+\epsilon_g$, where $\epsilon_g$ is the dimension of the infinitesmal automorphism space of a curve of genus $g$ (i.e., 3 if $g=0$, 1 if $g=1$, and 0 otherwise).
We saw in the proof of Theorem \[brill-noether\] that if $MR$ is non-empty, it is pure of dimension $n+2g+2d-2+\epsilon_g-\sum_i(e_i-1)$, and that the tangent space at any point in any fiber of the $\branch$ morphism has dimension precisely $2d-2+2g+\epsilon_g-\sum_i(e_i-1)$. The corollary follows.
Wild Ramification
=================
We conclude with some largely elementary remarks on wild ramification, again in the situation that $C=D=\P^1$. The first observation is that by Riemann-Hurwitz in characteristic $p$, if any $e_i$ are wild, in order to have separable maps with the desired ramification, we must have $2d-2>\sum_i(e_i-1)$. The codimension count of the previous section then implies that the separable maps with at least the specified ramification will necessarily form an infinite family. Thus, the fact that wildly ramified maps come in infinite families is elementary from the perspective of linear series. With the exception of one application of Theorem \[brill-noether\] to prove Theorem \[wild\], all our observations will be of a completely elementary nature, but we hope they may shed some light on the behavior of wildly ramified maps.
The primary assertion follows from Theorem \[brill-noether\] together with the observation that under our hypotheses, the locus of maps $f$ with exactly the specified ramification is open in the locus of maps with at least the specified ramification. Indeed, having ramification exactly $e_i$ at $P_i$ is always open, since ramification can only decrease under deformation. On the other hand, by Riemann-Hurwitz a deformation cannot have additional ramification away from the $P_i$, since the different at each wild $e_i$ is necessarily at least $e_i$.
The second assertion will be a special case of the following proposition.
Considering Theorem \[brill-noether\] and the preceding argument, one might be led to expect that the space of wildly ramified maps having higher different at the wild points would have higher dimension. However, this is not necessarily the case. In the argument for openness above, we use minimality of the different in a key way. Indeed, if one deforms a map with greater than minimal discriminant, a new ramification point specializing to the wild point can appear, as illustrated (indirectly) by the following two propositions.
\[foo\] Let $d,n$ and $e_1, \dots, e_n$ be positive integers, with the $e_i$ less than $p$, and $2d-2=\sum_i (e_i-1)$. Also, let $P_1, \dots, P_n$ be distinct points on $\P^1$. Then there exists a separable map of degree $d$ from $\P^1$ to itself, ramified to order $e_i$ at $P_i$, if and only if there exists a separable map of degree $d+p-e_1$, ramified to order $e_i$ at $P_i$ for $i>1$, and order $p$ at $P_1$. The dimension of the space wild maps in this situation is $1$ more than the dimension of the space of tame ones.
We may assume that $P_1 = \infty$, and $f(\infty)=\infty$. Then we can go back and forth between the wild and tame cases simply by adding appropriate multiples of $x^p$, since the fact that $e_i <p$ for $i>1$ implies that the ramification away from $\infty$ will remain unchanged. We also use that the different in the wild case at $\infty$ is less than $2p$, so that if we subtract a multiple of $x^p$ from a wild map, the degree of the numerator cannot drop below the degree of the denominator. The difference in dimension comes from the fact that the multiple of $x^p$ added to obtain a wild map can be arbitrary.
Let $d,n$ and $e_1, \dots, e_n$ be positive integers, with $e_1=d=p$, $e_i$ less than $p$ for $i>1$, and $2d-2>\sum_i (e_i-1)$. Also, let $P_1, \dots, P_n$ be distinct points on $\P^1$. Then the space of separable maps of degree $d$ from $\P^1$ to itself, ramified to order $e_i$ at $P_i$ and unramified elsewhere, and taken modulo automorphism of the image, is non-empty of dimension $1$.
Without loss of generality, we can assume $P_1=\infty$ and $f(\infty)=\infty$; then $f$ is given by a polynomial of degree $p$. Since $e_i<p$ for $i>1$, the ramification conditions for $i>1$ determine the derivative of $f$ (up to scaling). On the other hand, since $\sum_{i>1}(e_i-1)<p-1$, an $f$ with the desired derivative always exists. The space is $1$-dimensional because the $x^p$ term may be scaled independently from the lower-order terms.
Up until now, all of our examples have suggested that the dimension of a wildly ramified family will always be equal to the number of wildly ramified points. However, the following example shows that this is not always the case, even for families existing for general $P_i$.
The family $\frac{x^{2p}+t_1x^{p+1}+t_2}{x^p+t_1 x}$ for $t_1,t_2$ non-zero is a two-dimensional family of rational functions (modulo automorphism of the image) ramified to order $p$ at infinity, and unramified elsewhere.
One can try to say more about the case with a single wildly ramified point by generalizing the argument of Proposition \[foo\], inductively inverting as necessary and subtracting off inseparable polynomials. However, there are subtleties to be aware for this sort of argument. In particular, neither the tame ramification indices nor the dimension of the tame family obtained in this process will be determined by the ramification indices and degree of the wildly ramified map. Indeed, the maps $\frac{x^5(x^{10}+x^7-2x)+1}{x^{10}+x^7-2x}$ and $\frac{x^5(x^5(x^5+x^4-x^3+2x)+x^2+2x+1)+x^5+x^4-x^3+2x}
{x^5(x^5+x^4-x^3+2x)+x^2+2x+1}$ in characteristic $5$ are both of degree $15$, ramified to order $5$ at infinity, and simply ramified at the $6$th roots of unity, but the tame functions they reduce to are $x^7-2x$ and $\frac{x^2+2x+1}{x^5+x^4-x^3+2x}$ respectively; the former moves in a one-dimensional family, while the latter doesn’t. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that each of the wild maps moves in a $2$-dimensional family.
However, even in the tame case the situation of one index being at least $p$ while the others are less than $p$ is pathological, so it is not clear how much general intuition one should attempt to draw from this case. That said, it is interesting that at least for this example, it seems the dimension in the wild case is in fact more uniform than the dimension in the tame case. This suggests that an approach other than reducing to the tame case is likeliest to be productive for analyzing the dimension of families of wildly ramified maps.
[^1]: This paper was partially supported by fellowships from the National Science Foundation and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
For the weight function $W_\mu(x) = (1-\|x\|^2)^\mu$, $\mu > -1$, $\lambda > 0$ [and $b_\mu$ a normalizing constant]{}, a family of mutually orthogonal polynomials on the unit ball with respect to the inner product $$\la f ,g \ra = {b_\mu \left[\int_{\BB^d} f(x) g(x) W_\mu(x) dx +
\lambda \int_{\BB^d} \nabla f(x)\,\cdot \nabla g(x) W_\mu(x) dx\right]}$$ are constructed in terms of spherical harmonics and a sequence of Sobolev orthogonal polynomials of one variable. The latter ones, hence, the orthogonal polynomials with respect to $\la \cdot,\cdot\ra$, can be generated through a recursive formula.
address:
- |
[Departamento de Matemática Aplicada\
Universidad de Granada\
18071 Granada, Spain]{}
- |
[Departamento de Matemática Aplicada\
Universidad de Granada\
18071 Granada, Spain]{}
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Oregon\
Eugene, Oregon 97403-1222.
author:
- 'Teresa E. Pérez'
- 'Miguel A. Piñar'
- Yuan Xu
title: Weighted Sobolev orthogonal polynomials on the unit ball
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
The orthogonal polynomials on the unit ball $\BB^d$ of $\RR^d$ have been well understood, especially those that are orthogonal with respect to the inner [product]{} $$\label{eq:ordinary-ip}
\la f, g\ra_\mu : = {b_\mu}\int_{\BB^d} f(x) g(x) W_\mu(x) dx,$$ where $W_\mu(x): = (1-\|x\|^2)^\mu$ on $\BB^d$, $\mu > -1$, [and $b_\mu$ is a normalizing constant such that $\la 1 ,1 \ra_\mu = 1$]{}. The condition $\mu > -1$ is necessary for the inner product to be well defined. The orthogonal polynomials for $\la f, g \ra_\mu$ are often called classical and they are eigenfunctions of a second order linear differential operator ${D_\mu}$.
The purpose of this paper is to study orthogonal polynomials on the unit ball with respect to an inner product that involves the integral of $\nabla f \cdot \nabla g$. The study in this direction was initiated in [@Xu08], where the inner product $$\label{eq:first-ip}
\la f,g \ra_{I} : = {\frac{\l}{\o_d}} \int_{\BB^d} \nabla f(x) \cdot \nabla g(x) dx + {\frac{1}{\o_d}} \int_{\sph} f(x) g(x) d\s, \quad \l >0,$$ and another one that has the last term in the right hand side of $\la f, g\ra_I$ replaced by ${f(0)g(0)}$ were considered. The orthogonal polynomials with respect to the inner product $\la f, g \ra_I$ have the distinction that they are eigenfunctions of the second order partial differential operator ${D_{-1}}$, which is the limiting case of ${D_\mu}$ when $\mu \to -1$ ([@PX08]). For the inner product $\la f, g \ra_I$, the main term is the first term, the integral over $\BB^d$, which however is zero if both $f$ and $g$ are constant, and the second term is necessary to make sure that $\la f , f \ra_I =0$ implies $f =0$ almost everywhere.
In the present paper, we first consider an extension of $\la f, g\ra_I$ that has the weight function $W_\mu$ in the integral over $\BB^d$ and will construct an orthonormal basis for this extension. We then study orthogonal polynomials with respect to the inner product $$\label{eq:main-ip}
\la f ,g \ra_{\mu,\BB^d}
= {b_\mu \left[\int_{\BB^d} f(x) g(x) W_\mu(x) dx +
\lambda \int_{\BB^d} \nabla f(x)\,\cdot \nabla g(x) W_\mu(x) dx\right]},
\quad \l > 0.$$ In this case, both the first term and the second term are over the unit ball and it [is]{} no longer clear which one is the dominating term. Nevertheless, we shall construct a sequence of orthogonal polynomials with respect to $ \la f ,g \ra_{\mu,\BB^d}$ explicitly, which depends on a two–parameter family of Sobolev polynomials of one variable. The latter ones can be expressed as a sum of Jacobi polynomials with the coefficients computed by a recursive relation. The norm of the orthogonal polynomials with respect to $ \la f ,g \ra_{\mu,\BB^d}$ can also be computed by a simple recursive relation. Such an orthogonal basis can be useful in the spectral method for PDE [@Li].
In contrast to the case of one variable, the Sobolev orthogonal polynomials in several variables have been studied only in a few cases and mostly on the unit ball [@AH; @PI; @PX08; @Xu06; @Xu08]. The setting of the unit ball has turned out to be more accessible and has revealed several interesting phenomena, which has stimulated and provided hint for the structure of the Sobolev orthogonal polynomials on other domains (see [@AX]). The present work is a further study on the unit ball, the results illustrate the impact of the secondary term in the Sobolev inner product, and also reveal further properties of the classical orthogonal polynomials on the unit ball.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we state the background materials and prove several properties of orthogonal polynomials on the unit ball and spherical harmonics that involve the action of $\nabla$. Orthogonal polynomials with respect to the Sobolev inner product that extends to weighted setting are discussed in Section 3, while those that are orthogonal with respect to $\la \cdot, \cdot \ra_{\mu, \BB^d}$ in are discussed in Section 5. The Sobolev orthogonal polynomials of one variable that will be needed for the construction in the Section 5 are studied in Section 4.
Orthogonal polynomials on the ball and spherical harmonics
==========================================================
In this section we describe background materials on orthogonal polynomials and spherical harmonics that we shall need. The first subsection recalls the basic results on the classical orthogonal polynomials on the unit ball. The second subsection contains several lemmas on the spherical harmonics under the action of the gradient operator. The third subsection collects properties on the Jacobi polynomials that we shall need later.
Orthogonal polynomials on the unit ball
---------------------------------------
For $x,y \in \RR^d$, we use the usual notation of $\|x\|$ and $\la x,y \ra$ to denote the Euclidean norm of $x$ and the dot product of $x,y$. The unit ball and the unit sphere in $\mathbb{R}^d$ are [denoted]{}, respectively, by $$\BB^d :=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^d: \|x\| \le 1\} \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad \SS^{d-1}:=\{\xi\in \mathbb{R}^d: \|\xi\| = 1\}.$$ For $\mu \in \RR$, let $W_\mu$ be the weight function defined by $$W_\mu(x) = (1-\|x\|^2)^\mu, \qquad \|x\| < 1.$$ The function $W_\mu$ is integrable on the unit [ball]{} if $\mu > -1$, for which we denote the normalization constant of $W_\mu$ by ${b_\mu}$, $$b_\mu := \left(\int_{{\BB^d}}\, W_\mu(x) \, dx\right)^{-1} = \frac{\Gamma(\mu + d/2 + 1)}{\pi^{d/2}\Gamma(\mu+1)}.$$ The classical orthogonal polynomials on the unit ball are orthogonal with respect to the inner product $$\label{ball-ip}
\la f,g \ra_\mu = b_\mu \int_{{\BB^d}}\, f(x)\, g(x) \, W_\mu(x) \, dx,$$ which is normalized so that $\la 1,1\ra_\mu = 1$.
Let $\Pi^d$ denote the space of polynomials in $d$ real variables. For $n = 0,1,2,\ldots,$ let $\Pi_n^d$ denote the linear space of polynomials in several variables of (total) degree at most $n$ and let $\CP_n^d$ denote the space of homogeneous polynomials of degree $n$. It is well known that $$\dim \Pi_n^d = \binom{n+d}{n} \quad \hbox{and} \quad \dim \CP_n^d = \binom{n+d-1}{n}:= r_n^d.$$ A polynomial $P \in \Pi_n^d$ is called orthogonal with respect to $W_\mu$ on the ball if $\la P, Q\ra_\mu =0$ for all $Q \in \Pi_{n-1}^d$, that is, if it is orthogonal to all polynomials of less [degree]{}. Let $\CV_n^d(W_\mu)$ denote the space of orthogonal polynomials of total degree $n$ with respect to $W_\mu$. Then $\dim \, \mathcal{V}_n^d(W_\mu) = r_n^d.$
For $n\ge 0$, let $\{P^n_{\alpha}(x) : |\alpha|=n\}$ denote a basis of $\mathcal{V}_n^d(W_\mu)$. Then every element of $\CV_n^d(W_\mu)$ is orthogonal to polynomials of less degree. If the elements of the basis are also orthogonal to each other, that is, $\la P_\a^n, P_\beta^n \ra_\mu=0$ whenever $\a \ne \b$, we call the basis mutually orthogonal. If, in addition, $\la P_\a^n, P_\a^n \ra_\mu =1$, we call the basis orthonormal.
In spherical–polar coordinates $x = r \xi$, $ r > 0$ and $\xi \in \sph$, a mutually orthogonal basis of $\CV_n^d(W_\mu)$ can be given in terms of the Jacobi polynomials and spherical harmonics.
Harmonic polynomials of $d$-variables are homogeneous polynomials in $\CP_n^d$ that satisfy the Laplace equation $\Delta Y = 0$, where $\Delta = \f {\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2} + \ldots + \f{\partial^2}{\partial x_d^2}$ is the usual Laplace operator. Let $\mathcal{H}_n^d$ denotes the space of harmonic polynomials of degree $n$. It is well know that $$a_n^d: = \dim \mathcal{H}_n^d = \binom{n+d-1}{n} - \binom{n+d-3}{n}.$$ Spherical harmonics are the restriction of harmonic polynomials on the unit sphere. If $Y \in
\mathcal{H}_n^d$, [then]{} $Y(x) = r^n Y(\xi)$ in spherical–polar [coordinates]{} $x = r \xi$, so that $Y$ is uniquely determined by its restriction on the sphere. We shall also use $\CH_n^d$ to denote the space of spherical harmonics of degree $n$. Let $d \s$ denote the surface measure and $\o_d$ denote the surface area, $$\omega_d := \int_{\SS^{d-1}} d\s = \frac{2\, \pi^{d/2}}{\Gamma(d/2)}.$$ The spherical harmonics of different degrees are orthogonal with respect to the inner product $$\la f, g \ra_{\sph}: = \f{1}{\o_d} \int_{\sph} f(\xi) g(\xi) d\s(\xi).$$
Let $P_n^{(\a,\b)}(t)$ denotes the usual Jacobi polynomial of degree $n$, which is orthogonal with respect to the weight function $$w_{\a,\b}(t) = (1-t)^\a (1+t)^\b, \qquad \a,\b > -1, \quad t \in [-1,1].$$ We can now state the orthogonal basis of $\CV_n^d(W_\mu)$ in spherical–polar coordinates (see, for example, [@DX01]).
For $n \in \NN_0$ and $0 \le j \le n/2$, let $\{Y_\nu^{n-2j}: 1\le \nu\le a_{n-2j}^d\}$ denote an orthonormal basis for $\mathcal{H}_{n-2j}^d$. Define $$\label{baseP}
P_{j,\nu}^{n}(x) = P_{j}^{(\mu, n-2j + \frac{d-2}{2})}(2\,\|x\|^2 -1)\, Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x).$$ Then the set $\{P_{j,\nu}^{n}(x): 1 \le j \le n/2, \,1 \le \nu \le a_{n-2j}^d \}$ is a mutually orthogonal basis of $\CV_n^d(W_\mu)$. More precisely, $$\la P_{j,\nu}^{n}(x), P_{k,\eta}^{m}(x)\ra_\mu = H_{j,n}^{\mu} \delta_{n,m}\,\delta_{j,k}\,\delta_{\nu,\eta},$$ where $ H_{j,n}^{\mu}$ is given by $$\label{eq:Hjn-mu}
H_{j,n}^{\mu}: = \frac{(\mu +1)_j (\frac{d}{2})_{n-j} (n-j+\mu+ \frac{d}{2})}
{ j! (\mu+\frac{d+2}{2})_{n-j} (n+\mu+ \frac{d}{2})},$$ [where $(a)_n= a(a+1) \ldots (a+n-1)$ denotes the Pochhammer symbol.]{}
It is known that orthogonal polynomials with respect to $W_\mu$ are eigenfunctions of a second order differential operator $\CD_\mu$. More precisely, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Bdiff}
\CD_\mu P = -(n+d) (n + 2 \mu)P, \qquad \forall P \in \CV_n^d(W_\mu), \end{aligned}$$ where $$\CD_\mu := \Delta - \sum_{j=1}^d \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} x_j \left[
2 \mu + \sum_{i=1}^d x_i \frac{\partial }
{\partial x_i} \right].$$
Spherical harmonics
-------------------
For later study, we will need several properties of spherical harmonics. Let $\nabla$ denote the gradient operator $$\nabla f := (\partial_1 f, \partial_2 f, \ldots, \partial_d f)^T,$$ where $\partial_k$ denotes the partial derivative in the $k$–th variable. We denote the dot product of $\nabla f$ and $\nabla g$ by $\nabla f \cdot \nabla g$.
In spherical–polar coordinates $x = r \xi$, $r \ge 0$ and $\xi \in \sph$, the differential operators $\nabla$ and $\Delta$ can be decomposed as follows (cf. [@DX12]): $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla = & \frac{1}{r}\nabla_0 + \xi \frac{\partial}{\partial r}, \label{nabla-radial} \\
\Delta = & \frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2} + \frac{d-1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} + \frac{1}{r^2}\Delta_0. \label{L-B-operator}\end{aligned}$$ The operators $\nabla_0$ and $\Delta_0$ are the spherical parts of the gradient and the Laplacian, respectively. The operator $\Delta_0$ is called the Laplace–Beltrami operator, which has spherical harmonics as its eigenfunctions. More precisely, it holds(cf. [@DX12]) $$\label{eigen}
\Delta_0 Y (\xi) = -n(n+d-2)Y(\xi), \quad \forall \,Y\, \in\,\mathcal{H}_n^d, \quad \xi \in \SS^{d-1}.$$
In addition, harmonic polynomials satisfy the following properties:
\[lem:2.2-harmonic\] Let $\{Y_\nu^n: 1 \le \nu \le a_n^d\}$ be an orthonormal basis of $\CH_n^d$. Let $x = r \xi$, with $r > 0$ and $\xi\in \SS^{d-1}$. Then
1. $\xi \cdot\nabla_0 Y_\nu^{n}(x)= 0,$
2. $\displaystyle{ \nabla Y_\nu^{n}(x)\cdot \nabla Y_\eta^{m}(x) =
\frac{1}{r^2}\,\nabla_0 Y^{n}_\nu(x)\cdot \nabla_0 Y^{m}_\eta (x)
+\frac{n\,m}{r^2} Y^{n}_\mu(x)Y^{m}_\eta(x)}$.
3. For $1\le \nu \le a_n^d$ and $1\le \eta \le a_m^d$, the following relation holds $$\label{nabla-Y-int}
\frac{1}{\o_d} \int_{\SS^{d-1}}\nabla Y_\nu^{n}(\xi)\cdot \nabla Y_\eta^{m}(\xi) d\s (\xi)
= n(2n+d-2) \delta_{n,m}\delta_{\nu,\eta}.$$
Since $Y_\nu^n$ is homogeneous, $\frac{d}{dr}Y_\nu^n(x) = n Y_\nu^n (x)/r$ and, by the Euler’s equation for homogeneous polynomials, $x \cdot \nabla Y_\nu^n(x) = n Y_\nu^n(x)$. Hence, by $$\begin{aligned}
\xi \cdot \nabla_0 Y_\nu^{n}(x) = x \cdot \nabla Y_\nu^{n}(x) - r \frac{n}{r} Y_\nu^{n}(x) = n Y_\nu^{n}(x) - n Y_{{\nu}}^{n}(x)= 0.\end{aligned}$$
Using (i), the proof of (ii) follows from and a straightforward computation.
For the proof of (iii), we will need the Green’s formula on the sphere (cf. [@DX12]), $$\label{Green-Beltrami}
\int_{\SS^{d-1}} \nabla_0 f(\xi)\cdot\nabla_0 g(\xi) d\s(\xi) = - \int_{\SS^{d-1}} \Delta_0 f(\xi) g(\xi) d\s(\xi).$$ Applying on the identity in (ii) and using , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\int_{\SS^{d-1}}\nabla Y_\nu^{n}(\xi)\cdot \nabla Y_\eta^{m}(\xi) d\s(\xi)}\\
&= \int_{\SS^{d-1}}\nabla_0 Y_\nu^{n}(\xi)\cdot \nabla_0 Y_\eta^{m}(\xi)d\s(\xi) +
nm \int_{\SS^{d-1}}Y_\nu^{n}(x)Y_\eta^{m}(x)d\s(\xi)\\
&= \int_{\SS^{d-1}}\Delta_0 Y_\nu^{n}(\xi)\,Y_\eta^{m}(\xi)d\s(\xi) +
n m \omega_{d}\delta_{n,m}\delta_{\nu,\eta}\\
&= n(n+d-2)\int_{\SS^{d-1}} Y_\nu^{n}(\xi)Y_\eta^{m}(\xi)d\s(\xi) +
n^2 \omega_{d}\delta_{n,m}\delta_{\nu,\eta}\\
&= n(2n+d-2) \o_{d}\delta_{n,m}\delta_{\nu,\eta}.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
\[lem:3.4\] Let $\{Y_\nu^n: 1 \le \nu \le a_n^d\}$ be an orthonormal basis of $\CH_n^d$. For $\mu > -1$, $n\neq m$, $1 \le \nu \le a_n^d$ and $1 \le \eta \le a_m^d$,
1. $\displaystyle{b_\mu \int_{\BB^d} Y_\nu^{n}(x) Y_\eta^{m}(x)W_\mu(x) dx
= \frac{(\frac d 2)_n}{(\mu+1 +\frac d 2)_n} \delta_{n,m} \delta_{\nu,\eta} }$
2. $\displaystyle{b_\mu \int_{\BB^d} \nabla Y_\nu^{n}(x) \cdot \nabla Y_\eta^{m}(x)W_{\mu+1}(x) dx =
2n (\mu+1) \frac{(\frac d 2)_n}{(\mu+1 + \frac d 2)_n} \delta_{n,m} \delta_{\nu,\eta}.}$
The proof uses the following well known identity $$\label{changevar}
\int_{\BB^d} f(x) dx = \int_0^1 r^{d-1}\int_{\SS^{d-1}}f(r\,\xi)\, d\s (\xi)\,dr$$ that arises from the spherical–polar coordinates $x=r\,\xi$, $\xi\in \SS^{d-1}$. Since $Y_\nu^n$ is a homogeneous polynomial, $Y_n^\mu(x) = r^n Y_n^\mu(\xi)$, so that $$b_\mu \int_{\BB^d} Y_\nu^{n}(x) Y_\eta^{m}(x)W_\mu(x) dx
= b_\mu \o_d \int_0^1 r^{2n + d-1}(1-r^2)^\mu dr \delta_{n,m} \delta_{\nu,\eta}$$ by the orthonormality of $Y_\mu^n$ with respect to $\la f, g \ra_{\sph}$, from which (i) follows upon evaluating the integral and using the fact that $$\label{b-mu-omega}
b_\mu \o_d = 2 \frac{\Gamma(\mu+1+ \frac d 2)}{ \Gamma(\mu+1)\Gamma(\frac d 2)}.$$ Since $\nabla Y_\mu^n(x) = r^{n-1} (\nabla Y_\mu^n)(\xi)$, (ii) follows similarly.
Classical Jacobi polynomials
----------------------------
We collect the properties of the classical Jacobi polynomials $P_n^{(\a,\b)}(t)$ that we shall need below, most of which can be found in [@AS chapt. 22] and [@Sz]. The Jacobi polynomial $P_n^{(\alpha, \beta)}(t)$ is normalized by $$\label{jac-norm}
P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}(1) = \binom{n+\alpha}{n} = \frac{(\a+1)_n}{n!},$$ For $\a, \b > -1$, these polynomials are orthogonal with respect to the Jacobi weight function $$w_{\a,\b}(t) := (1-t)^\alpha(1+t)^{\beta}, \qquad -1< x < 1,$$ and their $L^2$ norms in $L^2(w_{\a,\b}, [-1,1])$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{normJ}
h_n^{(\alpha,\beta)} := & \int_{-1}^1 P_{n}^{(\alpha, \beta)}(t)^2 \, w_{\alpha,\beta}(t)\,dt
= \frac{2^{\alpha+\beta+1}}{2n+\alpha+\beta+1} \frac{\Gamma(n+\alpha+1)\,\Gamma(n+\beta+1)}{n!\,\Gamma(n+\alpha+\beta+1)}.\end{aligned}$$ The polynomial $P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t)$ is of degree $n$ and its leading coefficient $k_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ is given by $$\label{leadingcoef}
k_n^{(\alpha,\beta)} = \frac{1}{2^n}\, \binom{2n + \alpha + \beta}{n}.$$ The derivative of a Jacobi polynomial is again a Jacobi [polynomial]{}, $$\label{derJ}
\frac{d}{d t} P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t) = \frac{n+\alpha + \beta+1}{2} P_{n-1}^{(\alpha+1,\beta+1)}(t).$$
The following relations between different families of the Jacobi polynomials can be found in ([@AS Chapt. 22]): $$\begin{aligned}
&~& (1+t) P_n^{(\alpha,\beta+1)}(t) = \frac{n+\beta+1}{2n+\alpha+\beta+2}P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t) + \frac{n+1}{2n+\alpha+\beta+2}P_{n+1}^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t),\label{RAF2}\\
&~& P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t) = a_n^{(\alpha,\beta)} P_n^{(\alpha+1,\beta)}(t) - b_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}P_{n-1}^{(\alpha+1,\beta)}(t),\label{RAF}\\
&~& P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t) = a_n^{(\alpha,\beta)} P_n^{(\alpha,\beta+1)}(t) + b_n^{(\beta,\alpha)}P_{n-1}^{(\alpha,\beta+1)}(t),\label{RAF0}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{coef-a-b}
a_n^{(\alpha,\beta)} = \frac{n+\alpha+\beta+1}{2\,n + \alpha + \beta+1}, \quad b_n^{(\alpha,\beta)} = \frac{n+\beta}{2\,n + \alpha + \beta+1}.$$ They are used to prove the following two relations that we need later.
\[lem:Jacobi-recur\] For $\a > -1$ and $\b > 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
(1+t)\,\frac{d}{d t} P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t) = \beta \, P_{n-1}^{(\alpha+1,\beta)}(t) + n \,P_n^{(\alpha+1,\beta-1)}(t)
\label{jac-*} \\
\beta P_{n}^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t) + (1+t)\,\frac{d}{d t} P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t) = (\beta + n) \,P_n^{(\alpha+1,\beta-1)}(t)
\label{jac-**}\end{aligned}$$
From and , we deduce $$\begin{aligned}
(1+t)\,\frac{d}{d t} P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t) =\ & (1+t)\,\frac{n+\alpha+\beta +1}{2}P_{n-1}^{(\alpha+1,\beta+1)}(t)\\
=\ & \frac{n+\alpha+\beta+1}{2n+\alpha+\beta+1} \left[(n+\beta)\,P_{n-1}^{(\alpha+1,\beta)}(t) + n\,P_n^{(\alpha+1,\beta)}(t)\right],\end{aligned}$$ replacing the last term by, according to , $$P_{n}^{(\alpha+1,\beta)}(t) = \frac{2n+\alpha+ \beta +1}{n+\alpha + \beta +1}P_{n}^{(\alpha+1,\beta-1)}(t)-
\frac{n+\alpha + 1}{n+\alpha + \beta +1}P_{n-1}^{(\alpha+1,\beta)}(t)$$ and simplifying the result, we obtain . The relation is deduced from upon using $P_n^{(\alpha,\beta-1)}(t) - P_n^{(\alpha-1,\beta)}(t) = P_{n-1}^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t)$, which follows from and .
Sobolev orthogonal polynomials with a spherical term
====================================================
The first study of such orthogonal polynomials was initiated in [@Xu08], where orthogonal polynomials with respect to the inner product $$\label{ip1A}
\langle f,g \rangle_\nabla := \frac{\l}{\o_d} \int_{\BB^d}
\nabla f(x) \cdot \nabla g(x) dx + \frac{1}{\o_{d}} \int_{\SS^{d-1}} f(\xi)g(\xi) d\s(\xi)$$ were studied. Let $\CV_n^d (\nabla)$ denote the space of orthogonal polynomials of degree $n$ with respect to $\la \cdot,\cdot \ra_\nabla$. An orthogonal basis for this inner product is given as follows.
\[thm:U-basis\] A mutually orthogonal basis $\{U_{j,\nu}^n: 0 \le j \le \frac{n}{2},
1 \le \nu \le {a_{n-2j}^d} \}$ for $\CV_n^d(\nabla)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:basisI}
\begin{split}
U_{0,\nu}^n(x) & = Y_\nu^n(x), \quad \\
U_{j,\nu}^n(x) & = (1-\|x\|^2) P_{j-1}^{(1,n-2j+\frac{d-2}{2})}(2\|x\|^2-1)
Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x), \quad 1 \le j \le \frac{n}{2},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\{Y_\nu^{n-2j}: 1 \le \nu \le {a_{n-2j}^d}\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\CH_{n-2j}^d$. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:RnormI}
\langle U_{0,\nu}^n, U_{0,\nu}^n \rangle_\nabla = n \l +1, \qquad
\langle U_{j, \nu}^n, U_{j, \nu}^n \rangle_\nabla =\frac{2 j^2}{n+\frac{d-2}{2}} \l.\end{aligned}$$
In particular, it was observed that the space $\CV_n^d(\nabla)$ can be decomposed in terms of the space $\CV_n(W_\mu)$ of classical orthogonal polynomials on the ball and the space $\CH_n^d$ of the spherical harmonics; that is, for $n \ge 1$, $$\label{eq:Vn-decomp}
\CV_n^d(\nabla) = \CH_n^d \oplus (1-\|x\|^2)\CV_{n-2}^d(W_1).$$ [Moreover]{}, it was shown in [@PX08] that the elements of $\CV_n^d(\nabla)$ are eigenfunctions of the differential operator $\CD_{-1}$, that is, they satisfy the equation with $\mu = -1$. The phenomenon of the decomposition was first observed in [@Xu06] for orthogonal polynomials with respect to an inner product that involves second order partial derivatives.
The proof that $U_{j,\nu}^n$ are orthogonal with respect to $\la \cdot, \cdot\ra_\nabla$ given in [@Xu08] is based on the Green’s identity $$\int_{\BB^d} \nabla f(x)\cdot \nabla g(x)\, dx = \int_{\SS^{d-1}} f(\xi)\, \frac{d}{dr} g(\xi)\,d\s(\xi)
- \int_{\BB^d} f(x) \,\Delta g(x) dx.$$There is a weighted extension of Green’s formula, which states that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:weighted-Green}
\int_{\BB^d} \nabla f(x)\cdot \nabla g(x)\, h(x) dx =& \int_{\SS^{d-1}} f(\xi)\, \frac{d g}{dr} (\xi)\, h(\xi)\,d\s \\
& - \int_{\BB^d} f(x) \left(\Delta g(x)\,h(x) + \nabla g(x)\,\nabla h(x)\right) dx, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $f,g,h$ are differentiable functions for which the integrals are finite. The proof of this identity follows from applying the divergence theorem on the identity $${\rm div~}(f\,\nabla g\, h) = \nabla f\cdot \nabla g\, h + f\,\Delta g\,h + f\,\nabla g\cdot\nabla h,$$ where ${\rm div}$ is the divergence operator defined by ${\rm div} (f_1(x), f_2(x), \ldots, f_d(x))^T
= \sum_{i=1}^d \partial_i f_i(x)$.
As an extension of , one can consider more generally the weighted inner product defined as follows.
For $\mu > -1$ and $f,g \in \Pi^d$, [we]{} define $$\label{eq:ip-sph-W}
\la f, g \ra_{\nabla, W_\mu}:= \frac{\l}{\o_d} \int_{\BB^d}
\nabla f(x) \cdot \nabla g(x) W_{\mu+1}(x) dx + \frac{1}{\o_{d}} \int_{\SS^{d-1}} f(\xi)g(\xi) d\s(\xi).$$
It is easy to see that this defines an inner product. The inner product $\la f,g\ra_\nabla$ in is the limiting case when $\mu = -1$.
Let us denote by $\CV_n^d(\nabla, W_\mu)$ the space of orthogonal polynomials of degree exactly $n$ with respect to this inner product. We want to construct a basis for this space.
Recall that the polynomials ${P_{j,\nu}^n(x)}$, defined in , are orthogonal with respect to $W_\mu$ on $\BB^d$. To construct an orthogonal basis for $\CV_n^d(\nabla, W_\mu)$, we need the following proposition that is of independent interest, which states that the orthogonal polynomials $P_{j,\nu}^n(x;W_\mu)$ satisfy another orthogonality on the ball.
\[lem:3.3\] Let $\mu > -1$ and let $P_{j,\nu}^n(x)$ be the mutually orthogonal polynomials in $\CV_n^d(W_\mu)$, defined in . Then $$\label{ortho-nabla}
b_\mu \int_{\BB^d} \nabla P_{j,\nu}^n (x) \cdot \nabla P_{k,\eta}^m (x) W_{\mu+1}(x) dx =
H_{j,n}^\mu(\nabla) \delta_{n,m} \delta_{j,k} \delta_{\nu,\eta},$$ where, with $H_{j,\mu}^n$ defined in , $$H_{j,n}^\mu(\nabla) : = \left(n(2j+\mu+1)- j(2j-d+2) \right) H_{j,n}^\mu.$$
For $\mu > -1$, $W_{\mu+1}(x) = (1-\|x\|^2) W_{\mu}(x)$ vanishes when $x \in \SS^{d-1}$. Hence, by , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:proof-a}
& \int_{\BB^d} \nabla P_{j,\nu}^n(x) \cdot \nabla P_{k,\eta}^m(x) W_{\mu+1}(x) dx \\
& \quad = - \int_{\BB^d} P_{k,\eta}^m(x) \left[(1-\|x\|^2)\Delta - 2(\mu+1)\langle x,\nabla\rangle \right] P_{j,\nu}^n(x)
W_{\mu}(x) dx. \notag\end{aligned}$$ Observe that $\left[(1-\|x\|^2)\Delta - 2(\mu+1)\langle x,\nabla\rangle \right] Q(x)$ has the same degree as $Q$, this proves the orthogonality when $n \ne m$ by the orthogonality of $P_{k,\eta}^m \in
\CV_m^d(W_\mu)$. To prove the [mutual]{} orthogonality in , we need to compute $$\left[(1-\|x\|^2)\Delta - 2(\mu+1)\langle x,\nabla\rangle \right] P_{j,\nu}^n(x).$$ Let ${\beta_j} = n-2 j + \frac{d-2}{2}$. Then ${P_{j,\nu}^n (x)} = P_j^{(\mu,\b_j)} (2 r^2-1) r^{n-2j} Y_\nu^{n-2j}(\xi)$ in the spherical-polar coordinates $x = r \xi$. Using the expression of $\Delta$ in and the derivative formula of the Jacobi polynomials, it is not difficult to verify that $$\begin{aligned}
(1-\|x\|^2)\Delta P_{j,\nu}^n(x) = \, & 2(j+\mu+{\beta_j}+1) \left[ 2(j+\mu+{\beta_j}+2) r^2 P_{j-2}^{(\mu+2, {\beta_j}+2)}(2r^2-1) \right. \\
&\left.+ (2n-4j+d)P_{j-1}^{(\mu+1, {\beta_j}+1)}(2r^2-1)\right] Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x).\notag\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, by , $x \cdot \nabla = \xi \cdot \nabla_0 + r \frac{\partial}{\partial r}$ and, by (i) of Lemma \[lem:2.2-harmonic\], $\xi \cdot \nabla_0 Y_\mu^n(\xi) =0$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\la x,\nabla \ra P_{j,\nu}^n(x) = & \left[ 2(j+\mu+{\beta_j}+1)r^2 P_{j-1}^{(\mu+1, {\beta_j}+1)}(2r^2-1) \right. \\
& \left .+ (n-2j)P_{j}^{(\mu, {\beta_j})}(2r^2-1)\right] Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x). \end{aligned}$$ Both of these terms are of the form $q(\|x\|^2) Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x)$. Hence, looking at the leading coefficients of the Jacobi polynomials, given in , we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
& \left[(1-\|x\|^2)\Delta - 2(\mu+1)\langle x,\nabla\rangle \right] P_{j,\nu}^n(x) \\
& \qquad = \left(n(2j+\mu+1)- j(2j-d+2) \right)P_j^{(\mu,{\beta_j})} (2 \|x\|^2-1) Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x) + g(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is a polynomial of degree at most $n-2$. Consequently, by the orthogonality of $P_{j,\nu}^n$ as an element of $\CV_n^d(W_\mu)$, follows from .
When $j = 0$, the orthogonal polynomials ${P_{j,\nu}^n(x)}$ become spherical harmonics $P_{0,\nu}^{n}(x) = Y_\nu^{n}(x)$, and agrees with (ii) in Lemma \[lem:3.4\].
\[thm:3.5\] For $j \le n/2$, let $\{Y_\nu^{n-2j}: 0 \le \nu \le a_{n-2j}^d\}$ be an orthonormal basis of $\CH_{n-2j}^d$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Q-basis}
\begin{split}
Q_{0,\nu}^n(x) &: = {Y_\nu^n(x)}, \\
Q_{j,\nu}^n (x) & : = \left[P_j^{(\mu, \beta_j)}(2\|x\|^2 -1) - P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta_j)}(1) \right]Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x),
\quad 1 \le j \le \frac{n}2.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta_j : =n-2j+\frac{d-2}{2}$. Then $\{Q_{j, \nu}^n: 0 \le j \le n/2, 1 \le \nu \le a_{n-2j}^d\}$ forms a mutually orthogonal basis of $\CV_n^d(\nabla, W_\mu)$. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
\la Q_{0,\nu}^n, Q_{0,\nu}^n \ra_{\nabla, W_\mu} & = \lambda n \frac{\Gamma(\mu+2)\Gamma(n+\f d 2)}
{\Gamma(\mu+n+1 + \f d 2)} + 1, \\
\la Q_{j,\nu}^n, Q_{j,\nu}^n \ra_{\nabla, W_\mu} & = \lambda \left(n(2j+\mu+1)- j(2j-d+2) \right) \\
& \qquad \times \frac{\Gamma(\mu+j+1)\Gamma(n-j+\f d 2)
(\mu+n-j+\frac{d}2)}{j! \Gamma(\mu+n- j+1+ \f d 2) (n+\mu+\frac{d}2)} \\
& + \lambda (n-2j)\frac{ \Gamma(\mu+2) \Gamma(n-2j+\f d2)(\mu+1)_j^2}{\Gamma(n-2j+\mu + \f d 2)j^2},
\quad \hbox{if $1 \le j \le \f n 2$}.\end{aligned}$$
If $j =0$, then the orthogonality of $Q_{0,\nu}^n$ to lower degree polynomials and to $Q_{j,\nu}^n$ for $j > 0$ follows from (i) in Lemma \[lem:3.4\] and the orthogonality of $Y_\nu^n$. Furthermore, the same consideration shows that $$\la Q_{0,\nu}^n, Q_{0,\nu}^n \ra_{\nabla, W_\mu} = \f {\l}{\o_d b_\mu} 2n (\mu+1)
\frac{(\f d 2)_n}{(\mu+1+\f d 2)_n} + 1,$$ which simplifies to the stated formula upon using .
If $0< j \le n/2$, then $Q_{j,\nu}^n \vert_{\sph}$ vanishes on the sphere as its radial part vanishes when $\|x\| =1$, so that we only needs to consider the integral over $\BB^d$ in the inner product $\la \cdot,\cdot\ra_{\nabla, W_\mu}$. Furthermore, in terms of $P_{j,\nu}^n$ in of $\CV_n^d(W_\mu)$, we can write $$Q_{j,\nu}^n (x) = P_{j,\nu}^n(x) - P_j^{(\mu, n-2j + \f{d-2}{2})}(1) Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x)$$ and observe that $Y_\nu^{n-2j}$ is a polynomial of degree less than $n$ for $j > 0$, the mutual orthogonality of $\{Q_{j,\nu}^n: 0 \le j \le n/2\}$ then follows from . Moreover, it follows readily that $$\begin{aligned}
\la Q_{j,\nu}^n, Q_{j,\nu}^n \ra_{\nabla, W_\mu} = & \frac{\lambda}{\o_d}
\left[ \int_{\BB^d} [\nabla P_{j,\nu}^n(x)]^2 W_{\mu+1}(x)dx \right. \\
& \quad\, \, \left. + \frac{(\mu+1)_j^2}{j!^2}
\int_{\BB^d} [ Y_\nu^{n-2j} (x)]^2 W_{\mu+1}(x) dx
\right], \end{aligned}$$ where we have used $ P_j^{(\mu,n-2j+\f{d-2}{2})}(1) = \frac{(\mu+1)_j}{j!}$. Hence, the norm of $Q_{j,\nu}^n$ can now be deduced from and (ii) of Lemma \[lem:3.4\], and [simplified]{} to the stated formula upon using and .
If we set $\mu \to -1$ in the above theorem, then since [@Sz (4.22.2)] $$P_j^{(-1,\beta)} (t) = \frac{j+\beta}{2j} (1-t) P_{j-1}^{(1,\beta)}(t),$$ it is easy to see that Theorem \[thm:3.5\] agrees with Theorem \[thm:U-basis\]. The decomposition , however, does not extend to $\CV_n^d(\nabla, W_\mu)$.
Finally, it is worth to mention that the orthogonal polynomials in $CV_n^d(W_\mu)$ are automatically orthogonal with respect to a Sobolev inner product according to Proposition \[lem:3.3\].
Let $\mu > -1$ and let $P_{j,\nu}^n(x)$ be the mutually orthogonal polynomials in $\CV_n^d(W_\mu)$, defined in . Then they are also mutually orthogonal with respect to the Sobolev inner product $$\label{[f,g]mu}
[f,g]_\mu : = b_\mu \left[ \int_{\BB^d}f(x) g(x) W_{\mu}(x) dx + \lambda \int_{\BB^d} \nabla f(x) \cdot \nabla g(x)
W_{\mu+1}(x) dx \right],$$ where $\l > 0$ is a fixed constant.
Notice that the parameter of the weight function in the second integral is $\mu +1$. It is possible to add terms with higher order derivatives with matching weight functions in the inner product, for which $P_{j,\nu}^n$ remain to be orthogonal. As we shall see in the Section 5, the orthogonal structure becomes far more complicated if we want the weight functions in the two terms of to be the same.
A family of Sobolev orthogonal polynomials of one variable
==========================================================
In the next section, we will construct an orthogonal basis for the Sovolev inner product . As in the cases of and , the basis can be constructed in [spherical]{}–polar coordinates, where the main terms are of the form $$q_j(2\|x\|^2 -1) Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x).$$ The polynomial $q_j$ of one variable, however, is rather involved in this case, which we now define.
Let $\lambda > 0$. For $\a > -1$ and $\beta > \max\{0, \frac{d-2}2\}$, we define a [Sobolev inner]{} product by $$\begin{aligned}
(f,g)_{\alpha, \beta} := & \int_{-1}^1 f(t) g(t)w_{\alpha,\beta}(t)dt \notag \\
& + 2 \lambda \int_{-1}^1 (f,f')
\left( \begin{matrix}
A(\beta,d) & B(\beta,d) (1+t)\\
B(\beta,d)\,(1+t) & 4 (1+t)^2
\end{matrix} \right) \left(\begin{matrix}
g\\ g' \end{matrix}\right) w_{\alpha,\beta-1}(t)dt,\label{sob-1-v} \end{aligned}$$ where $A(\beta,d)=\beta B(\b, d)$ and $B(\beta,d)=2\beta-(d-2)$.
In the case of $\beta = \frac{d-2}{2}$, we have $A(\b,d)=B(\b,d)=0$ and the inner product takes a more familiar form $$(f,g)_{\alpha, \beta} = \int_{-1}^1 f(t) g(t)w_{\alpha,\beta}(t)dt + 8 \lambda \int_{-1}^1 f'(t) g'(t) w_{\alpha,\beta+1}(t)dt,$$ [that is, a Sobolev inner product associated to a coherent pair of measures (see [@Meijer]).]{}
We assume that $\beta > \max\{0, \frac{d-2}2\}$ so that the $2 \times 2$ matrix in is positive definite, which guarantees that $(f,g)_{\alpha, \beta}$ is indeed an inner product. Consequently, the orthogonal polynomials with respect to this inner product exist and they are uniquely determined up to a [multiplicative]{} constant.
We let $q_{j}^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t)$ denote the orthogonal polynomial of degree $j$ with respect to $(f,g)_{\alpha,\beta}$ and normalize it so that it has the same leading coefficient as the Jacobi polynomial $P_j^{(\a,\b)}(t)$, that is, $$\label{qj-defn}
q_{j}^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t) = k^{(\alpha, \beta)}_j\, t^j + \emph{lower degree terms},
\quad k_j^{(\a,\b)} := \frac{1}{2^j} \binom{2j + \a+ \b}{j}.$$ With this normalization we have $q_{0}^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t) = P_{0}^{(\alpha,\beta)}(t)= 1$.
Recall that the norm of the Jacobi polynomial ${P_j^{(\a,\b)}}$ is denoted by ${h_j^{(\a,\b)}}$, given in . Let us denote the norm of $q_j^{(\a,\b)}$ in $(\cdot, \cdot)_{\a,\b}$ by ${\widetilde}h_j^{(\a,\b)}$, that is, $${\widetilde}h_j^{(\a,{\b)}} : = \left (q_{j}^{(\a,\beta)},q_{j}^{(\a,\beta)}\right)_{\a, \beta}.$$ Our first result is to relate $q_j^{(\a,\b)}$ with the Jacobi polynomials.
Let $\mu >-1$ and $\beta {>} \max\{0,(d-2)/2\}$. Then, for $j\ge 0$, $$\label{1-2-one-v}
P_j^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) = a_j^{(\mu,\beta)} q_j^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) + d_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)q_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t),$$ where $d_j^{(\a,\b)}$ are defined by $$\label{def-d}
d_{-1}^{(\mu,\beta)} (\lambda)=0, \quad d_{j}^{(\mu,\beta)} (\lambda) = - b_{j+1}^{(\mu,\beta)} \frac{h_{j}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}}{{\widetilde}h_{j}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}},\quad j = 0, 1,2, \ldots,$$ and $a_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$ and $b_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$ are given by .
Since $\{q_k^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t)\}_{k\ge0}$ is a sequence of orthogonal polynomials with respect to $(\cdot,\cdot)_{\mu+1,\b}$, we can expand $P_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(t)$ in terms of them, that is, $$P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) = \sum_{k=0}^j d^j_k q_k^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) \quad \hbox{with}\quad
d^j_k = \frac{(P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}, q_k^{(\mu+1,\beta)})_{\mu+1, \beta} } { {\widetilde}h_k^{(\mu +1,\beta)} }.$$ Since $q_k^{(\a,\b)}$ is normalized so that its leading coefficient [is]{} the same as $P_j^{(\a,{\b})}$, it follows from that $d_j^j = a_j^{(\mu,\beta)}.$
We now [calculate]{} $d_k^j$ for $0 \le k < j$. From , we need to compute $$\begin{aligned}
(P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}, q_k^{(\mu+1,\beta)})_{\mu+1,\beta} = & \int_{-1}^1 P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) q_k^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t)
w_{\mu+1,\beta}(t)dt \\
& + {2} \lambda \left[A(\beta,d) \int_{-1}^1 P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) q_k^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) w_{\mu+1,\beta-1}(t)dt\right.\\
& \quad + B(\beta,d) \int_{-1}^1 \frac{d}{d t}P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) q_k^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) w_{\mu+1,\beta}(t)dt\\
& \quad + B(\beta,d) \int_{-1}^1 P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) \frac{d}{d t}q_k^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) w_{\mu+1,\beta}(t)dt\\
& \quad + \left.4 \int_{-1}^1 \frac{d}{d t}P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) \frac{d}{d t}q_k^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) w_{\mu+1,\beta+1}(t)dt\right].\end{aligned}$$ The first term in the right hand side vanishes for $k <j-1$ since, by and the orthogonality of $P_j^{(\mu+1,\beta)}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{-1}^1 P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) q_k^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t)w_{\mu+1,\beta}(t)dt \\
& \qquad\quad
= \int_{-1}^1 \left[a_j^{(\mu,\beta)} P_j^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) - b_j^{(\mu,\beta)}P_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t)\right]
q_k^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) w_{\mu+1,\beta}(t) dt = 0,\end{aligned}$$ whereas for $k=j-1$, using $q_{j-1}^{(\a,\b)}(t) = P_{j-1}^{(\a,\b)}(t) + \ldots$ in addition shows that $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{-1}^1 P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) q_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) w_{\mu+1,\beta}(t)dt \\
& \qquad \quad = - b_j^{(\mu,\beta)}\int_{-1}^1 P_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) q_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t)
w_{\mu+1,\beta}(t)dt= - b_j^{(\mu,\beta)} h_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}.\end{aligned}$$ An analogous reasoning, together with , shows that the fourth and the fifth terms vanish for $0\le k\le j-1$. Thus, we only need to compute the second and the third terms. This is where Lemma \[lem:Jacobi-recur\] is needed. Indeed, assume $\beta >0$ first; then, since $A(\b,d) = \b B(\b,d)$, the relation shows that, for $0\le k \le j-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
&A(\beta,d) \int_{-1}^1 P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) q_k^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) w_{\mu+1,\beta-1}(t)dt\\
& \qquad\quad + B(\beta,d) \int_{-1}^1 \frac{d}{d t}P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) q_k^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) w_{\mu+1,\beta}(t)dt\\
&= [2\beta -(d-2)](\beta+j) \int_{-1}^1 P_{j}^{(\mu+1, \beta-1)}(t)\,q_k^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) w_{\mu+1,\beta-1}(t)dt=0, \end{aligned}$$ whereas if ${\beta = \frac{d-2}{2}}$, then $A(\b,d)=B(\b,d)=0$ and these terms are automatically zero.
Therefore, only the first term is nonzero and it is nonzero only for $k = j-1$. Consequently, $$P_j^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) = a_j^{(\mu,\beta)}q_j^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) + d_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)q_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t),$$ where $d_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)$ is given in . This completes the proof.
If we knew how to compute $d_j^{(\mu,\b)}(\lambda)$, we could deduce $q_j^{(\mu+1,\b)}$ recursively by . However, since $d_j^{(\mu,\b)}$ depends on the norm of $q_j^{(\mu+1,\b)}$, this has a ring of a futile loop. It turns out, as our next proposition shows, that $d_j^{(\mu,\b)}$ can be deduced from a recursive relation.
The coefficients $d_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)$ satisfy a recurrence relation $$\begin{aligned}
& d_0^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda) = -\frac{\beta+1}{(\mu+\beta+3)[1+\lambda (\mu +\beta +2)(\beta -(d-2)/2)]},\label{d-cero}\\
& d_{j}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda) = -\frac{A_j^{(\mu,\beta)}}{[B_j^{(\mu, \beta)} + \lambda \, C_j^{(\mu, \beta)}]
+ d_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)},\quad j\ge 1,\label{d-rec}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& A_j^{(\mu,\beta)} = \frac{(j+\mu + \beta+1)(j+\mu+1)(j+\beta+1)(2j+\mu+\beta)}{j(2j+\mu+\beta+1)(2j+\mu+\beta+2)(2j+\mu+\beta+3)}, \label{A_j}\\
& B_j^{(\mu,\beta)} = 1+\frac{(\mu+\beta)(j+\mu+1)}{j(2j+\mu+\beta+2)},\label{B_j}\\
& C_j^{(\mu,\beta)} = \frac{(2j+\mu+\beta)[(\mu+1)(2\beta-(d-2)) + 4j(j+\mu + \beta+1)]}{2j}.\label{C_j}\end{aligned}$$
Since $q_{0}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(x) =1$, the explicit expression for $d_0^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)$ in is deduced directly from , upon using , , and the fact that $${\widetilde}h_{0}^{(\mu+1,\beta)} = (q_{0}^{(\mu+1,\beta)},q_{0}^{(\mu+1,\beta)})_{\mu+1, \beta}
= h_{0}^{(\mu+1,\beta)} + {2} \lambda A(\beta,d) h_{0}^{(\mu+1,\beta-1)},$$ which follows directly from the definition of $(\cdot,\cdot)_{\mu+1,\b}$.
For $j\ge 1$, we use and to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left(P_j^{(\mu, \beta)}, P_j^{(\mu, \beta)}\right)_{\mu+1,\beta} &= \left(a_j^{(\mu,\beta)}\right)^2
\left(q_j^{(\mu+1,\beta)},q_j^{(\mu+1,\beta)}\right)_{\mu+1,\beta}\\
& \qquad + \left(b_{j}^{(\mu,\beta)}\right)^2 \frac{(h_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)})^2}{({\widetilde}h_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)})^2}
\left (q_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)},q_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}\right)_{\mu+1,\beta}\\
& = - \left (a_j^{(\mu,\beta)}\right )^2 b_{j+1}^{(\mu,\beta)} \frac{h_{j}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}}{d_{j}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)}
- b_{j}^{(\mu,\beta)} h_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)} d_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda).\end{aligned}$$ Solving $d_{j}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)$ from the above identity leads to $$d_{j}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda) = -\frac{ \left(a_j^{(\mu,\beta)}\right)^2\, b_{j+1}^{(\mu,\beta)} \,h_{j}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}}{\left(P_j^{(\mu, \beta)}, P_j^{(\mu, \beta)}\right)_{\mu+1,\beta} + b_{j}^{(\mu,\beta)} \, h_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)} \, d_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)},$$ which is the recursive relation with $$\begin{aligned}
A_j^{(\mu,\beta)} = \frac{(a_j^{(\mu,\beta)})^2\, b_{j+1}^{(\mu,\beta)} \,h_{j}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}}{b_{j}^{(\mu,\beta)} h_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}},\quad
B_j^{(\mu,\beta)} + \lambda C_j^{(\mu,\beta)} =
\frac{(P_j^{(\mu, \beta)}, P_j^{(\mu, \beta)})_{\mu+1,\beta}}{b_{j}^{(\mu,\beta)} h_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, using the formula for $h_j^{(\mu+1,\b)}$ in and the expressions for $a_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$ and $b_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$ in , it is easy to verify that $A_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$ has the explicit expression in . In order to evaluate $B_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$ and $C_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$, we need to calculate $(P_j^{(\mu, \beta)}, P_j^{(\mu, \beta)})_{\mu+1,\beta}$. From , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pj-snorm}
\left(P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}, P_j^{(\mu,\beta)}\right)_{\mu+1,\beta}
= & \int_{-1}^1 \left(P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t)\right)^2 w_{\mu+1,\beta}(t)dt \\
& + {2} \lambda \left[A(\beta,d) \int_{-1}^1 \left(P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t)\right)^2 w_{\mu+1,\beta-1}(t)dt\right. \notag \\
& + 2\,B(\beta,d) \int_{-1}^1 P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) \frac{d}{d t}P_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(t)w_{\mu+1,\beta}(t)dt \notag \\
& + \left.4 \int_{-1}^1 \left(\frac{d}{d t}P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t)\right)^2 w_{\mu+1,\beta+1}(t)dt\right]. \notag\end{aligned}$$ Since $\lambda$ is a parameter, the first term in the right hand side is the numerator of $B_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$, whereas the expression in the square bracket is the numerator of $C_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$.
Using and the orthogonality of the Jacobi polynomials, we see that $$\int_{-1}^1 (P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t))^2 w_{\mu+1,\beta}(t)dt = \left(a_j^{(\mu,\beta)}\right)^2
h_j^{(\mu+1,\beta)} + \left(b_j^{(\mu,\beta)}\right)^2 h_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)},$$ so that, by and again, $$\begin{aligned}
B_j^{(\mu,\beta)} & = \frac{(a_j^{(\mu,\beta)})^2}{b_j^{(\mu,\beta)}}\frac{h_{j}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}}{h_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}} + b_j^{(\mu,\beta)} \\
&= \frac{(j+\mu+\beta+1)(j+\mu+1)(2j+\mu+\beta)}{j(2j+\mu+\beta+1)(2j+\mu+\beta+2)}+\frac{j+\beta}{2j+\mu+\beta+1}\\
&= 1+\frac{(\mu+\beta)(j+\mu+1)}{j(2j+\mu+\beta+2)}.\end{aligned}$$ For $C_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$, we compute the three terms in the square bracket of . First we combine the first term and half of the second term, and use the relation to deduce $$\begin{aligned}
C_1 := &\, A(\beta,d) \int_{-1}^1 \left(P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t)\right)^2w_{\mu+1,\beta-1}(t)dt\\
& \qquad + B(\beta,d) \int_{-1}^1 P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t)\frac{d}{d t}P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t)w_{\mu+1,\beta}(t)dt\\
= & \, B(\beta,d)(\beta+j) \int_{-1}^1 P_{j}^{(\mu+1, \beta-1)}(t)\,P_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(t) w_{\mu+1,\beta-1}(t)dt\\
= & \, B(\beta,d)(\beta+j) \frac{k_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}}{k_{j}^{(\mu+1, \beta-1)}} h_{j}^{(\mu+1, \beta-1)}
= [2\beta -(d-2)](\beta+j) h_{j}^{(\mu+1, \beta-1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, by and the orthogonality of the Jacobi polynomials, half of the second term becomes $$\begin{aligned}
C_2:= &\, B(\beta,d) \int_{-1}^1 P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t)\frac{d}{d t}P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t)w_{\mu+1,\beta}(t)dt\\
=&\, B(\beta,d)\frac{j+\mu+\beta+1}{2}\int_{-1}^1 P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) (1-t) P_{j-1}^{(\mu+1, \beta+1)}(t)w_{\mu,\beta}(t)dt\\
=&-B(\beta,d)\frac{j+\mu+\beta+1}{2}\frac{k_{j-1}^{(\mu+1, \beta+1)}}{k_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}} h_j^{(\mu,\beta)} = -[2\beta -(d-2)] j \,h_j^{(\mu,\beta)}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, using , the third terms becomes $$C_3: = 4 \int_{-1}^1 \left(\frac{d}{d t}P_{j}^{(\mu, \beta)}(t)\right)^2 w_{\mu+1,\beta+1}(t)dt
= (j+\mu+\beta+1)^2 h_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta+1)}.$$ Combining these terms we obtain $$C_j^{(\mu,\beta)} = \frac{C_1+C_2+C_3}{b_{j}^{(\mu,\beta)} \, h_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}}$$ which simplifies to the formula .
The recurrence relation shows that $d_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)$ can be expressed as a continuous fraction. Consequently, we can express $d_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)$ in terms of a rational function of $\lambda$ whose numerator and denominator are, respectively, the $(j-1)$th and $j$th elements of a sequence of orthogonal polynomials.
For $j \in \NN_0$, define the polynomials $r_j^{(\mu,\b)}$ by $r_0^{(\mu,\b)}(\l) =1$ and $$\label{3term-rj}
r_{j+1}^{(\mu,\b)}(\lambda) = (C_j^{(\mu,\beta)} \lambda + B_j^{(\mu,\beta)})r_j^{(\mu,\b)}(\lambda)
- A_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}r_{j-1}^{(\mu,\b)}(\lambda),$$ where we assume $r_{-1}^{(\mu,\b)}(\lambda) = 0$ and, for $j \ge 1$, $A_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$, $B_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$ and $C_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$ are defined in , , , respectively, whereas for $j =0$, $$\begin{aligned}
& A_0^{(\mu,\beta)}:=\frac{(\mu+1)(\beta+1)(\mu+\beta)}{(\mu+\beta+2)(\mu+\beta+3)},\qquad
B_0^{(\mu,\beta)}:=\frac{(\mu+1)(\mu+\beta)}{(\mu+\beta+2)},\\
& C_0^{(\mu,\beta)}:=\frac{(\mu+1)(\mu+\beta)(2\beta-(d-2))}{2}.\end{aligned}$$
For $\mu > -1$ and $\beta {>} (d-2)/2$, the coefficients $A_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$, $B_j^{(\mu,\beta)}$ and $C_j^{(\mu,\b)}$ are all positive for $ j \ge 0$. Consequently, by the Favard’s theorem, the polynomials $r_n^{(\mu,\b)}$ are orthogonal with respect to a positive linear functional. Since these coefficients are explicitly known, one naturally asks if it is possible to identify these orthogonal polynomials, say with some classical orthogonal polynomials. The [numerator]{} of the coefficient $C_j^{(\mu,\b)}$ in contains a quadratic polynomial in $j$ that does not factor into product of linear factors for independent parameters of $\beta, \mu$ and $d$. This shows that the orthogonal polynomials are not hypergeometric type in general. In some special cases, such as $3 (\mu+1) = 4 (\b - (d-2))$ or $\beta = (d-2)/2$, the quadratic term does factor and the corresponding orthogonal polynomials could be of hypergeometric type. For our study of the Sobolev polynomials on the ball in the next section, $\beta = n - 2j + \f{d-2}{2}$ for integers $n$ and $j$ with $0 \le j \le n/2$, the factorization happens only when $n - 2j =0$. Since this is a sidetrack from our main purpose, we shall not pursue this direction any [further]{}.
For our study, it is sufficient to remark that the three-term relation in offers an effective way to generate $r_{j}^{(\mu,\b)}$.
For $j = 0,1,2,\ldots$, the coefficients $d_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)$ in satisfy $$\label{dj-induct}
d_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda) = - A_j^{(\mu,\beta)} \frac{r_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)}{r_{j+1}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)}.$$
The case of $j = 0$ follows directly from , which allows us to deduce, from $r_0^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda) =1$ and $
r_1^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda) = C_0^{(\mu,\beta)}\lambda + B_0^{(\mu,\beta)},
$ the formulas for $ A_0^{(\mu,\beta)}$, $B_0^{(\mu,\beta)}$ and $C_0^{(\mu,\beta)}$. Assume that has been established for integers up to $j-1$. Then, by , $$\begin{aligned}
d_{j}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda) =& -\frac{A_j^{(\mu,\beta)}}{(B_j^{(\mu,\beta)} + \lambda C_j^{(\mu,\beta)}) +
d_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}} \\
= & -\frac{A_j^{(\mu,\beta)}}{(B_j^{(\mu,\beta)} + \lambda C_j^{(\mu,\beta)}) - A_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}\frac{\displaystyle{r_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)}}{\displaystyle{r_{j}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)}}}\\
=& -\frac{A_j^{(\mu,\beta)}r_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)}{(B_j^{(\mu,\beta)} + \lambda C_j^{(\mu,\beta)})r_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda) - A_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}r_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda)},\end{aligned}$$ which is . By induction, this completes the proof.
Let $\mu +1> -1$ and $\beta {>} \max\{0,(d-2)/2\}$. Then, for $j\ge 0$, the Sobolev orthogonal polynomials $q_j^{(\mu,\b)}$ in satisfy $$\label{qj-Jacobi}
q_j^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) = \frac{1}{a_j^{(\mu,\beta)}r_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(\l)}
\sum_{i =0}^j \frac{D_i^{(\mu, \beta)}}{a_i^{(\mu, \beta)}} r_i^{(\mu,\beta)}(\l)P_i^{(\mu, \beta)}(t),$$ where $a_j^{(\mu, \beta)}$ are given in , $r_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(\l)$ are given in , and $D_j^{(\mu, \beta)}$ are defined by $D_0^{(\mu, \beta)} = (\mu + \b)(\mu+\b+1)$ and, for $j \ge 1$, $$\label{Dj-defn}
D_j^{(\mu, \beta)} : = \frac{ 2^j (j+\mu+\b +1)(2j+\mu+\b) (\frac{\mu+\b+1}{2})_j (j-1)!}{(\mu+1)_j (\b+1)_j}.$$ Furthermore, the [Sobolev norm]{} of $q_j^{(\mu,\b)}$ is given by $$\label{norm-qj}
\left(q_j^{(\mu+1,\b)}, q_j^{(\mu+1,\b)} \right)_{\mu+1,\b} =
\frac{b_{j+1}^{(\mu,\b)} h_j^{(\mu+1,\b)} } { A_j^{(\mu,\b)}} \frac{ r_{j+1}^{(\mu,\b)}(\l)}{r_{j}^{(\mu,\b)}(\l)},$$ where $b_j^{(\mu, \beta)}$, $h_j^{(\mu+1,\b)}$ and $A_j^{(\mu,\b)}$ are given in , and , respectively.
Using , the relation can be rewritten as $$q_j^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) = \frac{1}{a_j^{(\mu,\beta)}} P_j^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) +
\frac{A_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}}{a_j^{(\mu,\beta)}} \frac{r_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\l)} {r_{j}^{(\mu,\beta)}(\l)}
q_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t).$$ For $j \ge 2$, it is easy to check that ${A_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}}/ {a_j^{(\mu,\beta)}} =
{D_{j-1}^{(\mu,\beta)}}/{D_j^{(\mu,\beta)}}$, so that the above identity can be written as $${\widetilde}q_j^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t) = \frac{D_j^{(\mu, \beta)}}{a_j^{(\mu,\beta)}}r_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(\l) P_j^{(\mu, \beta)}(t) +
{\widetilde}q_{j-1}^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t),$$ where ${\widetilde}q_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(t) = D_j^{(\mu,\beta)}r_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(\lambda) q_j^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t)$. Furthermore, setting $j =1$ in shows that the above relation also holds for $j =1$ (which is how the value of $D_0^{(\mu,\b)}$ is determined). In particular, it follows that ${\widetilde}q_0^{(\mu,\beta)}(t) = D_0^{(\mu,\beta)}$. Summing up the telescoping sequence shows that ${\widetilde}q_j^{(\mu+1,\beta)}(t)$ can be written as a sum in terms of the Jacobi polynomials, which proves .
Finally, follows directly from and .
Sobolev inner product on the unit ball
======================================
Recall that our main task is to consider orthogonal polynomials with respect to the inner product , which we restate below.
Let $\l > 0$ and $\mu > -1$. For $f, g \in \Pi^d$, we define $$\la f,g\ra _{\nabla, W_\mu, \BB^d} := b_\mu \left[\int_{\BB^d} f(x) g(x) W_\mu(x) dx +
\lambda \int_{\BB^d} \nabla f(x)\,\cdot \nabla g(x) W_\mu(x) dx\right],$$
It is easy to see that $\la \cdot,\cdot \ra_{\nabla, W_\mu, \BB^d}$ is indeed an inner product. Let $\mathcal{V}_n^d(\nabla, W_\mu, \BB^d)$ denote the linear space of polynomials of total degree $n$ that are orthogonal to all polynomial of lower [degree]{} with respect to this inner product. It follows then that $\dim \, \mathcal{V}_n^d(\nabla, W_\mu, \BB^d) = r_n^d.$
An orthogonal basis for $\CV_n^d(\nabla, W_\mu, \BB^d)$ is given in the following theorem.
Let $\lambda >0$. For $0 \le j \le n/2$, let $\b_j: = n-2j+ \f{d-2}2$ and let $q_k^{(\mu, \b_j)}(t)$ be the $k$–th Sobolev orthogonal polynomial associated with the inner product $(\cdot, \cdot)_{\mu, \b_j}$. Let $\{Y_\nu^{n-2j}: 1 \le \nu \le a_{n-2j}^d\}$ be an orthonormal basis of $\CH_{n-2j}^d$. Define $$\label{baseR}
R_{j,\nu}^{n}(x) := q_{j}^{(\mu, \b_j)}(2 \|x\|^2 -1) Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x).$$ Then the set $\{R^n_{j,\nu}(x): 0\le j \le n/2, \quad 0\le \nu \le a_{n-2j}^d\}$ is a mutually orthogonal basis of $\mathcal{V}_n^d(\nabla, W_\mu, \BB^d)$. Moreover, $$\la R_{j,\nu}^n, R_{j,\nu}^n \ra_{\nabla, W_\mu, \BB^d} = \frac{\Gamma(\mu+1+ \frac d 2)}{
\Gamma(\mu+1)\Gamma(\frac d 2)2^{\b_j +\mu} }
\left (q_j^{(\mu,\b_j)}, q_j^{(\mu,\b_j)}\right)_{\mu, \b_j}.$$
We need to [calculate]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\la R_{j,\nu}^{n}(x), R_{k,\eta}^{m}(x)\ra_{\nabla, W_\mu, \BB^d}
= & b_\mu \left[\int_{\BB^d} R_{j,\nu}^{n}(x) R_{k,\eta}^{m}(x)W_\mu(x) dx \right. \\
& \quad + \lambda \left.\int_{\BB^d} \nabla R_{j,\nu}^{n}(x)\cdot \nabla R_{k,\eta}^{m}(x) W_\mu(x) \, dx\right].\end{aligned}$$ We consider the two integrals in the right hand side separately. For the first integral, using and the fact that $Y_\nu^{n-2j}$ is homogenous and orthonormal [with]{} respect to $\la \cdot,\cdot \ra_{\sph}$, we obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
& b_\mu \int_{\BB^d} R_{j,\nu}^{n}(x) R_{k,\eta}^{m}(x)W_\mu(x) dx \\
& \quad = b_\mu \o_d \int_0^1 q_j (2r^2 -1) q_k (2r^2 -1) r^{2 \b_j +1}
(1-r^2)^{\mu}\delta_{n-2j,m-2k}\delta_{\nu,\eta} \\
& \quad = \frac{b_\mu \o_d}{2^{n-2j+\mu+d/2+1}}
\left[\int_{-1}^1 q_{j} (t)\,q_{k} (t)(1-t)^{\mu},(1+t)^{n-2j+\frac{d-2}{2}}dt \right]\delta_{n-2j,m-2k}\delta_{\nu,\eta},\end{aligned}$$ where we have omitted the superscript of $q_j^{(\mu,n-2j+\f{d-2}{2})}$ for simplicity, which we shall adopt in the rest of this proof.
For the second integral, we observe that, by the product rule of differentiation, $$\partial_i Q_{j,\nu}^{n}(x; W_\mu) = q'_{j}(2\,\|x\|^2 -1)\, 4\, x_i\, Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x)
+ q_{j}(2\,\|x\|^2 -1)\, \partial_i Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x),$$ which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla R_{j,\nu}^{n}(x)\cdot\nabla R_{k,\eta}^{m}(x)
= & q_{j}(2\,\|x\|^2 -1)\,q_{k}(2\,\|x\|^2 -1)\, \nabla Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x)\cdot \nabla Y_\eta^{m-2k}(x)\\
& + 4 (m-2k) q'_{j}(2\|x\|^2 -1) q_{k}(2 \|x\|^2 -1) Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x) Y_\eta^{m-2k}(x) \\
& + 4 (n-2j) q_{j}(2\|x\|^2 -1) q'_{k}(2\|x\|^2 -1) Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x) Y_\eta^{m-2k}(x) \\
& + 16 \|x\|^2 q'_{j}(2\,\|x\|^2 -1)q'_{k}(2\|x\|^2 -1) Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x) Y_\eta^{m-2k}(x).\end{aligned}$$ We now integrate above expression term by term and apply . For the first term, we obtain, using , that $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{\BB^d} q_{j}(2\|x\|^2 -1)q_{k}(2\|x\|^2 -1) \nabla Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x)\cdot \nabla Y_\eta^{m-2k}(x)W_\mu(x)dx\\
& \qquad = \int_{0}^1 q_{j}(2r^2 -1)q_{k}(2r^2 -1) (1-r^2)^{\mu}r^{n-2j+m-2k+d-1}\\
& \qquad \qquad \times \frac{(n-2j)(2(n-2j)+d-2)}{r^2} dr \omega_{d}\delta_{n-2j,m-2k}\delta_{\nu,\eta} \\
& \qquad = \left[\int_{-1}^1 q_{j}(t)\,q_{k}(t)(1-t)^{\mu} (1+t)^{n-2j+d/2-2}\,dt \right]\\
& \qquad \qquad \times \frac{(n-2j)(2(n-2j)+d-2)\,\omega_{d}} {2^{n-2j+\mu+d/2}}\delta_{n-2j,m-2k}\delta_{\nu,\eta}.\end{aligned}$$ The second and the third terms are similar. For the second term, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& 4(m-2k) \int_{\BB^d} q'_{j}(2\|x\|^2 -1)q_{k}(2\|x\|^2 -1) Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x) Y_\eta^{m-2k}(x)W_\mu(x)dx\\
=\ & 4(m-2k)\int_{0}^1 q'_{j}(2r^2 -1)\,q_{k}(2r^2 -1) (1-r^2)^{\mu}r^{2n-4j+d-1}dr \omega_{d}\delta_{n-2j,m-2k}\delta_{\nu,\eta}\\
=\ & \int_{-1}^1 q'_{j}(t) q_{k}(t)(1-t)^{\mu}(1+t)^{n-2j+d/2-1}dt \frac{2(m-2k)\,\omega_{d}}{2^{n-2j+\mu+d/2}}\delta_{n-2j,m-2k}\delta_{\nu,\eta}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, for the fourth term, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&16 \int_{\BB^d} \|x\|^2 q'_{j}(2\|x\|^2 -1)q'_{k}(2\|x\|^2 -1)Y_\nu^{n-2j}(x) Y_\eta^{m-2k}(x)W_\mu(x)dx \\
=& 16 \int_{0}^1 q'_{j}(2r^2 -1)\,q'_{k}(2r^2 -1) (1-r^2)^{\mu}r^{2n-4j+d+1}dr
\omega_{d}\delta_{n-2j,m-2k}\delta_{\nu,\eta}\\
= & \int_{-1}^1 q'_{j}(t)q'_{k}(t)(1-t)^{\mu} (1+t)^{n-2j+d/2} dt
\frac{\omega_{d}}{2^{n-2j+\mu+d/2-2}}\delta_{n-2j,m-2k}\delta_{\nu,\eta}.\end{aligned}$$
Putting all four terms together, we conclude that the second integral satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{\BB^d} \nabla R_{j,\nu}^{n}(x)\cdot \nabla R_{k,\eta}^{m}(x) W_\mu(x) dx =
\frac{\omega_{d-1}}{2^{n-2j+\mu+d/2}}\,\delta_{n-2j,m-2k}\,\delta_{\nu,\eta}\\
& \quad \times \left[(n-2j)(2(n-2j)+d-2)\int_{-1}^1 q_{j}(t)q_{k}(t)(1-t)^{\mu}(1+t)^{n-2j+d/2-2}dt \right.\\
& \qquad + 2 (n-2j) \int_{-1}^1 (q_{j}(t)q_{k}(t))'(1-t)^{\mu} \,(1+t)^{n-2j+d/2-1}dt\\
&\qquad + \left. 4\int_{-1}^1 q'_{j}(t)q'_{k}(t)(1-t)^{\mu} (1+t)^{n-2j+d/2}dt\right].\end{aligned}$$ Together, the first and the two integrals lead to $$\begin{aligned}
\la R_{j,\nu}^{n}, R_{k,\eta}^{m} \ra_{\nabla, W_\mu, \BB^d} = \frac{b_\mu \omega_d}{2^{n-2j+\mu+d/2}}
\delta_{n-2j,m-2k}\delta_{\nu,\eta} (q_j, q_k)_{\mu, n-2j+\f{d-2}{2}}. \end{aligned}$$ Using , this completes the proof.
By , the norm of $R_{j,\nu}^n$ can be [expressed]{} in terms of $r_i^{\mu, \b_j}$, which can be computed recursively. Moreover, as a corollary of , we also have the following relation between classical orthogonal polynomials $P_{j,\nu}^n$ on the ball and our Sobolev orthogonal polynomials. Let us denote $P_{j,\nu}^n$ in $\CV_n^d(W_\mu)$ by $P_{j,\nu}^n(\cdot;W_\mu)$ and, similarly, denote $R_{j,\nu}^n(x)$ in $\CV_n^d(\nabla, W_\mu, \BB^d)$ by $R_{j,\nu}^n(x;W_\mu)$ to emphasis the dependence on $\mu$.
Let $\mu > -1$. For $0 \le j \le n/2$, let $\b_j = n-2j + \f{d-2}{2}$. Then $$P_{j,\nu}^{n}(x; W_\mu) = a_j^{(\mu,\b_j)} R_{j,\nu}^{n}(x; W_{\mu+1}) + d_{j-1}^{(\mu,\b_j)}(\l)
R_{j-1,\nu}^{n-2}(x; W_{\mu+1}).$$ Furthermore, $$R_{j,\nu}^{n}(x; W_{\mu+1}) = \frac{1}{a_j^{(\mu,\beta)} r_j^{(\mu,\beta)}(\l)}
\sum_{i =0}^j \frac{D_i^{(\mu, \beta)}}{a_i^{(\mu, \beta)}} r_i^{(\mu,\beta)}(\l)P_{i,\nu}^{n}(x; W_\mu),$$ where the notations are same as those in .
[99]{}
M. Abramowitz, I. A. Stegun, *Handbook of mathematical functions*, 9th printing. Dover, New York, 1972.
R. Aktaş and Y. Xu, Sobolev orthogonal polynomials on a simplex, IMRN, 2012; doi: 10.1093/imrn/rns141
K. Atkinson and O. Hansen, Solving the nonlinear Poisson equation on the unit disk, *J. Integral Equations Appl.***17** (2005), 223–241.
F. Dai and Y. Xu, *Approximation theory and harmonic analysis on spheres and balls*, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, to appear.
C. F. Dunkl and Y. Xu, *Orthogonal polynomials of several variables*, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications **81**, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
P. Iliev, Krall-Jacobi commutative algebras of partial differential operators, *J. Math. Pures Appl.* **(9) 96** (2011), 446-461.
H. Li, A direct spectral-Galerkin method on the disc and its optimal error estimate, manuscript, 2012.
M. Piñar, Y. Xu, Orthogonal polynomials and partial differential equations on the unit ball, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **137** (2009), 2979–2987.
G. Szegö, *Orthogonal polynomials*, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1975.
Y. Xu, A family of Sobolev orthogonal polynomials on the unit ball, *J. Approx. Theory* **138** (2006) 232-241.
Y. Xu, Sobolev orthogonal polynomials defined via gradient on the unit ball, *J. Approx. Theory* **152** (2008) 52–65.
[^1]: [The work of the first and second authors was supported in part by Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Micinn) of Spain and by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the grant MTM2011-28952-C02-02]{}
[^2]: The work of the third author was supported in part by NSF Grant DMS-1106113.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we study positivity phenomena for the $e$-coefficients of Stanley’s chromatic function of a graph. We introduce a new combinatorial object: the [*correct*]{} sequences of unit interval orders, and using these, in certain cases, we succeed to construct combinatorial models of the coefficients appearing in Stanley’s conjecture. Our main result is the proof of positivity of the coefficients $c_{n-k,1^k}$, $c_{n-2,2}$, $c_{n-3,2,1}$ and $c_{2^k,1^{n-2k}}$ of the expansion of the chromatic symmetric function in terms of the basis of the elementary symmetric polynomials for the case of $(3+1)$-free posets.'
author:
- 'Alexander Paunov, András Szenes'
date: February 2016
title: |
A new approach to $e$-positivity for\
Stanley’s chromatic functions
---
Introduction
============
Let $G$ be a finite graph, $V(G)$ - the set of vertices of $G$, $E(G)$ - the set of edges of $G$.
\[coloring\] A [*proper coloring*]{} $c$ of $G$ is a map $$c:V\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$$ such that no two adjacent vertices are colored in the same color.
For each coloring $c$ we define a monomial $$x^c = \prod_{v\in
V}x_{c(v)},$$ where $x_1, x_2, ..., x_n,...$ are commuting variables. We denote by $\Pi(G)$ the set of all proper colorings of $G$, and by $\Lambda$ the ring of symmetric functions in the infinite set of variables $\{x_1, x_2,...\}.$
In [@Stanley95a], Stanley defined the chromatic symmetric function of a graph.
\[chromfunction\] The *chromatic symmetric function $X_G\in\Lambda$ of a graph $G$ is the sum of the monomials $x^c$ over all proper colorings of $G$: $$X_G=\sum\limits_{c\in\Pi(G)}x^c.$$*
\[efunc\] Denote by $e_m$ the $m$-th elementary symmetric function: $$e_m = \sum\limits_{i_1<i_2<...<i_m}x_{i_1}\cdot
x_{i_2}\cdot...\cdot x_{i_m},$$ where $i_1,..,i_k\in \mathbb{N}$. Given a non-increasing sequence of positive integers (we will call these [*partitions*]{}) $$\lambda = (\lambda_1\geq \lambda_2\geq...\geq\lambda_k),\ \lambda_i\in
\mathbb{N},$$ we define the elementary symmetric function $e_{\lambda} = \prod\limits_{i=1}^k e_{\lambda_i}.$ These functions form a basis of $\Lambda.$
For a natural number $k$, we denote by $1^k$ the partition $\lambda$ of length $k$, where $$\lambda_1=\lambda_2=...=\lambda_k=1.$$
\[epos\] A symmetric function $X\in \Lambda$ is *$e$-positive if it has non-negative coefficients in the basis of the elementary symmetric functions.*
\[pfunc\] Denote by $p_m$ the $m$-th power sum symmetric function: $$p_m =
\sum\limits_{i\in\mathbb{N}}x^m_{i}.$$ Given a partition $\lambda = (\lambda_1\geq \lambda_2\geq...\geq\lambda_k)$, we define the power sum symmetric function $p_{\lambda} = \prod\limits_{i=1}^k p_{\lambda_i}.$ These functions also form a basis of $\Lambda.$
\[mfunc\] Given a partition $\lambda = (\lambda_1\geq \lambda_2\geq...\geq\lambda_k)$, we define the monomial symmetric function $$m_\lambda=\sum\limits_{i_1<i_2<...<i_k}\sum\limits_{\lambda'\in S_k(\lambda)}x_{i_1}^{\lambda_{1}'}\cdot
x_{i_2}^{\lambda_{1}'}\cdot...\cdot x_{i_k}^{\lambda_{k}'},$$ where the inner sum is taken over the set of all permutations of the sequence $\lambda$, denoted by $S_k(\lambda)$.
The chromatic symmetric function of $K_n$, the complete graph on $n$ vertices, is $e$-positive: $X_{K_n} = n!\,e_n$.
\[incgraph\] For a poset $P$, the *incomparability graph, $\textnormal{inc}(P)$, is the graph with elements of $P$ as vertices, where two vertices are connected if and only if they are not comparable in $P$.*
\[nplusmfree\] Given a pair of natural numbers $a,b\in\mathbb{N}^2$, we say that a poset $P$ is *(a+b)-free if it does not contain a length-$a$ and a length-$b$ chain, whose elements are incomparable.*
A unit interval order (UIO) is a partially ordered set which is isomorphic to a finite subset of $U\subset{\mathbb{R}}$ with the following poset structure: $$\text{for } u,w\in U:\ u\succ w \text{ iff } u\ge w+1.$$ Thus $u$ and $w$ are incomparable precisely when $|u-w|<1$ and we will use the notation $u\sim w$ in this case.
\[S\_S\] A finite poset $P$ is a UIO if and only if it is $(2+2)$- and $(3+1)$-free.
Stanley [@Stanley95a] initiated the study of incomparability graphs of $(3+1)$-free partially ordered sets. Analyzing the chromatic symmetric functions of these incomparability graphs, Stanley [@Stanley95a] stated the following positivity conjecture.
\[eposconj\] If $P$ is a $(3+1)$-free poset, then $X_{\textnormal{inc}(P)}$ is $e$-positive.
For a graph $G$ let us denote by ${c_\lambda}(G)$ the coefficients of $X_G$ with respect to the $e$-basis. We omit the index $G$ whenever this causes no confusion: $$X_G=\sum\limits_{\lambda}c_{\lambda}e_\lambda.$$
Conjecture \[eposconj\] has been verified with the help of computers for up to 20-element posets [@Guay-Paquet13]. In 2013, Guay-Paquet [@Guay-Paquet13] showed that to prove this conjecture, it would be sufficient to verify it for the case of $(3+1)$- and $(2+2)$-free posets, i.e. for unit interval orders (see Theorem \[S\_S\]). More precisely:
\[G\_P\] Let $P$ be a $(3+1)$-free poset. Then, $X_\mathrm{inc}(P)$ is a convex combination of the chromatic symmetric functions $$\{X_\mathrm{inc}(P')\ |\ P'\ \mathrm{is}\ \mathrm{a}\
(3+1)\mathrm{-}\ \mathrm{and}\ (2+2)\mathrm{-free}\ \mathrm{poset}
\}.$$
The strongest general result in this direction is that of Gasharov [@Gasharov94].
\[sfunc\] For a partition $\lambda = (\lambda_1\geq
\lambda_2\geq...\geq\lambda_k)$, define the Schur functions *$s_{\lambda}=\mathrm{det}(e_{\lambda_i^*+j-i})_{i,j}$, where $\lambda^*$ is the conjugate partition to $\lambda$. The functions $\{ s_{\lambda}\}$ form a basis of $\Lambda$.*
\[spos\] A symmetric polynomial $X$ is *$s$-positive if it has non-negative coefficients in the basis of Schur functions.*
Obviously, a product of $e$-positive functions is $e$-positive. This also holds for $s$-positive functions. Thus, the equality $e_n=s_{1^n}$ implies that $e$-positive functions are $s$-positive, and thus $s$-positivity is weaker than $e$-positivity.
\[sposthm\] If $P$ is a $(3+1)$-free poset, then $X_{\textnormal{inc}(P)}$ is $s$-positive.
Gasharov proved $s$-positivity by constructing so-called $P$-tableau and finding a one-to-one correspondence between these tableau and $s$-coefficients [@Gasharov94]. However, $e$-positivity conjecture \[epos\] is still open. The strongest known result on the $e$-coefficients was obtained by Stanley in [@Stanley95a]. He showed that sums of $e$-coefficients over the partitions of fixed length are non-negative:
For a finite graph $G$ and $j\in\mathbb{N}$, suppose $$X_G=\sum\limits_{\lambda}c_{\lambda}e_\lambda,$$ and let $\text{sink}(G,j)$ be the number of acyclic orientation of $G$ with $j$ sinks. Then $$\text{sink}(G,j)=\sum\limits_{l(\lambda)=j}c_{\lambda}.$$
By taking $j=1$, it follows from the theorem that $c_n$ is non-negative.
Stanley in [@Stanley95a] showed that for $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and the unit interval order $P_n=\{\frac{i}{2}\}_{i=1}^n$, the corresponding $X_{\text{inc}(P_n)}$ is $e$-positive, while $e$-positivity for the UIOs $$P_{n,k}=\bigg\{\frac{i}{k+1}\bigg\}_{i=1}^n$$ with $k>1$ has not yet been proven. It was checked for small $n$ and some $k$ (see [@Stanley95a]).
Next, we introduce [*correct sequences*]{} (abbreviated as [*corrects*]{}), defined below. These play a major role in the article.
Let U be a UIO. We will call a sequence ${\vec w}= (w_1,\dots, w_k)$ of elements of $U$ [ *correct*]{} if
- $w_i\not\succ w_{i+1}$ for $i=1,2,\dots,k-1$
- and for each $j=2,\dots,k$, there exists $i<j$ such that $w_i\not\prec w_j$.
Every sequence of length 1 is correct, and sequence $(w_1,w_2)$ is correct precisely when $w_1\sim w_2$. The second condition (supposing that the first one holds) may be reformulated as follows: for each $j=1,\dots k$, the subset $\{w_1,\dots,w_j\}\subset U$ is connected with respect to the graph structure ${(U,\sim)}$. Using this notation, we prove the following theorems.
\[eposn\] Let $X_{\text{inc}(U)}=\sum\limits_{\lambda}c_\lambda e_\lambda$ be a chromatic symmetric function of the $n$-element unit interval order $U$. Then $c_n$ is equal to the number of corrects of length $n$, in which every element of $U$ is used exactly once.
Let $X_{\text{inc}(P)}=\sum\limits_{\lambda}c_\lambda e_\lambda$ be a chromatic symmetric function of $n$-element $(3+1)$-free poset $P$, then $c_n$ is a nonnegative integer.
Indeed, positivity for the general case follows from Theorem \[G\_P\], which presents the chromatic symmetric function of a $(3+1)$-free poset as a convex combination of the chromatic symmetric functions of unit interval orders.
Stanley [@Stanley95b] and Chow [@Chow95] showed the positivity of $c_n$ for $(3+1)$-free posets using combinatorial techniques, and linked $e$-coefficients with the acyclic orientations of the incomparability graphs. The construction of corrects not only serves this purpose for UIOs (see [@Paunov16b]), but also creates a new approach, which allows us to obtain the following new result:
\[eposn21\] Let $X_{\text{inc}(P)}=\sum\limits_{\lambda}c_\lambda e_\lambda$ be a chromatic symmetric function of the $(3+1)$-free poset $P$, and $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Then $c_{n-k,1^k}$, $c_{n-2,2}$, $c_{n-3,2,1}$ and $c_{2^k,1^{n-2k}}$ are non-negative integers.
The proofs of Theorem \[eposn\] and Theorem \[sposthm\], and positivity of correspondent $G$-power sum symmetric functions and Schur $G$-symmetric functions can be found in [@Paunov16] and [@Paunov16b]. The article is structured as follows: in Section \[Ghom\], we describe the $G$-homomorphism introduced by Stanley in [@Stanley95b], which is essential for our approach. Positivity of $c_{n-k,1^k}$, $c_{n-2,2}$, $c_{n-3,2,1}$ and $c_{2^k,1^{n-2k}}$ (Theorem \[eposn21\]) is proven in Section 3.
**Acknowledgements.** We are grateful to Emanuele Delucchi and Bart Vandereycken for their help and useful discussions.
Stanley’s $G$-homomorphism {#Ghom}
==========================
For a graph $G$, Stanley [@Stanley95b p. 6] defined $G$-analogues of the standard families of symmetric functions. Let $G$ be a finite graph with vertex set $V(G)=\{v_1,...,v_n\}$ and edge set $E(G)$. We will think of the elements of $V(G)$ as commuting variables.
\[eG\] For a positive integer $i$, $1\leq i, \leq n$, we define the *$G$-analogues of the elementary symmetric polynomials, or *the elementary $G$-symmetric polynomials, as follows $$e_i^G =\sum\limits_{\substack{\#S=i\\
S-\mathrm{stable}}}\prod\limits_{v\in S}v,$$ where the sum is taken over all $i$-element subsets $S$ of $V$, in which no two vertices form an edge, i.e. stable subsets. We set $e_0^G=1$, and $e_i^G=0$ for $i<0$.**
Note that these polynomials are not necessarily symmetric.
Let $\Lambda_G\subset\mathbb{R}[v_1,...,v_n]$ be the subring generated by $\{e_i^G\}_{i=1}^{n}$. The map $e_i\mapsto e_i^G$ extends to a ring homomorphism $\phi_G: \Lambda\rightarrow\Lambda_G$, called the [*$G$-homomorphism*]{}. For $f\in \Lambda$, we will use the notation $f^G$ for $\phi_G(f)$.
Given a partition $\lambda = \lambda_1\geq \lambda_2\geq...\geq\lambda_k,\ k\in \mathbb{N},$ we have $$e_{\lambda}^G = \prod\limits_{i=1}^k e_i^G,$$ $$s_{\lambda}^G=\mathrm{det}(e_{\lambda_i^*+j-i}^G).$$
For an integer function $\alpha: V\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ and $f^G\in\Lambda_G$, let $$v^\alpha = \prod\limits_{v\in V}v^{\alpha(v)},$$ and $[v^\alpha]f^G$ stands for the coefficient of $v^\alpha$ in the polynomial $f^G\in\Lambda_G$.
Let $G^\alpha$ denote the graph, obtained by replacing every vertex $v$ of $G$ by the complete subgraph of size $\alpha(v)$: $K_{\alpha(v)}^v$. Given vertices $u$ and $v$ of $G$, a vertex of $K_{\alpha(v)}^v$ is connected to a vertex of $K_{\alpha(u)}^u$ if and only if $u$ and $v$ form an edge in $G$.
Considering the Cauchy product [@Macdonald79 ch. 4.2], Stanley [@Stanley95b p. 6] found a connection between the $G$-analogues of symmetric functions and $X_G$. Following Stanley [@Stanley95b], we set $$T(x,v) = \sum\limits_\lambda m_\lambda(x)e^G_\lambda(v),$$ where the sum is taken over all partitions. Then
$$\label{gnechrom}
[v^\alpha]T(x,v)\prod\limits_{v\in V}\alpha(v)! =X_{G^\alpha}.$$
Using the Cauchy identity $$\sum\limits_\lambda s_\lambda(x)s_{\lambda^*}(y)=\sum\limits_\lambda m_\lambda(x)e_\lambda(y) = \sum\limits_\lambda e_\lambda(x)m_\lambda(y)$$ and applying the $G$-homomorphism, one obtains: $$\label{GCauchy}
T(x,v) = \sum\limits_\lambda m_\lambda(x)e^G_\lambda(v) = \sum\limits_\lambda s_\lambda(x)s^G_{\lambda^*}(v)=T(v,x) = \sum\limits_\lambda e_\lambda(x)m^G_\lambda(v).$$
An immediate consequence of the formulas and is the following result of Stanley:
\[poscrit\] For every finite graph G
1. $X_{G^\alpha}$ is s-positive for every $\alpha:V(G)\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$ if and only if $s_\lambda^G\in
\mathbb{N}[V(G)]$ for every partition $\lambda$.
2. $X_{G^\alpha}$ is e-positive for every $\alpha:V(G)\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$ if and only if $m_\lambda^G\in \mathbb{N}[V(G)]$ for every partition $\lambda$.
\[c\_m\] If $X_{G^\alpha}=\sum\limits_{\lambda}c^\alpha_{\lambda}e_\lambda,$ then $c_\lambda^\alpha=[v^\alpha]m^G_\lambda.$ Hence, monomial positivity of $m^G_\lambda$ is equivalent to the positivity of $c_\lambda^\alpha$ for every $\alpha$.
The proofs of positivity of $G$-power sum symmetric functions and Schur $G$-symmetric functions for the case of unit interval orders can be found in [@Paunov16].
Proofs of the theorems {#proofs}
======================
It follows from Theorem \[poscrit\] that to prove that the graph $G$ is $e$-positive, it is enough to show the monomial positivity of its monomial $G$-symmetric functions. On the other hand, Guay-Paquet in Theorem \[G\_P\] showed that it is sufficient to check $e$-positivity for unit interval orders, in order to prove it for the general case of $(3+1)$-free posets. Therefore, in the following section \[proofs\] we analyze the functions $m_{\lambda}^G$ for the case $G=\text{inc}(U),$ where $U$ is UIO.
Let us repeat the definition of a central notion for our work, that of correct sequences of elements of a unit interval order.
Let $(U,\prec)$ be a unit interval order, and $G=\text{inc}(U)$. We will call a sequence $\vec{w} = (w_1,\dots, w_k)$ of elements of $U$ [ *correct*]{} if
- $w_i\not\succ w_{i+1}$ for $i=1,2,\dots,k-1$
- and for each $j=2,\dots,k$, there exists $i<j$ such that $w_i\not\prec w_j$.
We denote by $P^U_k$ the set of all correct sequences (abbreviated as [ *corrects*]{}) of length $k$. Since $G$ is uniquely defined by $U$, and we are working only with UIO, here and below we use the $U$-index instead of $G$. The $U$-analogues of symmetric functions will be analyzed.
\[Ppos\] Let $U$ be a unit interval order and $p_k^U$ the Stanley power-sum function of the corresponding incomparability graph. Then, for every natural $k$, we have $$p_k^U=\sum\limits_{\vec{w}\in P^U_k} w_1\cdot...\cdot w_k\ \in N[U],$$ where the sum is taken over all corrects of length $k$.
The proof of this theorem can be found in [@Paunov16].
Below, we prove positivity of $m^U_{{l},1^k}$, $m^U_{{l},2}$, $m^U_{{l},2,1},$ and $m^U_{2^{l},1^k}$. We need the following mild technical generalization of correct sequences: let $\lambda=(\lambda_1\ge\dots\ge \lambda_k)$ be a partition of $|\lambda|=\sum\limits_{i=1}^k\lambda_i$. Then, we will call sequence $(w_1,\dots, w_{|\lambda|})$ [*$\lambda$-correct*]{} if each of the subsequences $(w_1,\dots w_{\lambda_1})$, $(w_{\lambda_1+1},\dots,
w_{\lambda_1+\lambda_2})$,$\dots$ $(w_{|\lambda|-\lambda_k+1},\dots, w_{|\lambda|})$ are correct. Introduce the set $$P_\lambda^U=\{{\vec w}=(w_1,\dots w_{\lambda_1}{|}w_{\lambda_1+1},\dots,
w_{\lambda_1+\lambda_2}{|}\dots{|}w_{|\lambda|-\lambda_k+1},\dots, w_{|\lambda|})\ |\ {\vec w}\text{ is
}\lambda\text{-correct }\}$$ of $\lambda$-correct sequences of length-$|\lambda|$. In particular, $P_{l}^U$ is the set of ${l}$-corrects of $U$. This definition is consistent with Theorem \[Ppos\], and we have: $$p_\lambda^U=\prod_{i=1}^kp_{\lambda_i}^U=\sum_{\vec{w}\in P_\lambda^U}w_1\cdot ...\cdot w_{|\lambda|}.$$ For $\vec{w}=(w_1,\dots w_{{l}})\in P^U_{l}$ and $z\in U$ we write $z\succ\vec{w}$, if $z\succ w_i$ for every $1\leq i\leq{l}.$
\[Thn1\] Let $$M_{{l},1}^U = \{({\vec w}\ |z)\in P_{{l}.1}|\; z\succ{\vec w}\vee z\prec w_{l}\},$$
then $$m^U_{{l},1}=\sum\limits_{({\vec w};z)\in M^U_{{l},1}}w_1\cdot...\cdot w_{l}\cdot z.$$
According to Remark \[c\_m\], this implies $c_{n-1,1}(U)\geq 0$.
Since $P^U_{{l}+1}\subset P^U_{{l}}\times P^U_{1}$, using the following relation $$m^U_{{l},1}=p^U_{l}\cdot p^U_1 - p^U_{{l}+1},$$ we have $$P^U_{{l}}\times P^U_{1}\setminus P^U_{{l}+1}=M_{{l},1}^U,$$ and, as a consequence, $$m^U_{{l},1}=\sum\limits_{({\vec w};z)\in M^U_{{l},1}}w_1\cdot...\cdot w_{l}\cdot z.$$
Next, we introduce the set $$E_k^U=\{\vec{\varepsilon}=(\varepsilon_1,\dots, \varepsilon_{k})|\; \varepsilon_i\prec \varepsilon_{i+1}\text{, for }1\leq i<k \}.$$
\[n1k\] For natural numbers ${l}$ and $k$, let $$M^U_{{l},1^k}=\{(\vec{w}\ |\vec{\varepsilon})\in P^U_{l}\times E_k^U|\; \varepsilon\prec w_{l}\ \vee\ \varepsilon\succ \vec{w}\text{, for every } \varepsilon \in \vec{\varepsilon}\},$$ Then, $$m_{{l},1^k}^U=\sum_{({\vec w};\vec{\varepsilon})\in M^U_{{l},1^k}}w_1\cdot...\cdot w_{{l}}\cdot \varepsilon_1\cdot...\cdot\varepsilon_k.$$
According to Remark \[c\_m\], this implies $c_{n-k,1^k}(U)\geq 0$.
We prove this by induction on $k$. Note that for $k=1$, the definition of $M^U_{{l},1^k}$ coincides with $M^U_{{l},1}$ from Theorem \[Thn1\]. Thus, the case $k=1$ follows from Theorem \[Thn1\].
Assume the statement is true for $k$, and consider the standard equation $$p^U_{{l}}*e^U_{k+1}=m^U_{{l},1^{k+1}}+m^U_{{l}+1,1^{k}}.$$
Below, we construct a pair of inverse maps, $\phi_{{l},1^{k+1}}$ and $\psi_{{l},1^{k+1}}$ from the left part to the right part of the latter equation and vice versa respectively. Every case is followed by a visual illustration.
[**. We define $$\phi_{{l},1^{k+1}}:P^U_{l}\times E_{k+1}^U\to M^U_{{l},1^{k+1}}\sqcup M^U_{{l}+1,1^{k}}$$ as follows:**]{}
Let $(\vec{w}\ |\vec{\varepsilon}\ )\in P^U_{l}\times E_{k+1}^U$
1. If $\varepsilon_i\prec w_{l}\ \vee\ \varepsilon_i\succ \vec{w}$ for $1\leq i\leq k+1$, then $${\color{orange}}\phi_{{l},1^{k+1}}(\vec{w}\ |\vec{\varepsilon}\ )= (\vec{w}\ ;\vec{\varepsilon}\ )\in M^U_{{l},1^{k+1}}.$$
[**. The inverse of map $\psi_{{l},1^{k+1}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi^1_{{l},1^{k+1}}:M^U_{{l},1^{k+1}}\to P^U_{l}\times E_{k+1}^U;\\ &\psi^2_{{l},1^{k+1}}:M^U_{{l}+1,1^{k}}\to P^U_{l}\times E_{k+1}^U. \end{aligned}$$** ]{} Let $ (\vec{w}\ ;\vec{\varepsilon}\ )\in M^U_{{l},1^{k+1}}$ and $(\vec{w}\ ,z ;\vec{\nu}\ )\in M^U_{{l}+1,1^{k}}$.
1. For $(\vec{w}\ ;\vec{\varepsilon}\ )\in M^U_{{l},1^{k+1}}$, we have: $${\color{red}}\psi^1_{{l},1^{k+1}}(\vec{w}\ ;\vec{\varepsilon}\ )= (\vec{w}\ |\vec{\varepsilon}\ )\in P^U_{l}\times E_{k+1}^U.$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [${w}_{{l}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$\varepsilon_j$]{}; (zl) [$\prec$]{}; (zl1) [$...$]{}; (zl2) [$\prec$]{}; (zq1) [$\varepsilon_{k+1}$]{};
(b1) [$\prec$]{}; (b2) [$...$]{}; (b3) [$\prec$]{}; (b4) [$\varepsilon_1$]{};
\(m) [$\prec$]{}; (n) [$\prec$]{};
1. If $\exists\ i$, s.t. $\varepsilon_i\nprec w_{l}\ \wedge\ \varepsilon_i\nsucc \vec{w}$, then define $$m=\max(i\ |1\leq i\leq k+1, \varepsilon_i\nprec w_{l}\ \wedge\ \varepsilon_i\nsucc \vec{w}),$$ then we have
$$\begin{aligned}
&{\color{red}}\phi_{{l},1^{k+1}}(\vec{w}\ |\vec{\varepsilon}\ )=\\&{\color{red}}=(\vec{w}\ ,\varepsilon_{m}; \varepsilon_1,...,\varepsilon_{m-1},\varepsilon_{m+1},..,\varepsilon_{k+1})\in M^U_{{l}+1,1^{k}}.\end{aligned}$$
1. For $(\vec{w}\ ,z ;\vec{\nu}\ )\in M^U_{{l}+1,1^{k}}$, we define $$j=\min(i\ |1\leq i\leq k, z\prec \nu_i),$$ then we have
$$\begin{aligned}
&{\color{orange}}\psi^2_{{l},1^{k+1}}(\vec{w}\ ,z ;\vec{\nu}\ )=\\&{\color{orange}}=(\vec{w}\ |\nu_1,...,\nu_{j-1},z,\nu_{j},..,\nu_k)\in P^U_{l}\times E_{k+1}^U.\end{aligned}$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}, sh/.style=[shade,shading=axis,left color=orange!20,right color=blue!20]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f1) [${w}_{{l}}$]{}; (k1) [$\preceq$]{}; (f) \[sh\] [$\varepsilon_{m}|z$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$\varepsilon_{m+1}|\nu_j$]{}; (zl) [$\prec$]{}; (zl1) [$...$]{}; (zl2) [$\prec$]{}; (zq1) [$\varepsilon_{k+1}|\nu_k$]{};
(b1) [$\prec$]{}; (b2) [$...$]{}; (b3) [$\prec$]{}; (b4) [$\varepsilon_1|\nu_1$]{};
\(m) [$\prec$]{}; (n) [$\prec$]{};
This completes the proof.
Given a correct ${\vec w}\in P^U_{{l}}$, let $$\theta= \theta({\vec w})=\max(\{i<{l}|\; w_{i}\sim w_{i+1} \})\in\mathbb{N} \text{ and } J_{{l}-1}=(w_1,...,w_{{l}-1})\in P_{l-1}.$$
\[Thn2\] For natural ${l}\geq 2$, let $$M^U_{{l},2} = \{({\vec w}\ {|}q_0,q_1)\in P^U_{{l}.2}|\; J_{{l}-1}\prec q_0 \text{ and } w_{{l}}\prec q_1 \ \vee\
w_\theta\succ q_0 \text{ and } w_{\theta+1}\succ q_1
\}.$$ Then, $$m_{{l},2}^U=\sum_{({\vec w};q_0,q_1)\in M^U_{{l},2}}w_1\cdot...\cdot w_{{l}}\cdot q_0\cdot q_1.$$
According to Remark \[c\_m\], this implies $c_{n-2,2}(U)\geq 0$.
There is a slightly more elegant version of $M^U_{{l},2},$ which we will use in the future: $$M^U_{{l},2} = \{({\vec w},q_0,q_1)\in P^U_{{l},2}|\; (J_{{l}-1}\prec q_0 \wedge w_{{l}}\prec q_1) \ \vee\
(w_\theta\succ q_0 \wedge w_{\theta+1}\succ q_1)
\}$$
Here is an illustration of an element of $M^U_{{l},2}$:
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [$w_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [$w_{\theta}$]{}; (ff) [$w_{\theta+1}$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (ii) [$w_{{l}}$]{};
\(k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$q_0$]{}; (kk) [$\prec$]{}; (ll) [$q_1$]{}; (f) – (ff); (l) – (ll);
We can write $$\label{eqpn2}
P^U_{{l},2}\setminus M^U_{{l},2} = \{({\vec w}\ {|}q_0,q_1)\in P^U_{{l}.2}|\; (\vec{w}\prec q_0 \Rightarrow
(w_{{l}}\nprec q_1\wedge J_{{l}-1}\nprec q_1) \ \wedge\
( w_\theta\succ q_0\Rightarrow w_{\theta+1}\not\succ q_1)
\}.$$ The conditions in have the form $A\wedge B$. We begin with a few remarks.
1. Observe that the conditions of $A$ and $B$ are mutually exclusive, so we can consider the two statements independently.
2. Define $\tau=\max\{i\leq{l}|\; q_1\nprec w_{i}\vee w_i\sim w_{i+1}\}$. Note that it could happen that $q_1\prec\theta$, but clearly $\tau\geq\theta$.
3. For $\vec{u}\in P^U_{{l}+2}$, let $U_{{l}-1}=(u_1,...,u_{{l}-1})$ and $\breve{\theta}=\max(\{i<{l}|\; u_{i}\sim u_{i+1} \}).$
To prove the theorem, we consider the following formula $$m^U_{{l},2}=p^U_{l}\cdot p^U_2-p^U_{{l}+2}.$$ and construct two injective maps.
[0.48]{}[0.48]{}
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{},scale=1.5,transform shape\]
\(b) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$w_1\mid u_1$}}$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_1\mid u_{{l}}$}}$]{}; (ii) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$w_{{l}}\mid u_{{l}+1}$}}$]{}; (iii) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_0\mid u_{{l}+2}$}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (n) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$\vec{w}\mid U_{{l}-1}$}}$]{}; (f) – (ii); (f) to \[out=-50,in=-130\] (j);
[0.48]{}[0.48]{}
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{},scale=1.5,transform shape\]
\(b) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$w_1\mid u_1$}}$]{}; (d) [$...$]{};
\(dd) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$w_\tau\mid u_{\breve{\theta}-1}$}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (n) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_0\mid u_{\breve{\theta}+1}$}}$]{}; (f) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_1\mid u_{\breve{\theta}}$}}$]{}; (fff) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_0\mid u_{\breve{\theta}+1}$}}$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (t1) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$w_{\tau+1}\mid u_{\breve{\theta}+2}$}}$]{}; (t2) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{};
\(f) – (fff); (dd) – (f);
[0.48]{}[0.48]{}
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{},scale=1.5,transform shape\]
\(b) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$w_1\mid u_1$}}$]{}; (d) [$...$]{};
\(dd) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$w_\tau\mid u_{\breve{\theta}-1}$}}$]{}; (k) [$\nprec$]{}; (n) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_1\mid u_{\breve{\theta}+1}$}}$]{}; (dd1) [$\preceq$]{}; (f) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_0\mid u_{\breve{\theta}}$}}$]{}; (fff) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_1\mid u_{\breve{\theta}+1}$}}$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (t1) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$w_{\tau+1}\mid u_{\breve{\theta}+2}$}}$]{}; (t2) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{};
\(f) – (fff);
To find a combinatorial interpretation of $m^U_{{l},2,1}$, we construct a bijection between the right and left hand sides of the following equality:
$$\label{n21}
p^U_{{l}}*m^U_{2,1}=m^U_{{l}+2,1}+m^U_{{l}+1,2}+m^U_{{l},2,1}.$$
This formula and its proof are similar to the previous one.
\[thmn21\] For natural ${l}$, let $$\begin{aligned}
M^U_{{l},2,1}= &\{ (\vec{w}\ |\vec{q}\ |z)\in P_{{l},2,1}|\; (\vec{w}\ ;\vec{q}\ )\in M^U_{{l},2},\ (\vec{w}\ ;z)\in M^U_{{l},1},\ (\vec{q}\ ;z)\in M^U_{2,1}, \}\\ & \cup \{ (\vec{w}\ |\vec{q}\ |z)\in P_{{l},2,1}|\; s_{l}\succ z\succ\vec{q},\ \exists \gamma \in \mathbb{N}, \text{ such that } \theta < \gamma<{l},\ s_{ \gamma}\sim z, \ s_{ \gamma}\succ q_2 \}\\ & \cup \{ (\vec{w}\ |\vec{q}\ |z)\in P_{{l},2,1}|\; s_{l}\succ z\succ q_2,\ \exists \gamma \in \mathbb{N}, \text{ such that } \theta < \gamma<{l},\ s_{\gamma}\sim z,\ z\sim q_1,\ s_{ \gamma}\succ q_1 \},
\end{aligned}$$ Then, $$m_{{l},2,1}^U=\sum_{({\vec w};q_0,q_1;z)\in M^U_{{l},2,1}}w_1\cdot...\cdot w_{{l}}\cdot q_0\cdot q_1\cdot z.$$
According to Remark \[c\_m\], this implies $c_{n-3,2,1}(U)\geq 0$.
Let us explain the meaning of $M_{{l},2,1}^U$. This theorem states that in addition to combinations of pairwise comparable corrects of lengths ${l}$, 2 and 1 we have two more cases:
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
(start) [$...$]{}; (a) [$w_{\theta}$]{}; (b) [$w_{\theta+1}$]{}; (c) [$\prec$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (e) [$\prec$]{}; (f) [$w_{\gamma}$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [$w_{{l}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$z$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (n) [$q_1$]{}; (o) [$\prec$]{}; (p) [$\prec$]{}; (q) [$q_0$]{}; (b) – (a); (l) – (f); (n) – (q);
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
(start) [$...$]{}; (a) [$w_{\theta}$]{}; (b) [$w_{\theta+1}$]{}; (c) [$\prec$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (e) [$\prec$]{}; (f) [$w_{\gamma}$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [$w_{{l}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$q_1$]{};
\(n) [$q_0$]{}; (o) [$\prec$]{}; (p) [$\prec$]{}; (q) [$z$]{}; (b) – (a); (l) – (f); (l) – (n); (n) – (q);
To prove Theorem \[thmn21\] using Formula \[n21\], we construct the maps $\varphi_{{l}|2,1}$ and $\psi_{{l}|2,1}$.
[****]{}. We construct the map from the left hand side to the right hand side $$\phi_{{l}|2,1}: P^U_{{l}}\times M^U_{2,1} \to M_{{l}+2,1}^U\sqcup M_{{l}+1,2}^U\sqcup M^U_{{l},2,1}.$$
Let us take $$(\vec{{w}}\ |q_1,q_2\ ;z)\in P^U_{{l}}\times M^U_{2,1}.$$
Let $$\theta=\max(\{i<{l}|\; {w}_{i}\sim {w}_{i+1} \}).$$
We will use this $\theta$ for ${w}$ on the right hand side as well.
1. If $z\succ\vec{q}$.
1. If $z\succ\vec{{w}}$.
1. If $(\vec{{w}}\ ;\vec{q}\ )\in M^U_{{l},2}$, then $${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ ;\vec{q}\ ;z)\in M^U_{{l},2,1}.$$
[**.**]{} We construct $$\psi^1_{{l}|2,1}: M^U_{{l}+2,1} \to P^U_{l}\times M^U_{2,1},$$ $$\psi^2_{{l}|2,1}: M^U_{{l}+1,2} \to P^U_{l}\times M^U_{2,1},$$ $$\psi^3_{{l}|2,1}: M^U_{{l},2,1} \to P^U_{l}\times M^U_{2,1}.$$ We take $$(\vec{{u}}\ ;{\xi}) \in M^U_{{l}+2,1};$$ $$(\vec{{w}},{\xi}\ ;\ {q}_0,{q}_1) \in M^U_{{l}+1,2};$$ $$(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z) \in M^U_{{l},2,1}.$$
Let $\breve{\theta}=\max(\{i<{l}+2|\ {u}_i\sim {u}_{i+1}\})$.
1. If $(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1; z) \in M^U_{{l},2,1}$ and $z\succ\vec{{q}}$ and $z\succ\vec{{w}}$, then $${\color{orange}}\psi^3_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ {|}\ {q}_0,{q}_1\ ; z).$$
In this case we have 2 illustrations:
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [${w}_{{l}-1}$]{}; (i) [$\preceq$]{}; (j) [${w}_{l}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$q_0$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (n) [$\prec$]{}; (o) [$\prec$]{}; (p) [$q_1$]{}; (oo) [$\prec$]{}; (pp) [$z$]{}; (nn) [$\prec$]{}; (l) – (p);
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [${w}_{\theta}$]{}; (ff) [${w}_{\theta+1}$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (ii) [${w}_{{l}}$]{}; (iii) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [$z$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (n) [$\prec$]{};
\(k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$q_0$]{}; (kk) [$\prec$]{}; (ll) [$q_1$]{}; (f) – (ff); (l) – (ll);
1. If $(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ )\notin M^U_{{l},2}$, then using $$\phi_{{l}|2}(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ )\in M^U_{{l}+2}$$ we have $${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ |z)=(\phi_{{l}|2}(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ )\ ;z)\in M^U_{{l}+2,1}$$
<!-- -->
1. If $(\vec{{u}}\ ;{\xi}) \in M^U_{{l}+2,1}$ and ${\xi}\succ\vec{{u}}$, then using $$\psi_{{l}|2}(\vec{{u}}\ )\in M^U_{{l},2}$$ we have $${\color{orange}}\psi^1_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{u}}\ ;z)=(\psi_{{l}|2}(\vec{{u}}\ );\ {\xi}).$$
Here, we provide illustrations for the right hand side, see Theorem \[Thn2\], where $\phi_{{l}|2}$ and $\psi_{{l}|2}$ are defined, for more details.
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
(start) [${u}_1$]{}; (start1) [$...$]{}; (a) [${u}_{\theta}$]{}; (b) [${u}_{\theta+1}$]{}; (c) [$\prec$]{}; (cc) [${u}_{\theta+2}$]{}; (ccc) [$\prec$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (e) [$\prec$]{};
(fff) [${u}_{{l}+1}$]{};
\(i) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${u}_{{l}+2}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [${\xi}$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (b) – (a);
Note that the picture above illustrates most of the cases, except the special one, when ${u}_{{l}+2}~\succ~{u}_{{l}+1}$, ${u}_{{l}+2}\succ J_{{l}-1}$ and ${u}_{{l}+2}\sim {u}_{{l}}$. In this case map $\psi_{{l}|2}$ takes out ${u}_{{l}+2}$ and ${u}_{{l}}$:
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${u}_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [${u}_{l}$]{}; (ii) [${u}_{{l}+1}$]{}; (iii) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${u}_{{l}+2}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [${\xi}$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (f) – (ii); (j) to \[out=130,in=50\] (f);
1. If $z\nprec {w}_{l}$ and $z\nsucc\vec{w}$, then denote $$(\hat{w}_\theta,\hat{w}_{\theta+1})=
\begin{cases}
(w_{l},z), & \text{if}\ w_{l}\sim z, \\
({w}_\theta,{w}_{\theta+1}), & z\succ w_{l}.
\end{cases}$$
1. If $\hat{w}_\theta\succ q_0$ and $\hat{w}_{\theta+1}\succ q_1$, then $${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ |q_0,q_1;z)=(\vec{{w}},z\ ;q_0,q_1)\in M^U_{{l}+1,2}.$$
<!-- -->
1. For $(\vec{{w}},{\xi}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1) \in M^U_{{l}+1,2}$, such that
(${\xi}\succ w_{l},$ ${w}_{\theta}\succ {q}_0,$ ${w}_{\theta+1}\succ{q}_1,$ and ${\xi}\succ {q}_0$),\
or
(${\xi}\sim w_{l},$ ${w}_{{l}}\succ {q}_0,$ ${\xi}\succ{q}_1,$ and ${\xi}\succ {q}_0$),\
we have: $${\color{orange}}\psi^2_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}},{\xi}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1)=(\vec{{w}}\ |{q}_0,{q}_1;{\xi}).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [${w}_{\theta}$]{}; (ff) [${w}_{\theta+1}$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (ii) [${w}_{{l}}$]{}; (iii) [$\preceq$]{}; (j) [$z\mid{\xi}$]{};
(ar2) [$\prec$]{}; (arr2) [$q_0$]{};
\(k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$q_0$]{}; (kk) [$\prec$]{}; (ll) [$q_1$]{}; (f) – (ff); (l) – (ll);
1. If $\hat{w}_{\theta+1}\nsucc q_1$ or $\hat{w}_{\theta}\nsucc q_0$, we take $$\tau =\max(\{i<{l}| {w}_{i}\nsucc q_1 \vee {w}_i\sim {w}_{i+1}\vee {w}_i\sim z\})$$ (note that $\tau\geq\theta$), and insert $q_0$ or $q_1$ after it:
1. If $q_0\prec {w}_\tau$, then
$$\begin{gathered}
{\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=\\ {\color{red}}= ({w}_1,...,{w}_\tau,q_1,{w}_{\tau+1},...,{w}_{l},z\ ;q_0)\in M^U_{{l}+2,1} \end{gathered}$$
<!-- -->
1. For $(\vec{{u}}\ ;{\xi})\in M^U_{{l}+2,1},$ such that ${\xi}\prec{u}_{{l}+2}$, define $$\eta=\max(0,\{i\geq\breve{\theta}| {u}_i\sim {\xi}\}).$$
1. If $\eta>0$, then we take out ${u}_{\eta},\ {u}_{{l}+2}$ and ${\xi}$:
1. If $\eta=\breve{\theta}+1$ and ${u}_{\breve{\theta}}\succ {\xi}$, then
$$\begin{gathered}
{\color{orange}}\psi^1_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{u}}\ ;{\xi}) = ({u}_1,...,{u}_{\eta-1},{u}_{\eta+1},...,{u}_{{l}+1}\ |{\xi},{u}_{\eta};{u}_{{l}+2}).\end{gathered}$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{},scale=1.5,transform shape\]
\(b) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_1\mid{u}_1$}}$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (e) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{\tau}\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}}$}}$]{}; (ee) [$\prec$]{}; (eee) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_0\mid{\xi}$}}$]{};
\(f) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_1\mid{u}_{\eta}$}}$]{}; (ff) [$\prec$]{}; (fff) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{\tau+1}|{u}_{\breve{\theta}+2}$}}$]{}; (ffff) [$\prec$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (ii) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{l}|{u}_{{l}+1}$}}$]{}; (iii) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$ z\mid{u}_{{l}+2}$}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_0\mid{\xi}$}}$]{}; (f) – (e); (l) to \[out=190,in=30\] (f);
1. If $q_0\nprec s_\tau$, then
$$\begin{gathered}
{\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{w}\ |\vec{q}\ ; z)=\\{\color{red}}=({w}_1,...,{w}_\tau,q_0,s_{\tau+1},...,{w}_{l},z\ ;q_1)\in M^U_{{l}+2,1}.\end{gathered}$$
1. If ($\eta=\theta$ and ${\xi}\prec {u}_{\theta+1}$) or ($\eta=\theta+1$ and (${u}_{\theta}\sim{u}_{\breve{\theta}+2}$ or ${u}_{\breve{\theta}}\nsucc{\xi}$ ) or $\eta>\breve{\theta}+1$, then $${\color{orange}}\psi^1_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{u}}\ ;{\xi}) = ({u}_1,...,{u}_{\eta-1},{u}_{\eta+1},...,{u}_{{l}+1}\ |{u}_{\eta}, {\xi}\ ;{u}_{{l}+2}).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{},scale=1.5,transform shape\]
\(b) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_1\mid{u}_1$}}$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (e) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{\tau}\mid{u}_{\eta-1}$}}$]{};
(ee) [$\nprec$]{}; (eee) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_1\mid{\xi}$}}$]{}; (ef) [$\preceq$]{}; (f) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_0\mid{u}_{\eta}$}}$]{};
(ff) [$\preceq$]{}; (fff) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{\tau+1}\mid{u}_{\eta+1}$}}$]{}; (ffff) [$\prec$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (ii) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{l}|{u}_{{l}+1}$}}$]{}; (iii) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$z|{u}_{{l}+2}$}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_1|{\xi}$}}$]{};
\(l) to \[out=190,in=30\] (f);
Here we have a special case when $\tau=\theta$. Note that it is possible that $w_\tau\succ q_1$:
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{},scale=1.5,transform shape\]
\(b) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_1\mid{u}_1$}}$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (e) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{\theta}\mid{u}_{\eta-1}$}}$]{}; (f) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_0\mid{u}_{\eta}$}}$]{}; (ff) [$\preceq$]{}; (fff) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{\theta+1}\mid{u}_{\eta+1}$}}$]{}; (ffff) [$\prec$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (ii) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{l}|{u}_{{l}+1}$}}$]{}; (iii) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$z|{u}_{{l}+2}$}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_1|{\xi}$}}$]{}; (f) – (e); (l) to \[out=190,in=30\] (f); (e) to \[out=-50,in=-130\] (fff);
1. If $z\prec {w}_{l}$.
1. If ${w}_{\theta+1}\succ q_1$ and ${w}_\theta\succ q_0$, then $${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ ;\vec{q}\ ;z)\in M^U_{{l},2,1}.$$
<!-- -->
1. If $(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z) \in M^U_{{l},2,1}$ and $z\succ\vec{{q}},$ and $z\prec{w}_{l},$ and ${w}_{\theta+1}\succ q_1$ and ${w}_\theta\succ q_0$, then
$${\color{orange}}\psi^3_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ |{q}_0,{q}_1;z).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [${w}_{\theta}$]{}; (ff) [${w}_{\theta+1}$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (ii) [${w}_{{l}}$]{}; (iii) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [$z$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (n) [$\prec$]{};
\(k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$q_0$]{}; (kk) [$\prec$]{}; (ll) [$q_1$]{}; (f) – (ff); (l) – (ll);
1. If $w_{\theta+1}\nsucc q_1$ or $w_\theta\nsucc q_0$, then Let $$\gamma=\max(0,\{\theta<i<{l}| w_{i}\sim z\}).$$
1. if $\gamma>\theta$ and $\gamma>\tau$ (i.e. $\exists\ w_\gamma\sim z$), then $${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{w}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\vec{w}\ ;\vec{q}\ ;z)\in M^U_{{l},2,1}.$$
This is the first type exceptional element, shown before on the Figure \[Firstn21\] and on the picture below:
<!-- -->
1. If $(\vec{w}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z) \in M^U_{{l},2,1}$ is the first type exceptional element , then\
$${\color{orange}}\psi^3_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{w}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z)=(\vec{w}\ |{q}_0,{q}_1;z).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
(start) [$...$]{}; (a) [${w}_{\theta}$]{}; (b) [${w}_{\theta+1}$]{}; (c) [$\prec$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (e) [$\prec$]{}; (f) [${w}_{\gamma}$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${w}_{{l}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$z$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (n) [$q_1$]{}; (o) [$\prec$]{}; (p) [$\prec$]{}; (q) [$q_0$]{}; (b) – (a); (l) – (f); (n) – (q);
1. Otherwise (i.e. if $\gamma=0$ or $\gamma<\tau$), we have:\
\
\
\
$${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{w}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\phi_{{l}|2}(\vec{w}\ |\vec{q}\ );z).$$
<!-- -->
1. For $(\vec{{u}}\ ;{\xi}) \in M^U_{{l}+2,1}$, such that $${\xi}\prec{u}_{{l}+2} \text{ and } \eta=0,$$ what implies $$({\xi}\succ{u}_{\theta+1} \text{ and } {\xi}\succ{u}_{\theta}),$$ we have $${\color{orange}}\psi^2_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{u}}\ ;{\xi})=(\psi_{{l}|2}(\vec{{u}}\ );{\xi}).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{},scale=1.5,transform shape\]
\(b) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_1\mid{u}_1$}}$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f)[${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_{01}\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}}$}}$]{}; (mm1) [$\prec$]{}; (fff) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_{01}\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}+1}$}}$]{}; (mm2) [$\prec$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (ii) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{{l}-1}\mid{u}_{{l}+1}$}}$]{}; (iii) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{{l}}\mid{u}_{{l}+2}$}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$z\mid{\xi}$}}$]{}; (f) – (fff);
1. If $q_1\succ z$ and $q_0\sim z$.
1. If $q_0\succ \vec{{w}}$
1. If $z\succ \vec{{w}}$, then
$${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ ;\vec{q}\ ;z)\in M^U_{{l},2,1}.$$
<!-- -->
1. If For $(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z) \in M^U_{{l},2,1}$, such that $$q_1\succ z\text{ and }q_0\sim z \text{ and } z\succ \vec{{w}},$$ we have $${\color{orange}}\psi^3_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ |{q}_0,{q}_1;z).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [${w}_\theta$]{}; (ii) [${w}_{\theta+1}$]{}; (iii) [$\prec$]{}; (i1) [$...$]{}; (i2) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${w}_{{l}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$z$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{};
(q11) [$\prec$]{}; (q1) [$q_1$]{}; (q0) [$q_0$]{}; (f) – (ii); (l) – (q0); (q1) – (q0);
1. If $z\nsucc \vec{{w}}$ and $z\nprec {w}_{l}$, then
$${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{w}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\vec{w},z\ ;\vec{q}\ )\in M^U_{{l}+1,2}.$$
<!-- -->
1. For $(\vec{{w}},{\xi}\ ; {q}_0,{q}_1) \in M^U_{{l}+1,2}$, such that ${q}_0\succ\vec{{w}},$ ${q}_0\sim{\xi}$ and ${q}_1\succ {\xi}$, we have $${\color{orange}}\psi^2_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}},{\xi}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1)=(\vec{{w}}\ |{q}_0,{q}_1;{\xi}).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [${w}_\theta$]{}; (ii) [${w}_{\theta+1}$]{}; (iii) [$\prec$]{}; (i1) [$...$]{}; (i2) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${w}_{{l}}$]{}; (k) [$\preceq$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$z\mid{\xi}$]{};
(q11) [$\prec$]{}; (q1) [$q_1$]{}; (q0) [$q_0$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (f) – (ii); (l) – (q0); (q1) – (q0);
1. If $q_0\nsucc \vec{w}$ and $q_0\nprec {w}_{l}$, then
$${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{w}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\vec{w},q_0,q_1\ ;z)\in M^U_{{l}+2,1}.$$
<!-- -->
1. For $(\vec{{u}}\ ;{\xi}) \in M^U_{{l}+2,1}$, such that\
${u}_{{l}+1}\sim{\xi}$, ${u}_{{l}+1}\sim{u}_{{l}+2}$, and ${u}_{{l}+2}\succ{\xi}$, we have $${\color{orange}}\psi^2_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{u}}\ ;{\xi})=({u}_1,...,{u}_{l}{|}{u}_{{l}+1},{u}_{{l}+2}\;{\xi}).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1|{u}_1$]{}; (b1) [$\prec$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (i2) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${w}_{l}|{u}_{l}$]{}; (k) [$\preceq$]{}; (q0) [$q_0|{u}_{{l}+1}$]{}; (q1) [$q_1|{u}_{{l}+2}$]{}; (q11) [$\prec$]{}; (z) [$z\mid{\xi}$]{}; (z) – (q0); (q1) – (q0);
1. If $q_0\prec {w}_{l}$.
1. If $q_1\sim {w}_{l}$, then\
\
\
$${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\vec{{w}},q_1;q_0,z)\in M^U_{{l}+1,2}.$$
<!-- -->
1. For $(\vec{{w}},{\xi}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1) \in M^U_{{l}+1,2}$, such that $${\xi}\sim {w}_{l}\text{ and }{\xi}\sim {q}_0\text{ and }{q}_0\prec {w}_{l}\text{ and }{q}_1\prec {\xi},$$ we have $${\color{orange}}\psi^2_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}},{\xi}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1)=(\vec{{w}}\ |{q}_0,{\xi}\ ;{q}_1).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [${w}_{l}$]{}; (j) [$q_1\mid{\xi}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$q_0$]{}; (o) [$\prec$]{}; (p) [$z\mid q_1$]{}; (l) – (p); (f) – (j); (l) – (j);
1. If $q_1\prec {w}_{l}$ and ${w}_{\theta}\succ q_0$ and ${w}_{\theta+1}\succ q_1$, then\
\
\
$${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ ;\vec{q}\ ;z)\in M^U_{{l},2,1}.$$
<!-- -->
1. For $(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z) \in M^U_{{l},2,1}$, such that\
${w}_\theta\succ{q}_0 \text{ and }{w}_{\theta+1}\succ{q}_1\text{ and }{q}_0\sim z\text{ and }{q}_1\succ z $, we have $${\color{orange}}\psi^3_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ |{q}_0,{q}_1;z).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [${w}_{\theta}$]{}; (ff) [${w}_{\theta+1}$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (ii) [${w}_{{l}}$]{};
\(k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$q_0$]{}; (kk) [$\prec$]{}; (ll) [$q_1$]{};
(lla) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [$z$]{};
\(f) – (ff); (l) – (j); (l) – (ll);
1. If $q_1\prec {w}_{l}$ and (${w}_{\theta}\nsucc q_0$ or ${w}_{\theta+1}\nsucc q_1$), let $$\tau=\max(\{i<{l}| {w}_{i}\nsucc q_1\vee {w}_i\sim {w}_{i+1}\}).$$
1. If $q_0\prec {w}_\tau$ ($\Rightarrow\ q_1\sim {w}_\tau$), then $${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{w}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ ;\vec{q}\ ;z)\in M^U_{{l},2,1}.$$
This case is isomorphic to the second exceptional element type, shown below:
<!-- -->
1. If $(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z) \in M^U_{{l},2,1}$ has the second\
exceptional element type, then\
\
$${\color{orange}}\psi^3_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ |{q}_0,{q}_1;z).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
(start) [$...$]{}; (a) [${w}_{\theta}$]{}; (b) [${w}_{\theta+1}$]{}; (c) [$\prec$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (e) [$\prec$]{}; (f) [${w}_{\tau}$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${w}_{l}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$q_1$]{};
\(n) [$q_0$]{}; (o) [$\prec$]{}; (p) [$\prec$]{}; (q) [$z$]{}; (b) – (a); (l) – (f); (l) – (n); (n) – (q);
1. If $q_0\nprec w_\tau$, then
$$\begin{gathered}
{\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{w}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\phi_{{l}|2}(\vec{w}\ |q_0,z)\ ;q_1)=\\{\color{red}}=({w}_1,...,w_\tau,q_0,z,w_{\tau+1},...,{w}_{l}\ ;q_1)\in M^U_{{l}+2,1}.\end{gathered}$$
The following 3 pictures illustrate this case:
1. For $(\vec{{u}}\ ;{\xi}) \in M^U_{{l}+2,1}$, such that ${\xi}\prec{u}_{{l}+2}$, $\eta=\theta$ and ${\xi}\succ{u}_{\theta+1}$, we have $${\color{orange}}\psi^1_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{u}}\ ;{\xi})=({u}_1,...,{u}_{\theta-1},{u}_{\theta+2},...,{u}_{{l}+2}\ |{u}_{\theta},{\xi}\ ;{u}_{\theta+1}).$$ As a reminder, $$\begin{aligned}
& \breve{\theta}=\max(\{i<{l}+2|\ {u}_i\sim {u}_{i+1}\}), \\ & \eta=\max(0,\{i\geq\theta| {u}_i\sim {\xi}\}).\end{aligned}$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{},scale=1.5,transform shape\]
\(b) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_1\mid{u}_1$}}$]{}; (d) [$...$]{};
\(dd) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{\theta}\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}-1}$}}$]{}; (f) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_0\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}}$}}$]{}; (fff) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$z\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}+1}$}}$]{}; (ffff) [$\succ$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (t1) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{\theta+1}\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}+2}$}}$]{}; (t2) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{l}\mid{u}_{{l}+2}$}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_1\mid{\xi}$}}$]{}; (f) – (fff); (l) – (f); (dd) – (f); (dd) to \[out=-50,in=-130\] (t1);
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{},scale=1.5,transform shape\]
\(b) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_1\mid{u}_1$}}$]{}; (d) [$...$]{};
\(dd) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{\tau}\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}-1}$}}$]{}; (f) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_0\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}}$}}$]{}; (fff) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$z\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}+1}$}}$]{}; (ffff) [$\succ$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (t1) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{\tau+1}\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}+2}$}}$]{}; (tb) [$\prec$]{}; (t2) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{l}\mid{u}_{{l}+2}$}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_1\mid{\xi}$}}$]{}; (f) – (fff); (l) – (f); (dd) – (f); (dd) – (l);
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{},scale=1.5,transform shape\]
\(b) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_1\mid{u}_1$}}$]{}; (d) [$...$]{};
\(dd) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{\tau}\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}-1}$}}$]{}; (dd1) [$\succ$]{}; (d1) [$\preceq$]{}; (f) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_0\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}}$}}$]{}; (fff) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$z\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}+1}$}}$]{}; (ffff) [$\succ$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (t1)[${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{\tau+1}\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}+2}$}}$]{}; (tb) [$\prec$]{}; (t2) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{l}\mid{u}_{{l}+2}$}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_1\mid{\xi}$}}$]{}; (f) – (fff); (l) – (f);
1. If $q_1\succ z$ and $q_0\succ z$.
This is the easiest case, since we insert $\vec{q}$ and $z$ independently.
1. If $z\succ\vec{{w}}$, then $${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)\in M^U_{{l},2,1}.$$
<!-- -->
1. For $(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z) \in M^U_{{l},2,1}$, such that
$z\succ\vec{{w}}$, ${q}_0\succ z$ and ${q}_1\succ z$,
we have $${\color{orange}}\psi^3_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ |{q}_0,{q}_1;z).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [${w}_{{l}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$z$]{}; (zl) [$\prec$]{}; (zq1) [$q_1$]{}; (zq0) [$q_0$]{};
\(mm) [$\succ$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (n) [$\prec$]{};
(zq1) – (zq0);
1. If $z\nprec {w}_{l}$ and $z\nsucc\vec{w}$ ($\Rightarrow q_0\nprec {w}_{l}$)
1. If $q_0\succ\vec{w}$, then $${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{w}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\vec{w},z\ ;\vec{q}\ )\in M^U_{{l}+1,2}.$$
<!-- -->
1. If $(\vec{{w}},{\xi}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1) \in M^U_{{l}+1,2}$,\
and ${q}_0\succ\vec{{w}}$, and ${q}_1\succ {\xi}$, then
$${\color{orange}}\psi^2_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}},{\xi}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1)=(\vec{{w}}\ |{q}_0,{q}_1;{\xi}).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [${w}_{l}$]{}; (i) [$\preceq$]{}; (j) [$z\mid{\xi}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$q_0$]{}; (mm) [$\succ$]{}; (m) [$\prec$]{}; (n) [$\prec$]{}; (o) [$\prec$]{}; (p) [$q_1$]{}; (l) – (p);
1. If $q_0\nsucc\vec{{w}}$, then\
\
\
\
\
\
$${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ ,\vec{q}\ ;z)\in M^U_{{l}+2,1}.$$
<!-- -->
1. For $(\vec{{u}}\ ;{\xi}) \in M^U_{{l}+2,1}$, such that $${\xi}\prec{u}_{{l}+2}\text{ and }{\xi}\prec{u}_{{l}+2},$$ what implies $$({\xi}\prec{u}_{\theta+1} \text{ and } {\xi}\prec{u}_{\theta}),$$ we have $${\color{orange}}\psi^2_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{u}}\ ;{\xi})=(\psi_{{l}|2}(\vec{{u}}\ );{\xi})=({u}_1,...,{u}_{l}| {u}_{{l}+1},{u}_{{l}+2};{\xi}).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1|{u}_1$]{}; (b1) [$\prec$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (i2) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${w}_{l}|{u}_{l}$]{}; (k) [$\preceq$]{}; (q0) [$q_0|{u}_{{l}+1}$]{}; (mm) [$\succ$]{}; (q1) [$q_1|{u}_{{l}+2}$]{}; (q11) [$\prec$]{}; (z) [$z\mid{\xi}$]{}; (q1) – (q0);
1. If $z\prec {w}_{l}$
1. If $(\vec{{w}}\ ;\vec{q}\ )\in M_{{l},2}^U$, then $${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ ;\vec{q}\ ;z)\in M^U_{{l},2,1}.$$
<!-- -->
1. If $(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1;z) \in M^U_{{l},2,1}$, and $${q}_0\succ z,\ {q}_1\succ z\text{ and } w_{l}\succ z, \text{ then}$$ $${\color{orange}}\psi^3_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ ;\vec{{q}}\ ;z)=(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{{q}}\ ;z).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{}\]
\(b) [${w}_1$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f) [${w}_{\theta}$]{}; (ff) [${w}_{\theta+1}$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (ii) [${w}_{{l}}$]{};
\(k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [$q_0$]{}; (kk) [$\prec$]{}; (mm) [$\succ$]{}; (ll) [$q_1$]{};
(lla) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [$z$]{};
\(f) – (ff); (l) – (ll);
1. If $(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ )\notin M_{{l},2}^U$, then\
\
$${\color{red}}\phi_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ ;z)=( \phi_{{l}|2}(\vec{{w}}\ |\vec{q}\ ) ;z)\in M^U_{{l}+2,1}$$
<!-- -->
1. If $(\vec{{u}}\ |{\xi}) \in M^U_{{l}+2,1}$, ${\xi}\prec{u}_{{l}+2}$ and $\eta=0$, what implies $$({\xi}\prec{u}_{\theta+1}\text{ and }{\xi}\prec{u}_{\theta}),$$ then we have $${\color{orange}}\psi^2_{{l}|2,1}(\vec{{u}}\ ;{\xi})=(\psi_{{l}|2}(\vec{{u}}\ );{\xi}).$$
\[>=latex,every node/.style=[minimum width=3em, node distance=4em]{},scale=1.5,transform shape\]
\(b) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_1\mid{u}_1$}}$]{}; (d) [$...$]{}; (f)[${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_{01}\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}}$}}$]{}; (mm1) [$\succ$]{}; (fff) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$q_{01}\mid{u}_{\breve{\theta}+1}$}}$]{}; (mm2) [$\succ$]{}; (g) [$\prec$]{}; (h) [$...$]{}; (i) [$\prec$]{}; (ii) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{{l}-1}\mid{u}_{{l}+1}$}}$]{}; (iii) [$\prec$]{}; (j) [${\scalebox{0.6}{${w}_{{l}}\mid{u}_{{l}+2}$}}$]{}; (k) [$\prec$]{}; (l) [${\scalebox{0.6}{$z\mid{\xi}$}}$]{}; (f) – (fff);
It is easy to see that by construction the left hand side fully describes the set $P^U_{{l}}\times M^U_{2,1}$. Now, we check that the right hand side coincide with $M_{{l}+2,1}^U\sqcup M_{{l}+1,2}^U\sqcup M^U_{{l},2,1}$:
- Let $(\vec{{u}}\ ; {\xi})\in M^U_{{l}+2,1}$. Then the following cases from the right hand side clearly describe $M^U_{{l},2,1}$:
1. ${\xi}\succ\vec{{u}};$
2. ${\xi}\prec{u}_{{l}+2}$ and $\eta>0$;
3. ${\xi}\prec{u}_{{l}+2}$, $\eta=0$ and $({\xi}\succ{u}_{\theta+1} \text{ and } {\xi}\succ{u}_{\theta})$;
4. ${\xi}\prec{u}_{{l}+2}$, $\eta=0$ and $({\xi}\prec{u}_{\theta+1} \text{ and } {\xi}\prec{u}_{\theta})$.
- Let $(\vec{{w}}\ ,{\xi};{q}_0,{q}_1)\in M^U_{{l}+1,2}$. Then the following cases from the right hand side clearly describe $M^U_{{l},2,1}$.:
1. (${\xi}\succ w_{l},$ ${w}_{\theta}\succ {q}_0,$ ${w}_{\theta+1}\succ{q}_1,$ and ${\xi}\succ {q}_0$), or (${\xi}\sim w_{l},$ ${w}_{{l}}\succ {q}_0,$ ${\xi}\succ{q}_1,$ and ${\xi}\succ {q}_0$);
2. $({\xi}\sim w_{l},$ ${w}_{{l}}\succ {q}_0,$ ${\xi}\succ{q}_1,$ and ${\xi}\sim {q}_0);$
3. $q_0\succ\vec{w}$, $q_1\succ{\xi}$ and $q_0\sim{\xi};$
4. $q_0\succ\vec{w}$, $q_1\succ{\xi}$ and $q_0\succ{\xi}.$
- Let $(\vec{{w}}\ ;{q}_0,{q}_1; z)\in M^U_{{l},2,1}$. Then the following cases from the right hand side clearly describe $M^U_{{l},2,1}$.:
1. $z\succ\vec{q}$ and $z\succ{w}$;
2. $z\succ\vec{q}$ and $z\prec{w_{l}}$;
3. $q_0\sim z$, $q_1\succ z$ and $z\succ\vec{w}$;
4. $q_0\sim z$, $q_1\succ z$ and $(w_\theta\succ q_0\text{ and }w_{\theta+1}\succ q_1)$;
5. $q_0\succ z$, $q_1\succ z$ and $z\prec w_{l}$;
6. $q_0\succ z$, $q_1\succ z$ and $z\prec w_{l}$;
7. First exceptional type element;
8. Second exceptional type element.
Since every number from 1 to 19 was used exactly once, this completes the proof.
\[2[l]{}1k\] For natural numbers ${l}$ and $k$, let $$M^U_{2^{l},1^k}=\{(\vec{\xi},\vec{\varepsilon}\ )\in E_{l}^U\times E_{k+{l}}^U|\; \exists\{i_j\}_{j=1}^{l}, \ 0<i_1<i_2<...<i_{l}<k+{l}, \text{ s.t. } \xi_j\sim\varepsilon_{i_j} \text{ for } 1\leq j\leq{l}\},$$ Then $$m_{2^{l},1^k}^U=\sum_{(\vec{\xi},\vec{\varepsilon}\,)\in M^U_{2^{l},1^k}}\xi_1\cdot...\cdot \xi_{{l}}\cdot \varepsilon_1\cdot...\cdot\varepsilon_{{l}+k}.$$
According to Remark \[c\_m\], this implies $c_{2^k,1^{n-2k}}(U)\geq 0$.
The proof is omitted and can be found in [@Paunov16].
[1]{}
D. Scott and P. Suppes *Foundational aspects of theories of measurement*, Journal of Symbolic Logic (1954), 23, 113–128.
R. Stanley, *A Symmetric Function Generalization of the Chromatic Polynomial of a Graph*, Advances in Mathematics (1995), 111, 166–194.
V. Gasharov, *Incomparability Graphs of (3+1)-free posets are s-positive*, Discrete Mathematics (1995), 157, 193-197.
J. Taylor, *Chromatic Symmetric Functions of Hypertrees*, arXiv:math.co/1506.08262 (2015).
T. Chow, *A Note on a Combinatorial Interpretation of the e-Coefficients of the Chromatic Symmetric Function*, arXiv:math.co/9712230v2 (1995).
M. Guay-Paquet, *A modular relation for the chromatic symmetric functions of (3+1)-free posets*, arXiv:math.co/1306.2400 (2013).
R. Stanley, *Graph colorings and related symmetric functions: Ideas and Applications*, MIT (1995).
I.G. Macdonald, *Symmetric Functions and Hall Polynomials*, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1979).
A. Paunov *Positivity for Stanley’s chromatic functions*, Genève University, (2016), available from: http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:87600
A. Paunov *Planar graphs and Stanley’s Chromatic Functions*, preprint, (2016), available from: Arxiv.
M. Fulmek, *Viewing determinants as nonintersecting lattice paths yields classical determinantal identities bijectively*, arXiv:math.co/1010.3860 (2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Public transport network constitutes for an indispensable part of a city by providing mobility services to the general masses. To improve ease of access and reduce infrastructural investments, public transport authorities often adopt [**[proof of payment]{}**]{} system. Such a system operates by eliminating ticket controls when boarding the vehicle and subjecting the travelers to random ticket checks by affiliated personnel (controllers). Although cost efficient, such a system promotes [**[free-riders]{}**]{}, who deliberately decide to evade fares for the transport service. A recent survey by the association of European transport, estimates hefty income losses due to fare evasion, highlighting that free-riding is a serious problem that needs immediate attention. To this end, we highlight the attack vectors which can be exploited by free-riders by analyzing the crowdsourced data about the control-locations. Next, we propose a framework to generate [**[randomized control-location traces]{}**]{} by using generative adversarial networks (GANs) in order to minimize the attack vectors. Finally, we propose metrics to evaluate such a system, quantified in terms of increased risk and higher probability of being subjected to control checks across the city.'
author:
- |
Vaibhav Kulkarni, Bertil Chapuis,\
Benoît Garbinato
- Abhijit Mahalunkar
title: 'Addressing the Free-Rider Problem in Public Transport Systems'
---
<ccs2012> <concept> <concept\_id>10002951.10003227.10003236.10003237</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Information systems Geographic information systems</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> </ccs2012>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Andreev-Thurston theorem states that for any triangulation of a closed orientable surface $\Sigma_g$ of genus $g$ which is covered by a simple graph in the universal cover, there exists a unique metric of curvature $1, 0$ or $-1$ on the surface depending on whether $g=0, 1$ or $ \ge 2$ such that the surface with this metric admits a circle packing with combinatorics given by the triangulation. Furthermore, the circle packing is essentially rigid, that is, unique up to conformal automorphisms of the surface isotopic to the identity. In this paper, we consider projective structures on the surface $\Sigma_g$ where circle packings are also defined. We show that the space of projective structures on a surface of genus $g \ge 2$ which admits a circle packing by one circle is homeomorphic to ${\mathbb R}^{6g-6}$ and furthermore that the circle packing is rigid on such surfaces.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematical and Computing Sciences\
Tokyo Institute of Technology\
Ohokayama, Meguro\
Tokyo 152-8552 Japan
- |
Department of Mathematical and Computing Sciences\
Tokyo Institute of Technology\
Ohokayama, Meguro\
Tokyo 152-8552 Japan
- |
Department of Mathematics\
National University of Singapore\
Singapore 117543,\
Singapore
author:
- Sadayoshi Kojima
- Shigeru Mizushima
- Ser Peow Tan
title: CIRCLE PACKINGS ON SURFACES WITH PROJECTIVE STRUCTURES
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
This paper is motivated by the interplay between Mostow rigidity and hyperbolic Dehn surgery theory and is concerned with rigidity properties as well as deformation theory on the space of projective structures on surfaces. Mostow rigidity concerns the rigidity property of say, complete hyperbolic structures on manifolds of dimension $\geq 3$ based solely on the topological data of the manifold. On the other hand, if we relax the completeness condition in dimension three in particular, there is a non-trivial deformation theory. Hyperbolic Dehn surgery theory basically tells us how nice deformations are parameterized.
Mostow rigidity fails in dimension two and the deformation space of hyperbolic structures on a closed orientable surface $\Sigma_g$ of genus $g \geq 2$ is homeomorphic to ${\mathbb R}^{6g-6}$. However the addition of certain “tight” topological data corresponding to circle packings can impose some rigidity properties as follows.
Roughly, a circle packing on $\Sigma_g$ is a collection of closed disks on the surface such that the interiors of any two distinct disks are disjoint and the complement of the disks in $\Sigma_g$ consists of disjoint, triangular interstices. One obtains a cellular decomposition of $\Sigma_g$ by assigning a vertex for each disk, an edge joining two vertices for each point of tangency of two (not necessarily distinct) disks and a triangle for each triangular interstice. We call the graph on $\Sigma_g$ consisting of the vertices and edges obtained in this way the nerve of the circle packing. It triangulates $\Sigma_g$ in a generalized sense.
The preimage of the nerve in the universal cover contains no loops by one or two edges, because otherwise, one would find a self-tangent circle or two circles with two points of tangency on the plane, which both would be absurd. In other words, the nerve must be covered by a simple graph in the graph theoretic sense.
Now, the Andreev-Thurston theorem states that the surface $\Sigma_g$ together with a graph $\tau$ with the property above determines a unique metric of constant curvature on $\Sigma_g$ such that the surface with this metric admits a circle packing whose nerve is isotopic to $\tau$. Furthermore, this circle packing is rigid, that is, it is unique up to conformal automorphisms of the surface isotopic to the identity. This result was proved by Andreev in [@And] for the sphere and by Thurston in [@Thu] (see also [@BeSte1] and [@Col] for other proofs) for higher genus. Such a rigidity property implies that the set of points in the Teichmüller space which can be circle-packed is a countable set (Brooks proved in [@Brks] that this set is dense). We are interested in finding some relaxation of the conditions so that non-trivial deformations can occur.
A priori, the notion of a circle on a surface appears to be a metric notion, that is, a circle is the set of points equidistant from the center, and metrics of constant curvature form a very natural context for the study of circle packings. However there is a more general class of geometric structures on surfaces called the complex projective structures in which the notion of a circle still makes sense. A complex projective structure (henceforth abbreviated to projective structure in this paper) is a $(G,X)$ structure (see [@Thu]) with the group $G=PSL_2({\mathbb C})$ and the model space $X=\hat{\mathbb C}$, the Riemann sphere. Two structures $(\Sigma_g, \mu_1)$ and $(\Sigma_g, \mu_2)$ are equivalent if there is a projective isomorphism isotopic to the identity between the two. The space of projective structures up to equivalence is denoted by ${\mathcal P}_g$ and is known to be homeomorphic to ${\mathbb R}^{12g-12}$ ($g \geq 2$). The uniformization defines a bundle projection $$u : {\mathcal P}_g \to {\mathcal T}_g$$ to the Teichmüller space ${\mathcal T}_g$, the space of all conformal structures on $\Sigma_g$. The uniformization admits a canonical section $$s : {\mathcal T}_g \to {\mathcal P}_g$$ which assigns to each conformal structure the equivalent hyperbolic structure, see for example [@Kmsm]. Since any projective transformation $\gamma \in PSL_2({\mathbb C})$ maps a circle on the Riemann sphere to a circle, the circle (and disk) makes sense as a geometric object on a surface with a projective structure. Moreover, it is obvious that the nerve of a packing in a surface with projective structure again must be covered by a simple graph in the universal cover. The two main questions we are interested in are:
[**Question 1**]{}. [*For a fixed triangulation $\tau$ on $\Sigma_g$ which is covered by a simple graph in the universal cover, what is the deformation space of projective structures which admit a circle packing with nerve isotopic to $\tau$?* ]{}
[**Question 2**]{}. [*For a surface with a fixed projective structure which admits a circle packing with nerve $\tau$, is the circle packing rigid?* ]{}
Note that the Andreev-Thurston theorem implies that the intersection of this deformation space with $s({\mathcal T}_g)$ is a point. The main results in this paper is the complete answer to the two questions above in the case where $\tau$ has only one vertex, that is, the circle packing of the surface consists of only one circle.
Our approach differs considerably from that used by most other authors working in the field of circle packings. In most previous papers, the authors use the radii of the circles as the parameters of the vertices of $\tau$. In our case, since a projective structure is not a metric structure, the radius does not make sense, neither does the center of the circle. Indeed, a careful analysis of the problem we are interested in shows that many of the methods and basic lemmas of circle packings on hyperbolic (or euclidean) surfaces do not apply here since in general, our structures have very complicated developing maps which are not covering maps onto the image and the holonomy group is in general not discrete.
To attack our problem, we introduce a cross ratio type invariant, which is a positive real number, for a certain configuration of 4 circles. It determines a configuration up to multiplication by elements of $PSL_2({\mathbb C})$. Suppose that we have a circle packing $P$ on a surface with projective structure $(\Sigma_g, \mu)$ with nerve $\tau$. Then we define a map $${\bf c}_P : E(\tau) \to {\mathbb R}_+$$ by assigning to each edge the cross ratio type invariant of its neighboring 4 circles in the universal cover, where $E(\tau)$ is the set of edges of $\tau$. We call ${\bf c}_P$ a cross ratio parameter of the packing $P$ on a surface with projective structure $(\Sigma_g, \mu)$. It will be clear by defining the above more precisely in §2 that the cross ratio parameter is a complete projective invariant of the pair of a projective structure $\mu$ and a packing $P$.
The problem then is to find suitable conditions which must be satisfied by the cross ratio parameters. To do this, for each map ${\bf c} : E(\tau) \to {\mathbb R}_+$ which does not necessarily come from a circle packing, we assign to each edge $e$ an associated matrix $A={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & {\bf c}(e) \\ \end{array}\right)}
\in SL_2({\mathbb R})$. Furthermore, for each vertex $v \in V(\tau)$ with valence $n$, one reads off the edges incident to $v$ in the clockwise direction and form a word $W_v$ of length $n$ from the corresponding associated matrices ($W_v$ is defined up to cyclic permutation). The main general result is the following:
Suppose ${\bf c}_P$ is the cross ratio parameter of the packing $P$ on $(\Sigma_g, \mu)$ with nerve $\tau$ and let $W_v$ be the associated word of the associated matrices for each $v \in V(\tau)$. Then, we have
1. $W_v=-I$, where $I$ is the identity matrix, and
2. if the length of $W_v$ is $n$, then every subword of $W_v$ of length $\leq n-1$ is admissible, and every subword of length $\leq n-2$ are strictly admissible, (the admissibility and strict admissibility are defined by some inequalities in the cross ratio type invariants which will be precisely defined in §2).
Conversely, if a map ${\bf c} : E(\tau) \to {\mathbb R}_+$ satisfies $(1)$ and $(2)$, then there is a unique projective structure $\mu$ on $\Sigma_g$ together with a circle packing $P$ with nerve isotopic to $\tau$ such that the cross ratio parameter ${\bf c}_P$ is equal to ${\bf c}$.
We call the set of all maps in ${\mathbb R}^{E(\tau)}$ satisfying conditions (1) and (2) for each vertex $v \in V(\tau)$ in the main lemma the cross ratio parameter space and denote it by $${\mathcal C}_{\tau} =
\{ {\bf c} : E(\tau) \to {\mathbb R}_+ \, \vert \,
{\bf c} \; \; \text{satisfies (1) and (2)
for each vertex} \}.$$ By this lemma, ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ can be identified with the set of all pairs $(\mu, P)$ and hence contains a special element obtained by the Andreev-Thurston theorem.
Clearly, ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ is a real semi-algebraic set, however this does not say much about its true structure. It is a priori possible that ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ has singularities or may even reduce to a single point represented by the Andreev-Thurston solution. Also, each point in ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ determines not just a projective structure but a circle packing on the surface with nerve $\tau$. It is quite possible that there is a non-trivial family of different circle packings with nerve $\tau$ on the surface with a fixed projective structure (that is, the circle packings are not rigid).
Such problems can be well formulated using the map $$f : {\mathcal C}_{\tau} \to {\mathcal P}_g$$ defined by forgetting the packing $P$. For example, the rigidity question is equivalent to the injectivity of $f$.
In §3, we will count the formal dimension of ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ which is just the number of variables minus the number of equations which appear in the definition, and show that it is $6g-6$ when $g \geq 1$. Then we show using the deformation theory of Kleinian groups that this turns out to give the correct dimension at least near the Andreev-Thurston solution when $g \geq 2$. When $g = 1$, we will see by hyperbolic Dehn surgery theory that the formal dimension count overlooks some dependence in the equations. The results in §3 can be summarized by
The Andreev-Thurston solution has a neighborhood in ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ which is homeomorphic to the euclidean space of dimension $6g-6$ when $g \geq 2$ and $2$ when $g = 1$, and to which the restriction of the forgetting map $f$ is an embedding.
We now state our main result which describes a global picture of ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ for packings by one circle. In this case, $\tau$ has exactly one vertex. Note that a graph with one vertex which triangulates $\Sigma_g$ is necessarily covered by a simple graph in the universal cover.
Suppose that the triangulation $\tau$ of $\Sigma_g$ ($g \geq 2$) has exactly one vertex. Then
- ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ is homeomorphic to the euclidean space of dimension $6g-6$, and
- the forgetting map $f : {\mathcal C}_{\tau} \to {\mathcal P}_g$ is an embedding.
[**Remarks:**]{} 1. When $g = 1$, the same conclusion (replacing the dimension by $2$) can be deduced from a previous work by Mizushima [@Miz]. His methods, different from ours, provides much more information about the deformation space, as we see in the third remark, but do not generalize easily to the higher genus case. Our method works also for this case, and it is discussed in the appendix.
2\. We conjecture that the main theorem holds for any triangulation $\tau$ of $\Sigma_g$ which is covered by a simple graph in the universal cover.
3\. In [@Miz], Mizushima showed that the composition $u \circ f$ of the forgetting map and the uniformization is a homeomorphism when $g=1$ (stated in a slightly different way). We conjecture that this holds for genus $g \geq 2$ as well. If true, this would give a uniformization theorem that every complex structure can be uniformized by a projective structure circle-packed by one circle. However, again, the methods of [@Miz] do not generalize. In the torus case, it is relatively easy to uniformize complex affine structures on the torus to Euclidean structures via the $\log$ function. The general uniformization map is much more complicated and so different methods would have to be employed.
We here outline the proof of the main theorem and show how the rather strong condition that $\tau$ has exactly one vertex plays a crucial role. In this case, $\tau$ has $6g-3$ edges so that there are $6g-3$ variables. Condition (1) of the main lemma then corresponds to 3 relations on these variables, To show non-singularity of ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$, we will find a specific set of three variables such that the remaining $6g-6$ variables are free but the chosen three are uniquely determined by these free variables. Then we will see that the range of free variables consists of a convex set. This is enough to see that ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ is homeomorphic to the euclidean space of dimension $6g-6$.
To see the injectivity of the forgetting map, suppose that ${\bf c}$ and ${\bf c'}$ are two cross ratio parameters which correspond to the same projective structure on $\Sigma_g$ (but possibly different circle packings). Then we would like to show that ${\bf c}={\bf c'}$ which implies rigidity of the circle packing. A priori, we only know that the holonomy representations corresponding to ${\bf c}$ and ${\bf c'}$ are conjugate since they give rise to the same projective structure. We show that the holonomy representation of the specific set of three side-pairings which appear in showing nonsingularity of ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ must be actually the same for ${\bf c}$ and ${\bf c'}$, and not just conjugate. We then show that for such a triple, the holonomy image is always non-elementary so that the holonomy representation of the full fundamental group $\pi_1(\Sigma_g)$ is exactly the same for both ${\bf c}$ and ${\bf c'}$ and hence ${\bf c}={\bf c'}$.
[**Remark:**]{} The argument above for the injectivity of the forgetting map $f$ implies a rather remarkable conclusion that the composition of $f$ with the map $\chi : {\mathcal P}_g \to Hom(\pi_1(\Sigma_g),
PSL_2({\mathbb C}))/ PSL_2({\mathbb C})$ which assigns to each projective structure the conjugacy class of its holonomy representation is injective. This contrasts with the fact that $\chi$, which is a local homeomorphism, is in fact never injective, see for instance [@Hej].
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In §2, we give some preliminaries, introduce the cross ratio and associated matrix, and prove the general result that the cross ratio parameter space associated to $\tau$ is a real semi-algebraic set. We also show how to obtain the holonomy representation from the cross ratios. In §3, we prove Lemma 2 using well developed machinery from 3-dimensional deformation theory. In §4, we study the cross ratio parameter space ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ when $\tau$ has one vertex, which corresponds to a circle packing by one circle. In particular, we show that ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ can be parameterized by coordinates lying in a full convex subset of ${\mathbb R}^{6g-6}$. In §5, we prove that the circle packing is rigid for the one circle packing, hence completing the proof of our main theorem. Finally, we work out in detail the case of the one circle packing on the torus ($g=1$) in the appendix, where although the results are similar, the methods are slightly different.
Cross Ratio Parameter
=====================
Preliminaries
-------------
A projective structure on a closed orientable surface $\Sigma_g$ of genus $g$ is a maximal collection of local charts modeled on the Riemann sphere $\hat{\mathbb C}$ such that locally, the transition functions are restrictions of $\gamma \in PSL_2({\mathbb C})$. Another point of view is that a projective structure is a structure modeled on the boundary at $\infty$ of the three-dimensional hyperbolic space ${\mathbb H}^3$ under the action of the isometries of ${\mathbb H}^3$. Associated to such a projective structure is a developing map $dev: \widetilde {\Sigma}_g \longrightarrow \hat{\mathbb C}$, defined up to composition with elements of $PSL_2({\mathbb C})$ and a holonomy representation $\rho: \pi_1(\Sigma_g) \longrightarrow PSL_2({\mathbb C})$ defined up to conjugation by elements of $PSL_2({\mathbb C})$ such that the holonomy representation is equivariant with respect to the developing map.
If $\mu$ is a projective structure on $\Sigma_g$, a disk in $(\Sigma_g, \mu)$ is the closure of a simply connected region ${\mathcal D}^i$ in $\Sigma_g$ such that the lifts of the closure ${\mathcal D}$ in $\widetilde{\Sigma}_g$ are mapped homeomorphically to closed disks in $\hat{\mathbb C}$ by the developing map. This makes sense since circles are preserved by the linear fractional transformations $\gamma \in PSL_2({\mathbb C})$.
A circle packing on $(\Sigma_g, \mu)$ is a collection of closed disks $\{{\mathcal D_i}\}$ in $\Sigma_g$ such that the interiors of any two distinct disks are disjoint and $\Sigma_g \backslash \cup_i {\mathcal D_i}$ consists of a finite number of triangular interstices each bounded by three circular arcs.
For a circle packing on $\Sigma_g$, we assign a vertex to each circle and an edge joining two vertices for each tangency point between two circles. The graph $\tau$ on $\Sigma_g$ obtained thus triangulates $\Sigma_g$ and this is called the nerve of the circle packing.
Cross ratio and associated matrix
---------------------------------
We define a cross ratio type invariant on the edges of $\tau$, which has the property that if an edge separating two interstices is assigned a given positive real number, then knowing the developing image of one of the interstices determines the developing image of the other interstice. We start with a collection of 4 circles in $\hat{\mathbb C}$ whose nerve is a graph consisting of 4 vertices and 5 edges such that the edges bound two triangles with a common edge. The cross ratio type invariant (henceforth the cross ratio for short) is defined on the common edge (see Figure \[Fig:Configuration\]a).
\[Prop:CrossRatio\] Let $C_1,C_2,C_3,C_4$ be 4 circles in $\hat{\mathbb C}$ such that $C_1$ is tangent to $C_2$, $C_3$ and $C_4$, $C_2$ is tangent to $C_3$, and $C_3$ is tangent to $C_4$ (see Figure \[Fig:Configuration\]b). Denote the tangency points between $C_i$ and $C_j$ by $p_{ij}$. We also further assume that $p_{12}$, $p_{13}$ and $p_{14}$ lie in a clockwise direction on $C_1$. Then the cross ratio $(p_{14}, p_{23},p_{12},p_{13})=x \sqrt{-1}$, where $x \in {\mathbb R}_+$.
[*Proof:*]{} We can find a linear fractional transformation $\gamma \in PSL_2({\mathbb C})$ mapping $p_{23}$ to $1$, $p_{12}$ to 0 and $p_{13}$ to $\infty$ so that $\gamma(p_{14})$$=(p_{14}$, $p_{23}$, $p_{12}$, $p_{13})$ using the definition of the cross ratio of 4 points given in Ahlfors [@Ahl]. Clearly, $\gamma(C_1)=\{ z \in {\mathbb C}| Re(z)=0\} \cup \{\infty\}$, $\gamma(C_2)=\{ z \in {\mathbb C}|~|z-1/2|=1/2\}$ and $\gamma(C_3)=\{z \in {\mathbb C}|Re(z)=1\}\cup\{\infty\}$. It follows that $\gamma(p_{14})$ is a purely imaginary number since it lies on $\gamma(C_1)$. The condition $p_{12}$, $p_{13}$ and $p_{14}$ lie in a clockwise direction on $C_1$ now implies that $\gamma(p_{14})=x\sqrt{-1}$ where $x>0$, see Figure \[Fig:CrossRatio\].
(300,140) (0,0) (160,0) (64,4)[(a)]{} (191,81)[$p_{23}$]{} (191,59)[$p_{12}$]{} (228,78)[$p_{13}$]{} (257,81)[$p_{34}$]{} (257,58)[$p_{14}$]{} (243,118)[$C_3$]{} (293,50)[$C_4$]{} (246,20)[$C_1$]{} (155,84)[$C_2$]{} (224,4)[(b)]{}
(140,160) (0,0) (-21,109)[$ix=\gamma(p_{14})$]{} (29,148)[$\gamma(C_1)$]{} (72,148)[$\gamma(C_3)$]{} (85,109)[$\gamma(p_{34})$]{} (127,143)[$\gamma(p_{13})=\infty$]{} (85,20)[$\gamma(p_{23})=1$]{} (47,56)[$\gamma(C_2)$]{} (-15,20)[$\gamma(p_{12})=0$]{}
\[Def:CrossRatio\] Given a configuration of 4 circles as defined in proposition \[Prop:CrossRatio\] above, the cross ratio of the configuration, or alternatively, of the interior edge of the nerve of the configuration is the positive real number $x$ such that $(p_{14}, p_{23},p_{12},p_{13})=x \sqrt{-1}$.
[**Remarks:**]{} 1. It is easy to see that the cross ratio of $(C_1,C_2,C_3,C_4)$ is the same as that for $(C_3,C_4,C_1,C_2)$ so that the cross ratio is defined on the undirected interior edge.
2\. The cross ratio is clearly an invariant of the configuration under the action of $PSL_2({\mathbb C})$. It measures the distance between $C_2$ and $C_4$ in the following sense: Consider the circles $C_2$ and $C_4$ as the boundaries at infinity of two hyperbolic planes in ${\mathbb H}^3$. If the two circles are disjoint or tangent, the planes are at some non-negative distance $d$ from each other. Then the cross ratio $x=\cosh(d/2)$. If the two circles intersect at angle $\theta$, then $x=\cos (\theta/2)$. It follows that $C_2$ and $C_4$ are disjoint if and only if $x>1$.
3\. The cross ratio, together with $C_1$, $C_2$ and $C_3$ determines $C_4$. Alternatively, we can say that knowing the position of one interstice and the cross ratio determines the neighboring one.
\[Def:AssoMatrix\] To each configuration of 4 circles having the cross ratio $x$ is associated the matrix $A={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & x \\ \end{array}\right)}$.
We note that $A\in SL_2({\mathbb R})$ rather than $PSL_2({\mathbb R})$. This is important as it will allow us to keep track of overlapping in a configuration of one circle surrounded by several circles.
We next explain the role of the associated matrix $A$. Basically, if we put the configuration of 4 circles into a standard position by some linear fractional transformation, then $A$ maps $C_1$ to itself and one interstice to the other. As much of the subsequent arguments depend on putting a configuration into some standard position, we start with the following definition.
\[Def:Interstice\] The standard interstice is defined to be the interstice with vertices at $0$, $\sqrt{-1}$ and $\infty$. It is bounded by the 3 circles (or straight lines) $C_1=\{z\in \hat{\mathbb C}:Im(z)=0\}$, $C_2=
\{z\in \hat{\mathbb C}:Im(z)=1\}$ and $C_3=\{z\in \hat{\mathbb C}: ~|z-\sqrt{-1}/2|=1/2\}$. We denote the standard interstice by $\mathcal{I}_s$.
\[Prop:MShift\] Let $C_1$, $C_2$, $C_3$ and $C_4$ be a configuration of 4 circles as in proposition \[Prop:CrossRatio\] with cross ratio $x$ and associated matrix $A={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & x \\ \end{array}\right)}$ as defined in definition \[Def:AssoMatrix\]. Furthermore, suppose that $C_1$, $C_2$ and $C_3$ are as defined in definition \[Def:Interstice\] so they bound the standard interstice (see Figure \[Fig:Interstice\]). Then $A(C_1)=C_1$, $A(C_2)=C_3$, $A(C_3)=C_4$. In other words, $A$ maps the interstice $\mathcal{I}_s$ to the other interstice of the configuration, with the boundary adjacent to $C_1$ being mapped to the boundary adjacent to $C_1$.
[*Proof:*]{} First note that by a simple computation, since the cross ratio is $x$, $p_{14}=1/x$. Clearly, $A(C_1)=C_1$ since entries of $A$ are real. Next $A(C_2)=C_3$ since $A(\infty)=0$ and $A(x+\sqrt{-1})=\sqrt{-1}$ and $A$ maps tangency points to tangency points. Finally, $A(C_3)=C_4$ since $A(0)=1/x$.
(140,50) (0,-20)[ (0,0) (146,15)[$C_1$]{} (146,48)[$C_2$]{} (33,33)[$C_3$]{} (57,27)[$C_4$]{} (4,27)[$\mathcal{I}_s$]{} ]{}
For convenience, we state in the next proposition various configurations of four circles $C_1,C_2,C_3,C_4$ all of which have cross ratio $x$.
\[Prop:SomeView\] The configurations of four circles $C_1,C_2,C_3,C_4$ defined in each of the following cases all have cross ratio $x$ (see Figure \[Fig:SomeView\]):
- $C_1=\{z\in \hat{\mathbb C}:Im(z)=0\}$, $C_2=\{z\in \hat{\mathbb C}: ~|z-(x+\sqrt{-1}/2)|=1/2\}$, $C_3=\{z\in \hat{\mathbb C}:Im(z)=1\}$, $C_4=\{z\in \hat{\mathbb C}: ~|z-\sqrt{-1}/2|=1/2\}$.
- $C_1=\{z\in \hat{\mathbb C}:Im(z)=0\}$, $C_2=\{z\in \hat{\mathbb C}:Im(z)=1\}$, $C_3=\{z\in \hat{\mathbb C}: ~|z-\sqrt{-1}/2|=1/2\}$, $p_{14}=1/x$.
- $C_1=\{z\in \hat{\mathbb C}:Im(z)=0\}$, $p_{12}<p_{13}<p_{14}$, ${\displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{r_3}{r_2}}+\sqrt{\frac{r_3}{r_4}}=x}$, where $r_i$ is the radius of $C_i$, $i=2,3,4$.
[*Proof:*]{} The proof follows from some elementary calculations and will be omitted.
(320,200) (0,110) (180,110) (0,15) (60,90)[(i)]{} (-17,123)[$C_1$]{} (106,143)[$C_2$]{} (-17,159)[$C_3$]{} (34,144)[$C_4$]{} (32,114)[$0$]{} (23,170)[$\sqrt{-1}$]{} (103,114)[$x$]{}
(240,90)[(ii)]{} (165,123)[$C_1$]{} (165,159)[$C_2$]{} (216,146)[$C_3$]{} (241,138)[$C_4$]{} (212,114)[$0$]{} (203,170)[$\sqrt{-1}$]{} (240,114)[$p_{14}=\frac{1}{x}$]{}
(0,-5)[ (57,0)[(iii)]{} (-14,31)[$C_1$]{} (33,28)[$p_{12}$]{} (63,28)[$p_{13}$]{} (94,28)[$p_{14}$]{} (39,47)[$r_2$]{} (68,45)[$r_3$]{} (100,47)[$r_4$]{} (39,75)[$C_2$]{} (66,68)[$C_3$]{} (100,75)[$C_4$]{} ]{}
Admissibility
-------------
In the next set of results, we consider a configuration of circles with a central circle $\overline{C}$ and $n+1$ circles $C_0,\cdots,C_n$ surrounding it such that
- $\overline{C}$ is tangent to $C_i$ for $i=0,\cdots,n$;
- $C_i$ is tangent to $C_{i-1}$ and $C_{i+1}$, for $i=1, \cdots,n-1$;
- The points of tangency $p_i$ between $\overline{C}$ and $C_i$ are arranged in clockwise direction around $\overline{C}$ (see Figure \[Fig:Admissible\]a).
Let $\tau$ be the nerve of this configuration, with vertices $\overline{v}, v_0, \cdots, v_n $ corresponding to the circles $\overline{C}, C_0,\cdots,C_n$ respectively. Denote by $e_i$ the edge joining $\overline{v}$ to $v_i$ and $e_{\{i,i+1\}}$ the edge joining $v_i$ to $v_{i+1}$.
\[Def:Vector\] For such a configuration, let $x_i$ be the cross ratio of the edge $e_i$ and $A_i$ be the associated matrix, for $i=1, \cdots, n-1$. ${\bf x}=(x_1,x_2, \cdots ,x_{n-1})$ will be called the [*cross ratio vector*]{} of the configuration and $W_{\bf x}=A_1A_2 \cdots A_n$ the [*word of associated matrices*]{} of the configuration.
We have the following result:
\[Prop:SurroundConfig\] Suppose that $\{\overline{C}, C_0,\cdots,C_n \}$ is a configuration of circles as defined above. Let $I_i$ be the interstice bounded by the circles $\overline{C}$, $C_i$ and $C_{i+1}$. We say that the configuration is in standard position if $I_0$ is the standard interstice $\mathcal{I}_s$ and $\overline {C}$ is the real line (see Figure \[Fig:Admissible\]b). Let $W_k=A_1A_2\cdots A_k$ for $k=1, \cdots n-1$. If the configuration is in standard position, then $W_k(I_0)=I_k$ with the side of $I_0$ bounded by $\overline{C}$ being mapped to the side of $I_k$ bounded by $\overline{C}$, so that $W_k(p_0)=p_{k}$, $W_k(p_1)=p_{k+1}$.
[*Proof:* ]{} We prove by induction on $k$. For $k=1$, the result is just proposition \[Prop:MShift\]. Suppose the result is true for $k$. Then $ W_k A_{k+1} W_k^{-1}(I_k)=I_{k+1} \Longrightarrow W_k A_{k+1} W_k^{-1}W_k(I_0)=I_{k+1} \Longrightarrow W_{k+1}(I_0)=I_{k+1}$. Also, since $W_k \in SL_2({\mathbb R})$, $W_k$ maps $\overline{C}$ to itself so the second condition holds.
(320,140) (0,0) (160,10) (60,-10)[(a)]{} (66,65)[$\overline{C}$]{} (67,101)[$p_0$]{} (94,87)[$p_1$]{} (99,65)[$p_2$]{} (34,64)[$p_n$]{} (85,128)[$C_0$]{} (121,97)[$C_1$]{} (120,62)[$C_2$]{} (12,51)[$C_n$]{}
(260,-10)[(b)]{} (0,10)[ (185,7)[$p_1$]{} (212,7)[$p_2$]{} (230,7)[$p_3$]{} (288,7)[$p_n$]{} (186,28)[$C_1$]{} (296,27)[$C_n$]{} (147,11)[$\overline{C}$]{} (145,46)[$C_0$]{} (135,31)[$I_0=\mathcal{I}_s$]{} ]{}
In the configuration of one central circle and $n+1$ surrounding circles defined in proposition \[Prop:SurroundConfig\], it is possible that some of the surrounding circles $C_0,\cdots, C_n$ not adjacent to each other may overlap. This is permissible from the definition, in general, from the point of view of circle packings on surfaces with projective structures, this would imply that the developing map from $\widetilde{\Sigma}_g$ to $\hat{\mathbb C}$ is not a homeomorphism onto its image. More importantly, it may be possible that boundaries of the interstices lying on the central circle ${\overline{C}}$ overlap as they wrap around ${\overline{C}}$. We are interested in the case where they do not overlap, that is, they do not go more than once around ${\overline{C}}$. In standard position, this just means that the points of tangency $p_i$ between $\overline{C}$ and $C_i$ satisfy the inequalities $$p_0=-\infty<p_1=0 <p_2 <\cdots <p_n.$$
\[Def:Admissibility\] The circles $\{\overline{C}, C_0,\cdots,C_n\}$ as given in proposition \[Prop:SurroundConfig\] is [*admissible*]{} if in standard position, the points of tangency $p_i$ between $\overline{C}$ and $C_i$ satisfy $$p_0=-\infty<p_1=0 <p_2 <\cdots <p_n.$$ It is [*strictly admissible*]{} if $p_n \neq \infty$, that is, if in addition, $p_n \neq p_0$. The $(n-1)$-tuple ${\bf x}=(x_1,\cdots,x_{n-1}) \in {\mathbb R}_+^{n-1}$ is said to be (strictly) admissible if it is the cross ratio vector of a (strictly) admissible configuration. Similarly, a word $W_{\bf x}=A_1A_2 \cdots A_{n-1}$ is (strictly) admissible if it is the word of associated matrices of a (strictly) admissible configuration.
Geometrically, a strictly admissible configuration is one where the boundaries of the interstices lying on the central circle do not overlap, an admissible configuration is one where there is either no overlap or overlap at only one point. It is clear from the definition that a proper subword of an admissible word is always strictly admissible.
The condition of admissibility of $(x_1,\cdots,x_{n-1}) \in {\mathbb R}_+^{n-1}$ can be easily translated into a condition on the subwords of the word $W_{\bf x}=A_1 A_2 \cdots A_{n-1}$ in the associated matrices as seen below:
\[Prop:CharacterizeAdm\] Let $(x_1,\cdots,x_{n-1}) \in {\mathbb R}_+^{n-1}$ and $A_i={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & x_i\\ \end{array}\right)}$ $\in SL_2({\mathbb R})$, $i=1,\cdots,n-1$. Then $(x_1,\cdots,x_{n-1}) \in {\mathbb R}_+^{n-1}$ is admissible if and only if for all subwords $W^i_k={\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_{ik} & b_{ik} \\ c_{ik} & d_{ik} \\ \end{array}\right)} =A_iA_{i+1} \cdots A_k$ of $W_{\bf x}$, $a_{ik} \leq 0$ (with equality only when $i=k$), $b_{ik} > 0$, $c_{ik} < 0$, and $d_{ik} \geq 0$. Furthermore, the last inequality is always strict for all proper subwords, and if it is also strict for the word $W_{\bf x}$, then the word is strictly admissible.
[*Proof:*]{} For convenience, we consider only the case of strict admissibility. The remaining case is easily deduced.
$(\Longleftarrow)$ Consider the configuration $\{\overline{C}, C_0,\cdots,C_n\}$ in standard position with cross ratio vector $(x_1,\cdots,x_{n-1}) \in {\mathbb R}_+^{n-1}$. Recall that $p_i$ is the point of tangency of $\overline{C}$ with $C_i$ and $p_0=-\infty$, $p_1=0$ since the configuration is in standard position. To simplify notation, let $W^1_k={\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_k & b_k \\ c_k & d_k \\ \end{array}\right)}$. By proposition \[Prop:SurroundConfig\], $W^1_k(0)=b_k/d_k=p_{k+1}$, $W^1_k(-\infty)=a_k/c_k=p_k$. Since $b_k,d_k > 0$, $p_{k+1}>0$ for $k=1, \cdots, n-1$. Furthermore, since $a_kd_k-b_kc_k=1$, $p_k=p_{k+1}+1/(c_kd_k)<p_{k+1}$ since $c_k<0,d_k>0$. Hence, $$p_0=-\infty <p_1=0<p_2<p_3 \cdots <p_n < \infty$$ so that the configuration is strictly admissible.
$(\Longrightarrow)$ We first note that if $\{\overline{C}, C_0, C_1, \cdots, C_n\}$ is strictly admissible, then so is the sub-configuration $\{\overline{C}, C_i, C_{i+1}, \cdots, C_n\}$, so $(x_1,\cdots ,x_{n-1})$ is admissible implies $(x_i, x_{i+1}, \cdots,x_{n-1})$ is admissible for $0<i \leq n-1$. Hence it suffices to prove that $W^1_k={\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_k & b_k \\ c_k & d_k \\ \end{array}\right)}$ satisfies the conditions stated in the proposition for $k=1, \cdots, n-1$. We do this by induction on $k$. For $k=1$, $W^1_1={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & x_1\\
\end{array}\right)}$ which clearly satisfies the conditions. Now suppose that $W^1_k$ satisfies the conditions. Then $$W^1_{k+1}={\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_{k+1} & b_{k+1} \\ c_{k+1} & d_{k+1}\\
\end{array}\right)}=
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_k & b_k \\ c_k & d_k\\
\end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & x_{k+1}\\
\end{array}\right)}$$ $$={\left(\begin{array}{cc} -b_k & a_k+b_kx_{k+1} \\ -d_k & c_k+d_kx_{k+1}\\
\end{array}\right)}.$$ Hence $a_{k+1}=-b_k<0$, $c_{k+1}=-d_k<0$. Furthermore, since the configuration is admissible, ${\displaystyle \frac{b_{k+1}}{d_{k+1}}=p_{k+1}>p_k=\frac{a_{k+1}}{c_{k+1}}>0}$. Using the same argument as in the previous case, we have $$a_{k+1}d_{k+1}-b_{k+1}c_{k+1}=1$$ $$\Longrightarrow \frac{a_{k+1}}{c_{k+1}}-\frac{b_{k+1}}{d_{k+1}}=\frac{1}{c_{k+1}d_{k+1}}<0.$$ Since $c_{k+1}<0$, this implies $d_{k+1}>0$ and hence $b_{k+1}>0$.
[ *It is easily checked that the vector $(\sqrt{2},\sqrt2,\sqrt2,\sqrt2)$ and corresponding word ${\tiny {\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & \sqrt2\\ \end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & \sqrt2\\ \end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & \sqrt2\\ \end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & \sqrt2\\ \end{array}\right)}}$ are admissible (but not strictly admissible) whereas the vector\
$(\sqrt{2},\sqrt2,\sqrt2,\sqrt2,\sqrt2)$ and corresponding word are not admissible.* ]{}
The next proposition tells us when a strictly admissible word $W$ remains admissible when we multiply it by an associated matrix either on the left or right, or both.
\[Prop:ByX\] Suppose $W={\left(\begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ c & d\\ \end{array}\right)}=A_1A_2 \cdots A_n$ is a strictly admissible word and $X={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & x\\
\end{array}\right)}$. Then
- $XW$ is admissible if and only if $x \geq b/d$ ;
- $WX$ is admissible if and only if $x \geq -c/d$ ;
- $XWX$ is admissible if and only if $${\displaystyle x \geq \frac{b-c+\sqrt{(b+c)^2+4}}{2d} }$$ with strict admissibility if the inequalities are strict.
[*Proof:*]{} (i) Let $\{\overline{C}, C_0, \cdots,C_{n+1}\}$ be the configuration in standard position corresponding to $W$. The configuration corresponding to $AW$ is obtained by adding another circle $C_{-1}$ tangent to $\overline{C}$ and $C_0$. This configuration is admissible if and only if $p_{-1} \geq p_{n+1}$, see Figure \[Fig:byA\], with strict admissibility if the inequality is strict. By proposition \[Prop:SomeView\], $p_{-1}=x$, by proposition \[Prop:SurroundConfig\], $p_{n+1}=b/d$ so (i) follows.
\(ii) The proof is similar to that of proposition \[Prop:CharacterizeAdm\] and will be omitted.
\(iii) Let $\{\overline{C}, C_0, \cdots,C_{n+1}\}$ be the configuration in standard position corresponding to $W$ and let $\{\overline{C}, C_{-1}, C_0, \cdots,C_{n+1}, C_{n+2}\}$ be the augmented configuration corresponding to $XWX$. Clearly, the configuration is admissible if and only if $p_{-1} \geq p_{n+2}$ and conditions (i) and (ii) are satisfied. Since $p_{-1}=x$ and ${\displaystyle p_{n+2}=\frac{a+bx}{c+dx}}$. This is easily shown to be equivalent to $x \geq \alpha$ where $\alpha$ is the larger of the two roots of the equation $dx^2+(c-b)x-a=0$ which is equivalent to (iii) using $ad-bc=1$.
(200,60) (0,-10) (0,-10)[ (28,7)[$p_1$]{} (53,7)[$p_2$]{} (70,7)[$p_3$]{} (125,7)[$p_{n+1}$]{} (175,7)[$p_{-1}$]{} (28,28)[$C_1$]{} (54,23)[$C_2$]{} (130,31)[$C_{n+1}$]{} (170,28)[$C_{-1}$]{} (-11,13)[$\overline{C}$]{} (-15,46)[$C_0$]{} ]{}
Convexity
---------
The next result shows the convexity of the admissibility condition, that is, fixing some positive $n$, the set of all strictly admissible cross ratio vectors of length $n$ is convex.
Let $C_{SA}^n\subset {\mathbb R}^n$ be the set of all strictly admissible cross ratio vectors of length $n$ and let ${\bf x}=(x_1,\cdots,x_n) \in C_{SA}^n$. Suppose $W_{\bf x}=A_1A_2\cdots A_n={\left(\begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ c & d\\ \end{array}\right)}$ is the word of associated matrices and let $p=b/d$. We now regard the entries $a$, $b$, $c$, $d$ of $W_{\bf x}$ and the ratio $p$ as real valued functions of ${\bf x}$.
\[Prop:Convex\] We have the following:
- $C_{SA}^n$ is convex and $p$ is a positive convex function of $C_{SA}^n$, that is, $\alpha p({\bf x})+(1-\alpha)p({\bf y}) \geq p(\alpha{\bf x}+(1-\alpha){\bf y})>0$, for any ${\bf x}, {\bf y} \in C_{SA}^n$ and $\alpha \in [0,1]$.
- If $(x_1,\cdots x_n)\in C_{SA}^n$ and $x_i' \geq x_i$ for all $i=1, \cdots, n$, then $(x_1',\cdots,x_n')\in C_{SA}^n$.
[*Proof:*]{} (i) We prove by induction on $n$. For $n=1$, $C_{SA}^1=(0,\infty)$ is clearly convex. The convexity and positivity of $p$ amounts to showing that for $x,y>0$, $\alpha \in [0,1]$, $${\displaystyle \alpha \frac{1}{x} +(1-\alpha)\frac{1}{y} \geq \frac{1}{\alpha x+(1-\alpha)y}>0 }.$$ This follows from the positivity and convexity of the function $g(x)=1/x$ for $x>0$. Now suppose that (i) holds for $C_{SA}^{n-1}$ and $W'_{\bf x}={\left(\begin{array}{cc} a' & b' \\ c' & d'\\ \end{array}\right)}=
A_2A_3\cdots A_n$. Let $p'=b'/d'$. We again regard the entries $a'$, $b'$, $c'$, $d'$ and the ratio $p'$ as real valued functions of ${\bf x}$. Then since $$A_1 = {\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & x_1\\ \end{array}\right)},$$ we have $$W_{\bf x}={\left(\begin{array}{cc} c'({\bf x}) & d'({\bf x}) \\ -a'({\bf x})+c'({\bf x}) x_1 & -b'({\bf x})+d'({\bf x}) x_1\\ \end{array}\right)}. \eqno(*)$$ Since $W_{\bf x}$ is strictly admissible, by proposition \[Prop:CharacterizeAdm\], $${\displaystyle -b'({\bf x})+d'({\bf x}) x_1>0 \Longrightarrow x_1>\frac{b'({\bf x})}{d'({\bf x})}=p'({\bf x})}.$$ Similarly, for ${\bf y} = (y_1, \cdots, y_n)$ we have $${\displaystyle y_1>\frac{b'({\bf y})}{d'({\bf y})}=p'({\bf y})}.$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha x_1+(1-\alpha )y_1 &>& \alpha p'({\bf x})+(1-\alpha )p'({\bf y})\\
&\geq& p'(\alpha {\bf x}+(1-\alpha){\bf y}) \qquad \hbox{(by the hypothesis)}\\
&=& \frac{b'(\alpha {\bf x}+(1-\alpha){\bf y})}{d'(\alpha {\bf x}+(1-\alpha){\bf y})}.\end{aligned}$$ By proposition \[Prop:ByX\] (i) this implies that $W_{\alpha {\bf x}+(1-\alpha){\bf y}}$ is strictly admissible, hence $C_{SA}^n$ is convex. Also, proposition \[Prop:CharacterizeAdm\] implies that $p({\alpha {\bf x}+(1-\alpha){\bf y}})>0$.
Now by $(*)$, $${\displaystyle p({\bf x})=\frac{d'({\bf x})}{-b'({\bf x})+d'({\bf x}) x_1}=\frac{1}{-p'({\bf x})+x_1} },$$ similarly, $${\displaystyle p({\bf y})=\frac{1}{-p'({\bf y})+y_1}}$$ and $$p(\alpha {\bf x}+(1-\alpha){\bf y})=\frac{1}{-p'(\alpha {\bf x}+(1-\alpha){\bf y})+\alpha x_1+(1-\alpha)y_1 }.$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
&&p(\alpha {\bf x}+(1-\alpha){\bf y})\\
&=&\frac{1}{-p'(\alpha {\bf x}+(1-\alpha){\bf y})+\alpha x_1+(1-\alpha)y_1} \\
&<&\frac{1}{-\alpha p'({\bf x})+(\alpha-1)p'({\bf y})+\alpha x_1+(1-\alpha)y_1}, \\
&& {\vbox to 7mm{}} \hspace{45mm} \hbox{ by induction hypothesis} \\
&=& \frac{1}{{\alpha}\frac{1}{ p({\bf x})}+(1-\alpha)\frac{1}{{p({\bf y}) }}}\\
&\leq& \alpha p({\bf x})+(1-\alpha)p({\bf y}), \qquad \hbox {by convexity of }g(x)=\frac{1}{x}.\\\end{aligned}$$ Hence $p$ is a convex function of $C_{SA}^n$ and the proof by induction is complete.
\(ii) Clearly, it suffices to show that if we increase any entry of a strictly admissible cross ratio vector, the resulting vector remains strictly admissible. This is easily seen by using a suitably normalized configuration of circles for the vector. If the $k$th entry of the vector $(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ is increased, we use the configuration $\{\overline{C}$, $C_0$, $C_1$, $\cdots$, $C_{n+1}\}$ with $\overline{C}$ the real line, $C_k$ the line $Im(z)=1$ and $C_{k+1}$ the circle $|z-\sqrt{-1}/2|=1/2$. If $p_i$ is the point of tangency of $C_i$ with $\overline{C}$, then we have: $p_{k+1}=0$, $p_k=\infty$, $p_{k-1}=x_k$, (by our normalization), $p_{k+1}<p_{k+2}<\cdots <p_{n+1}$, $p_{n+1}<p_0<p_1<\cdots<p_{k-1}$, since $(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ is strictly admissible. The effect of increasing the entry $x_k$ by a positive constant $k$ on the configuration is then to shift the circles $C_0,C_1,\cdots,C_{k-1}$ to the right by $k$ and to leave all the other circles fixed, if $p_{n+1}<p_0$ to start with, then the inequality remains after this shift and so the configuration remains strictly admissible.
Main lemma
----------
In this subsection, we prove our main lemma by gathering the results stated above.
Suppose we are given a surface with projective structure $(\Sigma_g, \mu)$ on which a circle packing $P$ lies. Let $\tau$ be the nerve of the packing $P$. The circle packing $P$ lifts to a packing on the universal cover $\widetilde{\Sigma}_g$, similarly, $\tau$ lifts to a triangulation $\widetilde{\tau}$ of $\widetilde{\Sigma}_g$. For each edge of $\widetilde{\tau}$, the related circles form a configuration on $\widetilde{\Sigma}_g$. Developing them to the Riemann sphere, we obtain a configuration of 4 circles on $\hat{\mathbb C}$ to which we assign the cross ratio. This assignment is equivariant with respect to the action of the covering transformations.
\[Def:CrossRatioParameter\] The map ${\bf c}_P : E(\tau) \to {\mathbb R}_+$ in the introduction, which we call a cross ratio parameter of $P$, is the assignment defined above. Moreover for each vertex $v \in V(\tau)$ with valence $n$, the associated word $W_v$ of the associated matrices of length $n$ is obtained by reading off the associated matrices of the edges incident to $v$ in the clockwise direction.
Here we have the main lemma.
\[Lem:MainLemma\] Suppose ${\bf c}_P$ is a cross ratio parameter of some packing $P$ on a surface with projective structure and let $W_v$ be the associated word for each $v \in V(\tau)$. Then, we have
1. $W_v=-I$, where $I$ is the identity matrix, and
2. if the length of $W_v$ is $n$, then every subword of $W_v$ of length $\leq n-1$ is admissible and every subword of length $\leq n-2$ is strictly admissible.
Conversely, if a map ${\bf c} : E(\tau) \to {\mathbb R}_+$ satisfies $(1)$ and $(2)$, then there is a unique projective structure on $\Sigma_g$ together with a circle packing $P$ with nerve isotopic to $\tau$ such that the cross ratio parameter ${\bf c}_P$ is equal to ${\bf c}$.
[*Proof:*]{} The proof follows almost directly from propositions \[Prop:SurroundConfig\] and \[Prop:CharacterizeAdm\]. We first prove the first half. Let $v$ be any vertex of $\tau$ with valence $n$ and let $C$ be the circle corresponding to $v$. The developed image of $C$ is surrounded by $n$ circles $C_1,\cdots, C_n$ (see Figure \[Fig:Surround\]). Let $(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ be the corresponding cross ratio vector, and $W_v=W_1 \cdots W_n$ the word of associated matrix. By proposition \[Prop:SurroundConfig\], $W_v(I_0)=I_0$ where $I_0$ is the interstice between $C_n$, $C$ and $C_1$ when the configuration is in standard position. Hence $W_v=\pm I$. Furthermore, as the interstices wrap around the central circle $C$ exactly once (see Figure \[Fig:Surround\]), any proper subword of $W_v$ is admissible and any subword of length $\leq n-2$ is strictly admissible. It follows that $W_{n-1}=A_1A_2 \cdots A_{n-1}=-A_n^{-1}$ since $W_{n-1}A_n=\pm I$ and the $(1,2)$ entry of $W_{n-1}$ is negative. Hence $W_v=-I$.
For the last half, given a map ${\bf c} : E(\tau) \to {\mathbb R}_+$, the conditions of the lemma are exactly what we need to uniquely define a developing map from $\widetilde{\Sigma}_g$ to $\hat{\mathbb C}$ which is a local homeomorphism and which gives a circle packing on $\widetilde{\Sigma}_g$ up to the composition of elements of $PSL_2({\mathbb C})$. This gives the required projective structure and circle packing.
(140,120) (0,-20) (0,-20)[ (66,67)[$C$]{} (66,110)[$C_1$]{} (97,93)[$C_2$]{} (99,65)[$C_3$]{} (91,41)[$C_4$]{} (33,92)[$C_n$]{} ]{}
We recall the following definition of the cross ratio parameter space mentioned in the introduction.
\[Def:CrossRatioParameterSpace\] The set of all maps in ${\mathbb R}^{E(\tau)}$ satisfying the conditions (1) and (2) for each vertex of $\tau$ in the main lemma will be called the cross ratio parameter space and denoted by $${\mathcal C}_{\tau} =
\{ {\bf c} : E(\tau) \to {\mathbb R}_+ \, \vert \,
{\bf c} \; \; \text{satisfies (1) and (2) for each vertex} \}.$$
[**Remark:**]{} It is worth noting that if $\tau$ is covered by a non-simple graph in the universal cover, then there are no maps of $E(\tau)$ to ${\mathbb R}_+$ satisfying the conditions $(1)$ and $(2)$ and hence ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ is an empty set.
Holonomy representation
-----------------------
Given a surface with projective structure together with a circle packing with nerve $\tau$, we have a cross ratio parameter defined on the edges of $\tau$. An extension of proposition \[Prop:SurroundConfig\] allows us to find the holonomy representation using the cross ratios and the combinatorics of $\tau$ (compare with the Fenchel-Nielsen coordinates where it is generally quite difficult to obtain the holonomy representation from the coordinates). To begin, we fix the developing map and the holonomy by developing a fixed interstice to the standard interstice. The holonomy representation of each covering transformation $\gamma \in \pi_1(\Sigma_g)$ is given by a word in the alphabet $\{A_i^{\pm 1}, R^{\pm 1}\}$ where $A_i$ are the associated matrices of the cross ratios and $R={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \sqrt{-1} \\ \sqrt{-1} & 1\\ \end{array}\right)}\in PSL_2({\mathbb C})$ fixes the standard interstice ${\mathcal I}_s$ and permutes its vertices in an anti-clockwise direction ($R(0)=\sqrt{-1}$, $R(\sqrt{-1})=\infty$, $R(\infty)=0$). We start with some definitions:
A [*marked triangle*]{} $(\Delta, v)$ of $\widetilde{\Sigma_g}-\tilde{\tau}$ is a triangle with a marked vertex. This corresponds to an interstice of the circle packing on $\widetilde{\Sigma_g}$ with a marked edge. There are two types of basic moves on the set of marked triangles defined as follows:
- A type 1 move on the set of marked triangles is a rotation either clockwise or anti-clockwise about the marked vertex of a marked triangle to an adjacent triangle. This moves a marked triangle to an adjacent marked triangle with marked vertex in the same position. If $x$ is the cross ratio of the edge common to the two triangles, we associate the matrix $A={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & x\\
\end{array}\right)}$ to a clockwise rotation, and $A^{-1}$ to an anti-clockwise rotation.
- A type 2 move fixes the triangle but changes its marking by rotating the vertices either anti-clockwise or clockwise. We associate the matrix $R={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \sqrt{-1} \\ \sqrt{-1} & 1\\ \end{array}\right)}$ for an anti-clockwise rotation of the marking and $R^{-1}$ for a clock-wise rotation.
Suppose that $\gamma(\Delta_1, v_1)=(\Delta_2, v_2)$ for some $\gamma \in \pi_1(\Sigma_g)$. Then the holonomy representation $\rho(\gamma)$ of $\gamma$ acts on the developing image of $(\Delta_1, v_1)$ by $\rho(\gamma)(dev(\Delta_1, v_1))=(dev(\Delta_2, v_2))$. Fix a marked triangle $(\Delta_0,v_0)$ and develop it to the standard interstice ${\mathcal I}_s$ such that $v_0$ corresponds to the real line. We have the following result.
\[Prop:Holonomy\] Let $m_1, m_2, \cdots, m_{k_i}$ be a sequence of moves that maps the marked triangle $(\Delta_0,v_0)$ to $(\Delta_i, v_i)$ in $\widetilde{\Sigma_g}-\tilde{\tau}$ and let $B_1, \cdots$, $B_{k_i}$ be the associated matrices of these moves. Suppose further that $dev$ $(\Delta_0,v_0)=\mathcal {I}_s$ with $v_0$ corresponding to the real line. Then the transformation in $PSL_2(\mathbb{C})$ taking $dev(\Delta_0,v_0)=\mathcal {I}_s$ to $dev(\Delta_i,v_i)$ is $W_i=B_1B_2 \cdots B_{k_i}$. Hence if $\gamma \in \pi_1(\Sigma_g)$ and $\gamma(\Delta_1, v_1)=(\Delta_2, v_2)$, then the holonomy representation $\rho$ of $\gamma$ is given by $\rho(\gamma)= W_2W_1^{-1}$.
The proof of the above is essentially the same as the proof of proposition \[Prop:SurroundConfig\] and will be omitted.
\[Ex:Holonomy\] [*Consider the triangulation $\tau$ of the torus $\Sigma_1$ with one vertex and three edges, $e_1,e_2$ and $e_3$ and suppose we have a projective structure on the torus which admits a circle packing with nerve $\tau$. A fundamental domain for the torus consists of two triangles, see Figure \[Fig:Hexagonal\] for a portion of the triangulation of $\widetilde{\Sigma_1}$ where all horizontal edges are lifts of $e_1$, all edges of angle $2\pi/3$ with the positive $x$-axis are lifts of $e_2$ and all edges of angle $\pi/3$ with the positive $x$-axis are lifts of $e_3$. Let $x_1,x_2$ and $x_3$ be the cross ratios and $A_1$, $A_2$ and $A_3$ be the associated matrices of $e_1, e_2$ and $e_3$ respectively. The fundamental group of $\Sigma_1$ is generated by three elements $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$ and $\gamma_3$ where $\gamma_1(\Delta_0, v_0)=(\Delta_2,v_2)$, and $\gamma_2(\Delta_1, v_1)=(\Delta_3,v_3)$, $\gamma_3(\Delta_2, v_2)=(\Delta_4,v_4)$, and $\gamma_3\gamma_2^{-1}\gamma_1=id$ (see Figure \[Fig:Hexagonal\]). It follows from proposition \[Prop:Holonomy\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(\gamma_1)&=& A_3A_1R\\
\rho(\gamma_2)&=& A_3A_1A_2RA_3^{-1}\\
\rho(\gamma_3)&=& A_3A_1A_2A_3RA_1^{-1}A_3^{-1}.\\\end{aligned}$$* ]{}
(140,135) (0,-5) (65,86)[$\Delta_0$]{} (84,76)[$\Delta_1$]{} (84,52)[$\Delta_2$]{} (65,43)[$\Delta_3$]{} (45,52)[$\Delta_4$]{} (65,76)[$v_0$]{} (80,69)[$v_1$]{} (84,44)[$v_2$]{} (61,36)[$v_3$]{} (46,43)[$v_4$]{}
Around the Andreev-Thurston Solution
====================================
Formal dimension count
----------------------
Given a triangulation $\tau$ on a surface $\Sigma_g$, we easily conclude from the main lemma in the previous section that:
The cross ratio parameter space ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ is a real semi-algebraic set of formal dimension $6g-6$ when $g \geq 1$.
[*Proof:*]{} Since the two conditions in the main lemma are expressed in terms of the identities and inequalities in cross ratios, ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ is a real semi-algebraic set. It remains to do a formal dimension count. An easy application of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem shows that $|E(\tau)|=6g-6+3|V(\tau)|$. For each vertex $v$, the condition $W_v=-I$ from lemma \[Lem:MainLemma\] gives 3 equations in the cross ratios. Since there are $|V(\tau)|$ vertices, this gives $3|V(\tau)|$ equations. The formal dimension is, by definition, the number of variables minus the number of equations and we thus have $|E(\tau)|-3|V(\tau)|=6g-6$.
[**Remark:**]{} The formal dimension count works even for $\tau$ which is covered by a non-simple graph in the universal cover, because the computation uses only euler characteristic argument. However, the starting point of the argument in the subsequent subsections is the Andreev-Thurston solution, so that $\tau$ will have to be covered by a simple graph in the universal cover in the sequel.
When $ g \geq 2$
----------------
In this subsection, we will see, in the case $g \geq 2$, that the formal dimension of ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ is the correct one at least near the Andreev-Thurston solution and that the solution has a nice manifold neighborhood. The arguments are based heavily on the well developed deformation theory of Kleinian groups by Ahlfors, Bers and other authors, see for instance [@Bers].
When $g \geq 2$, the image of the canonical section $s : {\mathcal T}_g
\to {\mathcal P}_g$ has a tubular neighborhood which consists of projective structures whose developing map is injective and whose developed image is surrounded by a topological circle embedded in $\hat{\mathbb C}$. This neighborhood is called the quasi Fuchsian space and is denoted by ${\mathcal Q}{\mathcal F}_g$. The projective structure in ${\mathcal Q}{\mathcal F}_g$ is sometimes called quasi Fuchsian. The bounding circle of the developed image of a quasi Fuchsian structure bounds a disk on the other side in $\hat{\mathbb C}$ by the Jordan curve theorem and the action of the holonomy image there is still properly discontinuous. Hence by taking the quotient, we obtain another Riemann surface homeomorphic to $\Sigma_g$. By assigning to each quasi Fuchsian structure, its conformal structure with opposite orientation and the conformal structure induced on the other side, we obtain a map $$\beta : {\mathcal Q}{\mathcal F}_g \to
\overline{\mathcal T}_g \times {\mathcal T}_g.$$ Here we adopt the convention so that the original projective structure with opposite orientation projects down to the first component. Bers’ simultaneous uniformization theorem states that $\beta$ is in fact a homeomorphism.
\[Lem:NbdAT2\] Suppose $g \geq 2$, and let $\beta_2$ be the composition of $\beta$ with the projection to the second factor. Then $$\beta_2 \circ f : f^{-1}({\mathcal Q}{\mathcal F}_g) \to {\mathcal T}_g$$ is a homeomorphism, where $f$ is the “forgetting map” from ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ to ${\mathcal P}_g$ defined in the introduction. In particular, $f^{-1}({\mathcal Q}{\mathcal F}_g) \subset {\mathcal C}_{\tau}$, which includes the Andreev-Thurston solution, is homeomorphic to the euclidean space of dimension $6g-6$.
[*Proof*]{}. We first construct a hyperbolic 3-manifold using the Andreev-Thurston solution. Given $\tau$, the Andreev-Thurston solution gives a hyperbolic structure on $\Sigma_g$ and a packing $P_0$. Developing the hyperbolic surface, we obtain a packing on the upper half plane ${\mathbb H}^2$. Let $R$ be its mirror image on the lower half plane $\overline{\mathbb H}^2$. The dual packing $R^*$ which consists of the circumscribed circles of interstices in $R$ fills $\overline{\mathbb H}^2$. Each member of both packings bounds a hemisphere in ${\mathbb H}^3$ and such a hemisphere bounds a hemiball facing $\overline{\mathbb H}^2$. Chopping off those hemiballs from ${\mathbb H}^3$, we obtain a hyperbolic 3-manifold $L$ with ideal polygonal boundary. The point of tangency in the packing $R$ becomes an ideal vertex with rectangler section, and its modulus is the cross ratio of a corresponding point of tangency in $P_0$ times $\sqrt{-1}$.
The holonomy image of the Andreev-Thurston solution acts properly discontinuously on ${\mathbb H}^3$ by the Poincaré extension and $L$ is invariant under its action. Hence taking quotient, we obtain a hyperbolic 3-manifold $M$ with ideal polygonal boundary and with one end homeomorphic to $\Sigma_g$. The polygonal faces on the boundary are divided into two classes, one extends to the hemisphere bounded by a circle in $R$ and the other in $R^*$. Take the double of $L$ first along faces in the first class and then again take the double of the result of the first doubling along faces in the second class. This double doubling construction gives us a geometrically finite hyperbolic 3-manifold $N$ with $4$ ends, each homeomorphic to $\Sigma_g$, and $|E(\tau)|$ cusps corresponding to the points of tangency in $P_0$. It is obvious by the construction that the modulus of each cusp in $N$ is the cross ratio of the corresponding point of tangency in $P_0$ times $\sqrt{-1}$. Moreover, $N$ naturally admits a ${\mathbb Z}/2 \times {\mathbb Z}/2 \; (=G)$ symmetry generated by two reflections coming from the double doubling.
We now let $Def^G(N)$ be the space of geometrically finite deformations of $N$ preserving the $G$ action. Again by the theorem of Bers, it can be identified with the space of $G$-invariant quasi conformal deformations of the end of $N$ and thus we have a homeomorphism $$q : Def^G(N) \to {\mathcal T}_g.$$
In any geometrically finite deformation of $N$, the cusps remain being cusps and there are $|E(\tau)|$ cusps. Moreover, since the deformation is chosen to admit a $G$ action generated by two reflections, each cusp must admit the same symmetry so that the fundamental domain of the cusp remains rectangular. Thus for each deformation of $N$, we have a map assigning to each edge of $\tau$ a positive real number obtained by the modulus of the corresponding cusp over $\sqrt{-1}$. This gives a map $m : Def^G(N) \to {\mathbb R}^{E(\tau)}$.
Let $N'$ be a $G$-invariant geometrically finite deformation of $N$. Then the quotient $M'$ of $N'$ by the $G$ action has an ideal polygonal boundary having the same combinatorial pattern with that of $M$. The universal cover $L'$ of $M'$ also has an ideal polygonal boundary having the same combinatorial pattern with that of $L$. The faces corresponding to $R$ extend to hemispheres which provide a circle packing on the domain bounded by a Jordan curve in $\hat{\mathbb C}$. The packing is obviously invariant by the action of the holonomy image of $N'$ and thus by taking quotient we obtain a projective structure on $\Sigma_g$ together with a circle packing with nerve isotopic to $\tau$. The image of a deformation $N'$ by $m$ is nothing but the cross ratio parameter of the packing so obtained. Thus we have squeezed the image of $m$ by $$m : Def^G(N) \to {\mathcal C}_{\tau}.$$ Now it is not hard to see that the composition of $m \circ q^{-1}$ and $b_2 \circ f$, is the identity and so is the composition with the reversed order.
When $g = 1$
------------
In this subsection, we show that the Andreev-Thurston solution has a nice manifold neighborhood of dimension $2$ when $g=1$, in contrast with the formal dimension count of ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ in §3.1. The arguments are based heavily on the hyperbolic Dehn surgery theory developed by Thurston [@Thu].
The fundamental group of $\Sigma_1$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb Z} \times {\mathbb Z}$ and is mapped by the holonomy representation of a projective structure to an elementary subgroup in $PSL_2({\mathbb C})$ which fixes a single point or two points on $\hat{\mathbb C}$ globally. Thus since ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ is the space of deformations of projective structures on $\Sigma_1$ with a specific type of packings, we in particular obtain a family of such representations of ${\mathbb Z} \times {\mathbb Z}$ in $PSL_2({\mathbb C})$ parameterized by ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$. In this setting, the hyperbolic Dehn surgery theory defines a continuous map $$d : {\mathcal C}_{\tau} \to {\mathbb R}^2 \cup \{ \infty \}/\sim$$ which generalizes the classical Dehn surgery coefficients in the knot theory, such that the Andreev-Thurston solution is mapped to $\infty$ by $d$. The map $d$ is in fact described in terms of the complex affine structure in [@Thu] and the image lies in ${\mathbb R}^2 \cup \{ \infty \}$, but ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ here is described in terms of the projective structure which is generically in one to two correspondence with the complex affine structure, so that we divide the image by the antipodal involution $\sim$ of ${\mathbb R}^2$.
\[Lem:NbdAT1\] Suppose that $g =1$. Then there is a neighborhood $U$ of the Andreev-Thurston solution in ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ which is homeomorphic to the euclidean space of dimension $2$, and the restriction of $d$ to which is an embedding.
[*Proof*]{}. Given $\tau$, the Andreev-Thurston solution gives an euclidean torus and a packing $P_0$. Developing the torus, we obtain a packing $R$ on the complex plane ${\mathbb C}$. Using the same dualizing, chopping off, taking quotients and double doubling construction in the previous subsection, we obtain a dual packing $R^*$ on ${\mathbb C}$ and the hyperbolic 3-manifolds $L, \; M, \; N$ respectively, where $N$ has $4$ old cusps and $|E(\tau)|$ new cusps corresponding to the points of tangency in $P_0$. It is again obvious by the construction that the modulus of each cusp is the cross ratio of the corresponding point of tangency in $P_0$ times $\sqrt{-1}$. Moreover, $N$ admits a ${\mathbb Z}/2 \times {\mathbb Z}/2 \; (=G)$ symmetry generated by the two reflections coming from the double doubling.
Let $Def^G(N)$ be in this case a small neighborhood of $N$ in the space of hyperbolic Dehn surgery deformations of $N$ preserving the $G$ action. Then since the deformations preserve the $G$ action, the cusps created by the double doubling must admit the $G$-symmetry generated by the two reflections, so they remain cusps. Thus by Thurston’s theorem, the deformations of $N$ which are small enough are parameterized by the $G$-invariant generalized Dehn surgery coefficients of the other old cusps and we have an embedding $$q : Def^G(N) \to {\mathbb R}^2 \cup \{ \infty \}/\sim$$ where the image is a neighborhood of $\infty = q(N)$.
In any Dehn surgery deformation of $N$ in $Def^G(N)$, there are $|E(\tau)|$ cusps corresponding to the points of tangency in $P_0$. Moreover since such cusps admit reflectional symmetry, their fundamental domains remain rectangular. Thus for each deformation of $N$, we have a map assigning to each edge of $\tau$ a positive real number obtained by the modulus of the corresponding cusp over $\sqrt{-1}$. Then the assignment of this map to $N$ defines a map $m : Def^G(N) \to {\mathbb R}^{E(\tau)}$.
Let $N'$ be a $G$-invariant incomplete Dehn surgery deformation of $N$ whose completion lies in $Def^G(N)$. Thus $N'$ is still homeomorphic to $N$. Then the quotient $M'$ of $N'$ by the $G$ action has an ideal polygonal boundary having the same combinatorial pattern with that of $M$. The universal cover $L'$ of $M'$ also has an ideal polygonal boundary having the same combinatorial pattern with that of $L$. Since $L'$ carries a hyperbolic metric though incomplete, it can be developed to ${\mathbb H}^3$. The developed image of a face corresponding to $R$ extends to a hemisphere whose boundary defines a circle on $\hat{\mathbb C}$. The coherent collection of such circles provide a developed image of a certain circle packing on $\Sigma_g$. Pulling back the projective structure on $\hat{\mathbb C}$ to the universal cover of $\Sigma_g$, and taking quotient by the covering transformations, we obtain a projective structure on $\Sigma_1$ together with a circle packing with nerve isotopic to $\tau$. The image of a deformation $N'$ by $m$ is nothing but the cross ratio parameter of the packing so obtained. We have thus again squeezed the image of $m$ by $$m : Def^G(N) \to {\mathcal C}_{\tau}.$$ Now it is not hard to see that $m \circ q ^{-1} $ is the inverse of $d$ in a small neighborhood of $\infty$.
This lemma together with Lemma \[Lem:NbdAT2\] gives the second lemma in the introduction.
Topology of ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ for One Circle Packings
=========================================================
Combinatorics
-------------
For this section and the next, we assume that $g \geq 2$, and $\tau$ is a graph on $\Sigma_g$ with one vertex which triangulates $\Sigma_g$. By the Gauss-Bonnet, $\tau$ has $6g-3$ edges and triangulates $\Sigma_g$ into $4g-2$ triangles. Let $\tau'$ be the dual graph of $\tau$. $\tau'$ is a trivalent graph (all vertices have valence 3) with $6g-3$ edges $e_1', \cdots, e_{6g-3}'$. The cross ratios defined on the edges of $\tau$ clearly define a map of $E(\tau')$ to ${\mathbb R}_+$ which we also call a cross ratio parameter, hence the cross ratio parameter space ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ can also be interpreted as being defined on the edges of $\tau'$, and we will adopt this point of view whenever appropriate.
Cutting $\Sigma_g$ along the edges of $\tau'$ gives a polygon ${\mathcal P}$ with $12g-6$ sides $s_1, s_2, \cdots s_{12g-6}$ and $6g-3$ side pairings $s_i \leftrightarrow s_j$, each paired side corresponding to some edge $e_s'$ of $\tau'$. When $g=2$ there are essentially $8$ different possible side-pairing patterns, see Figure \[Fig:PairingPattern\]. When $g=3$, a computer search produces over nine hundred different side-pairing patterns.
(280,110) (0,-10)[ (0,60) (80,60) (160,60) (240,60) (0,0) (80,0) (160,0) (240,0) ]{}
Since each vertex of $\tau'$ has valence 3, it lifts to 3 vertices of ${\mathcal P}$ and the three edges incident to the vertex corresponds to $3$ pairs of sides of ${\mathcal P}$. It follows that if $s_i \leftrightarrow s_j$ and $s_{i+1} \leftrightarrow s_k$, then $s_{j-1} \leftrightarrow s_{k+1}$ (indices are taken mod $12g-6$). $\{s_i \leftrightarrow s_j, s_{i+1} \leftrightarrow s_k, s_{j-1} \leftrightarrow s_{k+1}\}$ is called the triple of side-pairings associated to the vertex. We can divide the triples to 2 types according to whether the pairs of sides separate each other as follows:
\[Def:Triple\] The triple of side pairings $\{s_i \leftrightarrow s_j, s_{i+1} \leftrightarrow s_k, s_{j-1} \leftrightarrow s_{k+1}\}$ is [*separating*]{} if $i,i+1,j-1,j,k,k+1$ is in cyclic order mod $12g-6$ and [*non-separating*]{} if $i,i+1,k,k+1,j-1,j$ is in cyclic order mod $12g-6$ (see Figures \[Fig:Triple\]a and \[Fig:Triple\]b). Similarly, a vertex of $\tau'$ and the triple of edges incident to the vertex are called separating and non-separating if they give rise to separating and non-separating triples of side-pairings respectively.
(200,100) (0,10) (120,10) (0,-4)[(a) separating]{} (28,89)[$i$]{} (40,89)[$i+1$]{} (76,35)[$j-1$]{} (70,24)[$j$]{} (3,24)[$k$]{} (-22,38)[$k+1$]{}
(110,-4)[(b) non-separating]{} (148,89)[$i$]{} (160,89)[$i+1$]{} (196,35)[$k$]{} (190,24)[$k+1$]{} (105,24)[$j-1$]{} (115,38)[$j$]{}
[**Remark:**]{} In the case of a non-separating triple, a simple topological argument shows that $s_{i+1}$ and $s_k$ are not adjacent sides of ${\mathcal{P}}$, similarly $s_{k+1}$ and $s_{j-1}$ are not adjacent, and $s_j$ and $s_i$ are not adjacent.
In the case of genus 1, there is only one triple and it is separating. It will be crucial in our analysis of the one circle packing case for higher genus that there exists a non-separating triple. We have the following result:
\[Prop:NonseparatingExist\] If $g \geq 2$ and $\tau'$ is a trivalent graph on $\Sigma_g$ cutting $\Sigma_g$ into one polygon, then both separating and non-separating vertices of $\tau'$ must occur.
[*Proof:*]{} We first show that there exists non-separating triples of side-pairings. If $s_1 \leftrightarrow s_i$ and $s_2 \leftrightarrow s_j$ with $i>j$, then $\{s_1 \leftrightarrow s_i, s_2 \leftrightarrow s_j, s_{j+1} \leftrightarrow s_{i-1}\}$ is a non-separating triple and we are done. So we may assume that $i<j$ and $\{s_1 \leftrightarrow s_i, s_2 \leftrightarrow s_j, s_{j+1} \leftrightarrow s_{i-1}\}$ is a separating triple. Furthermore, by a cyclic permutation if necessary, we may assume that $i \geq 5$ since $6g-3 >6$. Now consider the two side-pairings $s_2 \leftrightarrow s_j$ and $s_3 \leftrightarrow s_k$. Again, if $k<j$ this gives rise to a non-separating triple $\{s_2 \leftrightarrow s_j, s_3 \leftrightarrow s_k, s_{k+1} \leftrightarrow s_{j-1}\}$, so we may assume again that $k>j$. Continuing inductively, we either get a non-separating triple or we eventually have $s_{i-2}\leftrightarrow s_l$ where $l>j+2$. This gives us the non-separating triple $\{s_{i-2} \leftrightarrow s_l, s_{i-1} \leftrightarrow s_{j+1}, s_{j+2} \leftrightarrow s_{l-1}\}$ and we are done.
To show that there exists a separating triple, We use a similar method. We may assume that $\{s_1 \leftrightarrow s_i, s_2 \leftrightarrow s_j, s_{j+1} \leftrightarrow s_{i-1}\}$ is a non-separating triple so that $j<i$ and furthermore $j>3$ by the remark following definition \[Def:Triple\]. Now if $s_3 \leftrightarrow s_k$, either $\{s_2 \leftrightarrow s_j, s_3 \leftrightarrow s_k, s_{k+1} \leftrightarrow s_{j-1}\}$ is a separating triple or $k<j$. After less than $j-1$ such steps, we either get a separating triple or we reach a stage where $s_m \leftrightarrow s_p$, $s_{m+1} \leftrightarrow s_q$ with $q>p$. This gives the separating triple $\{s_{m} \leftrightarrow s_p, s_{m+1} \leftrightarrow s_{q}, s_{p-1} \leftrightarrow s_{q+1}\}$ as required.
Free cross ratios
-----------------
In this subsection, we will show that we can choose a set of $6g-6$ independent cross ratios on the set of edges of $\tau$, (equivalently of $\tau'$) such that they determine the remaining three cross ratios. The idea is to choose a non-separating vertex $ v'$ of $\tau'$ (always possible by proposition \[Prop:NonseparatingExist\]) and use the cross ratios of the 3 edges of $\tau'$ incident to $v'$ as the set of dependent variables and the remaining $6g-6$ variables as the free variables.
We start with a local argument. Recall from §2 that apart from the admissibility conditions which are open conditions, locally, the cross ratio parameter space ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ is given by the matrix identity $W_v:={\left(\begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ c & d\\ \end{array}\right)}
=-I$ or equivalently, by the 3 equations $$\begin{aligned}
a(x_1,\cdots,x_{6g-3})&=&-1\\
b(x_1,\cdots,x_{6g-3})&=&0\\
c(x_1,\cdots,x_{6g-3})&=&0.\\\end{aligned}$$ (Note that the entries $a,b,c$ and $d$ are regarded as functions of the variables and that $d=-1$ follows from the above since $\det(W_v)=1$). We will show that we can find a set of 3 variables $x_i,x_j$ and $x_k$ such that the Jacobian $${\displaystyle {\left|\begin{array}{ccc} \frac{\partial a}{\partial x_i} & \frac{\partial a}{\partial x_j} & \frac{\partial a}{\partial x_k} \\
\frac{\partial b}{\partial x_i} & \frac{\partial b}{\partial x_j} & \frac{\partial b}{\partial x_k} \\
\frac{\partial c}{\partial x_i} & \frac{\partial c}{\partial x_j} & \frac{\partial c}{\partial x_k}
\\
\end{array}\right|}} \neq 0.$$ By the implicit function theorem, this implies that locally, ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ is determined by the remaining $6g-6$ variables and hence is locally of dimension $6g-6$.
Recall that if $v$ is the vertex of $\tau$ and $e_1, \cdots, e_{6g-3}$ the set of edges with cross ratios $x_1,\cdots, x_{6g-3}$, reading off the edges incident to $v$ in a clockwise direction, we get the cross ratio vector ${\bf x}=(x_{n_1}, x_{n_2}, \cdots,$ $x_{n_{12g-6}})$ and the associated word $W_{\bf x}=A_{n_1}A_{n_2} \cdots A_{n_{12g-6}}$. Alternatively, we can think of the cross ratio vector as the the vector obtained by reading off the cross ratios of the sides of the polygon obtained by cutting $\Sigma_g$ along the dual graph $\tau'$.
For the polygon with side pairing given in the first pattern of Figure \[Fig:PairingPattern\], the cross ratio vector is given by $${\bf x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_2,x_5,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_1,x_6,x_7,x_8,x_6,x_9,x_7,x_8,x_9).$$
By proposition \[Prop:NonseparatingExist\], and by doing a cyclic permutation if necessary, we may assume that $\{s_{12g-6} \leftrightarrow s_i, s_1 \leftrightarrow s_j, s_{j+1} \leftrightarrow s_{i-1}\}$ is a non-separating triple so that $j<i$. Let $x, y$ and $z$ be the cross ratios of the edges of $\tau'$ corresponding to the pairs of sides $s_1 \leftrightarrow s_j$, $s_{j+1} \leftrightarrow s_{i-1}$ and $s_{12g-6} \leftrightarrow s_i$ respectively and let $x_1,x_2, \cdots, x_{6g-6}$ be the cross ratios of the remaining edges of $\tau'$ corresponding to the other remaining pairs of sides numbered in some fixed order. The cross ratio vector ${\bf x}$ is then of the form $${\bf x}=(x,x_{n_2},\cdots, x_{n_{j-1}},x,y,x_{n_{j+2}},\cdots,x_{n_{i-2}},y,z,x_{n_{i+1}},\cdots,x_{n_{12g-7}},z)$$ with associated word $W$ in the associated matrices given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
W_{\bf x}={\left(\begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ c & d\\ \end{array}\right)} \\
&&=
{\tiny {\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & x\\ \end{array}\right)}
T
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & x\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & y\\ \end{array}\right)}
U
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & y\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & z\\ \end{array}\right)}
V
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & z\\ \end{array}\right)}}\end{aligned}$$ where $T$, $U$ and $V$ are subwords of $W$ of lengths $j-2$, $i-j-3$ and $12g-i-7$ respectively which depend only on the variables $x_1,\cdots,x_{6g-6}$.
\[Prop:Derivative\] With the notation above, let $W_k:={\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_k & b_k \\ c_k & d_k\\ \end{array}\right)}=A_{n_1}A_{n_2}\cdots A_{n_k}$ be the subword of $W_{\bf x}$ given by the product of the first $k$ associated matrices. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_x & b_x \\ c_x & d_x\\ \end{array}\right)}&=&{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 0\\ \end{array}\right)}+
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} -b_{j-1}d_{j-1} & b_{j-1}^2 \\ -d_{j-1}^2 & b_{j-1}d_{j-1}\\ \end{array}\right)}\\
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_y & b_y \\ c_y & d_y\\ \end{array}\right)}&=&{\left(\begin{array}{cc} -b_{j}d_{j} & b_{j}^2 \\ -d_{j}^2 & b_{j}d_{j}\\ \end{array}\right)}+{\left(\begin{array}{cc} -b_{i-2}d_{i-2} & b_{i-2}^2 \\ -d_{i-2}^2 & b_{i-2}d_{i-2}\\ \end{array}\right)}\\
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_z & b_z \\ c_z & d_z\\ \end{array}\right)}
&=&{\left(\begin{array}{cc} -b_{i-1}d_{i-1} & b_{i-1}^2 \\ -d_{i-1}^2 & b_{i-1}d_{i-1}\\ \end{array}\right)}+{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0\\ \end{array}\right)}\\\end{aligned}$$ where $a_x, a_y, a_z$ etc. denotes the partial derivatives of the entries of $W$ with respect to the variables $x$, $y$ and $z$.
[*Proof:*]{} We will show the second formula, the first and third are similar. We apply the product rule, and using the fact that $W_{\bf x}=-I$ since the cross ratio vector corresponds to a point in ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_y & b_y \\ c_y & d_y\\ \end{array}\right)}&=&
W_{j}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1\\ \end{array}\right)}
(-W_{j+1})^{-1}+
W_{i-2}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1\\ \end{array}\right)}
(-W_{i-1})^{-1}
\\
&=& {\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_j & b_j \\ c_j & d_j\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} -d_{j+1} & b_{j+1} \\ c_{j+1} & -a_{j+1}\\ \end{array}\right)}\\
&{}& \quad +
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_{i-2} & b_{i-2} \\ c_{i-2} & d_{i-2}\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} -d_{i-1} & b_{i-1} \\ c_{i-1} & -a_{i-1}\\ \end{array}\right)}\\
&=&{\left(\begin{array}{cc} b_jc_{j+1} & -b_ja_{j+1} \\ d_jc_{j+1} & -d_ja_{j+1}\\ \end{array}\right)}
+{\left(\begin{array}{cc} b_{i-2}c_{i-1} & -b_{i-2}a_{i-1} \\ d_{i-2}c_{i-1} & -d_{i-2}a_{i-1}\\ \end{array}\right)}\\
&=&{\left(\begin{array}{cc} -b_{j}d_{j} & b_{j}^2 \\ -d_{j}^2 & b_{j}d_{j}\\ \end{array}\right)}+{\left(\begin{array}{cc} -b_{i-2}d_{i-2} & b_{i-2}^2 \\ -d_{i-2}^2 & b_{i-2}d_{i-2}\\ \end{array}\right)}\\\end{aligned}$$ since $${\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_{j+1} & b_{j+1} \\ c_{j+1} & d_{j+1}\\ \end{array}\right)}={\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_{j} & b_{j} \\ c_{j} & d_{j}\\ \end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & x_{n_{j+1}}\\ \end{array}\right)}$$ so that $c_{j+1}=-d_j$, $a_{j+1}=-b_j$ and similarly $c_{i-1}=-d_{i-2}$, $a_{i-1}=-b_{i-2}$.
We are now ready to prove the local result for the cross ratio parameter space ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$.
\[Lem:Manifold\] The cross ratio parameter space ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ for a triangulation $\tau$ of $\Sigma_g$ ($g \geq 2$) with one vertex is locally homeomorphic to ${\mathbb R}^{6g-6}$. Furthermore, the local parameters can be taken to be the cross ratios on a set of $6g-6$ edges of $\tau'$ such that the remaining $3$ edges are incident to a non-separating vertex of $\tau'$.
[*Proof:*]{} Adopting the notation of proposition \[Prop:Derivative\], it suffices to prove that the Jacobian $${\displaystyle {\left|\begin{array}{ccc} \frac{\partial a}{\partial x} & \frac{\partial a}{\partial y} & \frac{\partial a}{\partial z} \\
\frac{\partial b}{\partial x} & \frac{\partial b}{\partial y} & \frac{\partial b}{\partial z} \\
\frac{\partial c}{\partial x} & \frac{\partial c}{\partial y} & \frac{\partial c}{\partial z}
\\
\end{array}\right|}} \neq 0$$ where $x$, $y$ and $z$ are the parameters of the edges incident to a non-separating vertex. By proposition \[Prop:Derivative\], this is equivalent to showing that $${\displaystyle {\left|\begin{array}{ccc}-b_{j-1}d_{j-1}& -b_jd_j-b_{i-2}d_{i-2}& -b_{i-1}d_{i-1} \\
b_{j-1}^2& b_j^2+b_{i-2}^2 & b_{i-1}^2+1 \\
-1-d_{j-1}^2& -d_j^2-d_{i-2}^2 & -d_{i-1}^2
\\
\end{array}\right|}} \neq 0.$$ We will show that the $3$ columns $\phi_1$, $\phi_2$ and $\phi_3$ of the above Jacobian are linearly independent. By proposition \[Prop:CharacterizeAdm\], $$b_{j-1},d_{j-1},b_j,d_j,b_{i-2},d_{i-2},b_{i-1},d_{i-1}>0, ~\hbox{and}$$ $$p_{j-1}=b_{j-1}/d_{j-1}<p_j=b_{j}/d_{j}<p_{i-2}=b_{i-2}/d_{i-2}<p_{i-1}=b_{i-1}/d_{1-1}$$ since the subwords $W_k$ of $W_{\bf x}$ are all strictly admissible for $k \leq 12g-4$. Let $$\vec{v}_1={\left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0\\ -1\end{array}\right)},
\qquad \vec{v}_2={\left(\begin{array}{c} -p_{j-1}\\ p_{j-1}^2\\ -1\end{array}\right)},
\qquad \vec{v}_3={\left(\begin{array}{c} -p_{j}\\ p_{j}^2\\ -1\end{array}\right)},$$ $$\vec{v}_4={\left(\begin{array}{c} -p_{i-2}\\ p_{i-2}^2\\ -1\end{array}\right)},\qquad
\vec{v}_5={\left(\begin{array}{c} -p_{i-1}\\ p_{i-1}^2\\ -1\end{array}\right)},
\qquad \vec{v}_6={\left(\begin{array}{c} 0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right)}.$$ We have $\phi_1=\vec{v}_1+d_{j-1}^2 \vec{v}_2, \quad
\phi_2=d_{j}^2
\vec{v}_3+
d_{i-2}^2
\vec{v}_4
, \quad \phi_3=d_{i-1}^2
\vec{v}_5+
\vec{v}_6
.$
Note that the vectors $\vec{v}_1, \vec{v}_2, \vec{v}_3, \vec{v}_4, \vec{v}_5$, and $\vec{v}_6$ all lie on the circular cone passing through the origin and the parabola $\{y=x^2, \; z=-1\}$ and that furthermore they are in anti-clockwise order. Since $\phi_1$ is a positive linear combination of $\vec{v}_1$ and $\vec{v}_2$, its intersection with the horizontal plane $\{z=-1\}$ lies on the chord joining $(0,0,-1)$ and $(-p_{j-1},p_{j-1}^2,-1)$. Similarly, the intersection of $\phi_2$ with the horizontal plane $\{z=-1\}$ lies on the chord joining $(-p_j,p_j^2,-1)$ and $(-p_{i-2},p_{i-2}^2,-1)$ and the intersection of $\phi_3$ with the horizontal plane $\{z=-1\}$ lies on the half infinite line segment $\{(x,y,z) ~|~x=-p_{i-1}$, $\; y \geq p_{i-1}^2, \; z=-1\}$ . The convexity of the curve $y=x^2$ and the arrangement of the points now implies that the three vectors are linearly independent.
[**Remark:**]{} The proofs of proposition \[Prop:Derivative\] and lemma \[Lem:Manifold\] show that more general results hold. For example, for lemma \[Lem:Manifold\], we need not choose a triple of edges corresponding to a non-separating vertex to be the ones with the dependent variables. In fact, we can use any 3 edges such that the three sets of paired sides in the fundamental polygon $\mathcal P$ corresponding to these 3 edges are mutually non-separating. Indeed, one sees how the proof breaks down if the non-separating property is not present, which is why the result does not hold for the genus 1 case. Similarly, for more general triangulations of $\Sigma_g$, if a vertex with valence $n$ is chosen such that no edge is incident to it more than once, then the 3 equations corresponding to that vertex are always independent and we can choose the cross ratios on any set of $n-3$ edges as the free variables for these equations.
Topology of ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$
---------------------------------
Lemma \[Lem:Manifold\] shows that ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ is a manifold of dimension $6g-6$ but it does not give information about the topology of ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$. Before proving a global version of lemma \[Lem:Manifold\], we first state and prove the following preliminary result:
\[Prop:MatrixIdentity\] Let $A$, $B$ and $C$ be three strictly admissible words of associated matrices. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&&ABC=-I
\\
&\Leftrightarrow& \textrm{(2,2) entries of }
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
AB=-C^{-1}
\\
BC=-A^{-1}
\\
CA=-B^{-1}
\end{array}
\right.
.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, if the above holds, then ABC also satisfies condition $(2)$ of the main lemma, that is, every proper subword of ABC is admissible.
[*Proof:*]{} $(\Rightarrow)$ is clear.
$(\Leftarrow)$ Let $A={\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_1 & a_2 \\ a_3 & a_4\\ \end{array}\right)}$, $B={\left(\begin{array}{cc} b_1 & b_2 \\ b_3 & b_4\\ \end{array}\right)}$ and $C={\left(\begin{array}{cc} c_1 & c_2 \\ c_3 & c_4\\ \end{array}\right)}$. By proposition \[Prop:CharacterizeAdm\], since $A$, $B$ and $C$ are strictly admissible words, $a_1,b_1,c_1 \leq 0$, $a_2,b_2,c_2 >0$, $a_3,b_3,c_3 <0$ and $a_4,b_4,c_4>0$. Then the conditions on the $(2,2)$ entries implies $$\begin{aligned}
-c_1&=& a_3b_2+a_4b_4 \\ %\eqno(1)
-a_1&=&b_3c_2+b_4c_4 \\ %\eqno(2)
-b_1&=& c_3a_2+c_4a_4. %\eqno(3)\end{aligned}$$ It suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
-c_4&=&a_1b_1+a_2b_3\\
c_2&=&a_1b_2+a_2b_4\\
c_3&=&a_3b_1+a_4b_3\end{aligned}$$ as together with $(1)$ this implies $AB=-C$, hence $ABC=-I$.
From $\det C=1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
c_2c_3-c_1c_4+1 &=& 0 \nonumber\\
\qquad \Longrightarrow \quad a_2b_3c_2c_3-a_2b_3c_1c_4+a_2b_3 &=& 0. \hspace{4cm} %\eqno(4)\end{aligned}$$ From $(2)$ and $(3)$, $$\begin{aligned}
-b_3c_2&=&a_1+b_4c_4\\
-a_2c_3&=&b_1+a_4c_4\\
\Longrightarrow \quad a_2b_3c_2c_3&=&a_1b_1+(a_1a_4+b_1b_4)c_4+a_4b_4c_4^2.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting into $(4)$, we get $$a_4b_4c_4^2+(a_1a_4+b_1b_4-a_2b_3c_1)c_4+(a_1b_1+a_2b_3)=0. \eqno(5)$$ We claim that $$a_1a_4+b_1b_4-a_2b_3c_1=1+a_4b_4(a_1b_1+a_2b_3). \eqno(6)$$ Substituting $-c_1=a_3b_2+a_4b_4$ from $(1)$, this is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
a_1a_4+b_1b_4+a_2b_3a_3b_2&=&1+a_4b_4a_1b_1\\
\Longleftrightarrow \qquad a_2a_3b_2b_3&=&(1-a_1a_4)(1-b_1b_4).\end{aligned}$$ This is obviously true since $$a_1a_4-1=a_2a_3, \qquad b_1b_4-1=b_2b_3.$$ Now substituting $(6)$ into $(5)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
(c_4+(a_1b_1+a_2b_3))(a_4b_4c_4+1)&=&0\\
\Longrightarrow \qquad -c_4&=&a_1b_1+a_2b_3\end{aligned}$$ since $a_4b_4c_4+1>0$.
Now from $(2)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
b_3c_2 &=& -a_1-b_4c_4\\
&=& -a_1 +b_4(a_1b_1+a_2b_3)\\
&=& a_1(-1+b_1b_4)+a_2b_4b_3\\
&=& a_1b_2b_3+a_2b_4b_3\\
\Longrightarrow \quad c_2 &=& a_1b_2+a_2b_4, \quad \hbox{since}~~b_3<0.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, from $(3)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
a_2c_3 &=& -b_1-a_4c_4\\
&=& -b_1 +a_4(a_1b_1+a_2b_3)\\
&=& b_1(-1+a_1a_4)+a_2a_4b_3\\
&=& b_1a_2a_3+a_2a_4b_3\\
\Longrightarrow \quad c_3 &=& a_3b_1+a_4b_3, \qquad \hbox{since}~~a_2 \neq 0.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the first part of the proposition. Finally, we note that since $A$, $B$ and $C$ are strictly admissible, if we consider the configuration of circles associated to $A$, $B$ and $C$, the interstices do not go around the central circle completely. Hence for $ABC$, the interstices go around the central circle less than 3 times. However, since $ABC=-I$, the interstices corresponding to $ABC$ go around the central circle exactly an odd number of times. As it is strictly less than $3$, they go around exactly once and $ABC$ is a word that satisfies both conditions $(1)$ and $(2)$ of the main lemma.
We now prove the global version of lemma \[Lem:Manifold\]:
\[Lem:Cell\] Let $\tau'$ be a trivalent graph on $\Sigma_g$ dual to a triangulation $\tau$ of $\Sigma_g$ with one vertex. Let $e_1',e_2',\cdots,e_{6g-3}'$ be a numbering of the edges of $\tau'$ such that the last three edges are associated to a non-separating vertex and let $x_1, \cdots,x_{6g-3}$ be the cross ratios of the edges. The projection of the cross ratio parameter space ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ to ${\mathbb R}^{6g-6}$ given by taking the first $6g-6$ variables, $$p: {\mathcal C}_{\tau} \longrightarrow {\mathbb R}^{6g-6},$$ $$p(x_1,\cdots,x_{6g-3})=(x_1,\cdots,x_{6g-6})$$ is a homeomorphism onto its image. Furthermore, the image of the projection is a strictly convex subset of ${\mathbb R}^{6g-6}$ with the property that if $(a_1,\cdots,a_{6g-6}) \in p({\mathcal C}_{\tau})$, then $(b_1, \cdots,b_{6g-6}) \in p({\mathcal C}_{\tau})$ whenever $b_i \geq a_i$ for $i=1,\cdots,6g-6$.
[*Proof:*]{} We adopt the notation of proposition \[Prop:Derivative\] and lemma \[Lem:Manifold\], and denote the last $3$ variables by $x$, $y$ and $z$ respectively.
If a vector ${\bf x} = (x_1,\cdots, x_{6g-6},x,y,z)$ represents a point in ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$, the associated word is [$$W_{\bf x}={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & x\\ \end{array}\right)}
T
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & x\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & y\\ \end{array}\right)}
U
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & y\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & z\\ \end{array}\right)}
V
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & z\\ \end{array}\right)}$$]{}where $T$, $U$ and $V$ are subwords of $W$ of lengths $j-2$, $i-j-3$ and $12g-i-7$ respectively that depend only on the parameters $x_1,\cdots,x_{6g-6}$. By the main lemma (lemma \[Lem:MainLemma\]), $T$, $U$ and $V$ are strictly admissible.\
Now suppose that $(x_1,\cdots, x_{6g-6})$ are chosen so that $T$, $U$ and $V$ are strictly admissible.
[**Claim:**]{} [*There exists a unique triple $(x,y,z) \in {\mathbb R}_+^3$ such that $W_{\bf x}$ satisfies the conditions of lemma \[Lem:MainLemma\], that is, $W_{\bf x}=-I$ and all proper subwords of $W_{\bf x}$ are admissible.* ]{}
[*Proof of claim:*]{} Let $T=\!{\left(\begin{array}{cc} t_1 & t_2 \\ t_3 & t_4\\ \end{array}\right)}$, $U=\!{\left(\begin{array}{cc} u_1 & u_2 \\ u_3 & u_4\\ \end{array}\right)}$, $V=\!{\left(\begin{array}{cc} v_1 & v_2 \\ v_3 & v_4\\ \end{array}\right)}$, $X={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & x\\ \end{array}\right)}$, $Y={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & y\\ \end{array}\right)}$, $Z={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & z\\ \end{array}\right)}$. Note that the entries of each of $T$, $U$ and $V$ depend only on $x_1,\cdots,x_{6g-6}$ and that $t_1,u_1,v_1 \leq 0$, $t_2,u_2,v_2 >0$, $t_3,u_3,v_3 <0$ and $t_4,u_4,v_4>0$ since $T$, $U$ and $V$ are strictly admissible.
By proposition \[Prop:ByX\] (iii), $XTX$, $YUY$ and $ZVZ$ are strictly admissible if and only if $x>\alpha$, $y>\beta$, and $z>\gamma$ where $${\displaystyle \alpha= \frac{t_2-t_3+\sqrt{(t_2+t_3)^2+4}}{2t_4} , \qquad \beta= \frac{u_2-u_3+\sqrt{(u_2+u_3)^2+4}}{2u_4},}$$ $${\displaystyle \gamma= \frac{v_2-v_3+\sqrt{(v_2+v_3)^2+4}}{2v_4}}.$$ Since we require all subwords of $W_{\bf x}$ to be admissible, we are only interested in solutions of $W_{\bf x}=-I$ where $x >\alpha$, $y >\beta$ and $z>\gamma$. We will show that there exists a unique triple $(x,y,z)$ satisfying $x >\alpha$, $y >\beta$ and $z>\gamma$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{(2,2) entries of }
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
XTXYUY=-(ZVZ)^{-1}
\\
YUYZVZ=-(XTX)^{-1}
\\
ZVZXTX=-(YUY)^{-1}
\end{array}
\right.
.\end{aligned}$$
We start with the first equation. Equating the $(2,2)$ entry of $XTXYUY$ with that of $-(ZVZ)^{-1}$, we get [$$(t_2-t_4x)(u_3+u_4y)+(t_4x^2+(t_3-t_2)x-t_1)(u_4y^2+(u_3-u_2)y-u_1) =v_4. \eqno(*)$$]{} Let $S_1$ be the surface in ${\mathbb R}^3$ defined by $(*)$ and the inequalities $x>\alpha$, $y>\beta$, $z>\gamma$. Since the equation is independent of $z$, the surface is parallel to the $z$-axis and it suffices to analyze the intersection of the surface with any horizontal plane $z=z_0>\gamma$. Denote the left hand side of $(*)$ by $h(x,y)$ and note that it represents the $(2,2)$ entry of $XTXYUY$ and is quadratic in both $x$ and $y$.
Fix $y=y_0>\beta$. Then $h(x,y_0)$ is a quadratic polynomial in $x$ with positive leading coefficient so that $\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}h(x,y_0)=\infty$. At $x=\alpha$, $$\begin{aligned}
XTXYUY&=&{\left(\begin{array}{cc} - & + \\ -& 0\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} -u_4 & u_3+u_4y_0 \\ u_2-u_4y_0 & -u_1+(u_3-u_2)y_0+u_4y_0^2\\ \end{array}\right)}\\
&=&{\left(\begin{array}{cc} * & * \\ *& -\\ \end{array}\right)} \qquad \hbox{since} \qquad u_3+u_4y_0>0\end{aligned}$$ so $h(\alpha,y_0)<0$. It follows that for each $y_0>\beta$, there exists a unique $x>\alpha$ such that $h(x,y_0)=v_4$ since $v_4>0$ (the other solution must be $<\alpha$).
In fact, more is true. For this particular solution, $XTXYUY$ is strictly admissible. We first show that for $y_0>\beta$ and $x$ sufficiently large, $XTXYUY$ is strictly admissible. It is convenient to expand $XTXYUY$ as a word in the associated matrices $A_1, A_2 \cdots$ where $A_1=X=A_j$, $A_{j+1}=Y=A_{i-1}$, $T=A_{n_2}\cdots A_{n_{j-1}}$, $U=A_{n_{j+2}}\cdots A_{n_{i-2}}$. Then look at the circle configuration $\{ \overline C, C_0, \cdots , C_i\}$ corresponding to $XTXYUY$ (cf. definition \[Def:Admissibility\]) with a suitable normalization. We choose the normalization so that the central circle $\overline{C}$ is the real line, $C_j$ is the line $\{Im(z)=1\}$ and $C_{j+1}$ is the circle $|z-\sqrt{-1}/2| = 1/2$ so that the interstice enclosed by $\overline{C}$, $C_j$ and $C_{j+1}$ is the standard interstice (see Figure \[Fig:Normalization\]). Denote by $p_n$ the tangency between $\overline{C}$ and $C_n$, note that $p_n \in {\mathbb R}\cup \{ \infty \}$. We have:
- $p_j=\infty$, $p_{j+1}=0$, by our normalization;
- $p_{j-1}=x$, since $A_j=X$;
- $0=p_{j+1}<p_{j+2}< \cdots <p_i<\infty $, since $YUY=A_{j+1} \cdots A_{i-1}$ is strictly admissible;
- $0<p_0<p_1<\cdots <p_{j-1}=x$, since $XTX=A_1 \cdots A_{j}$ is strictly admissible.
(280,190) (0,120) (0,25) (15,125)[$p_{j+1}$]{} (40,125)[$p_{j+2}$]{} (73,123)[$\cdots$]{} (105,125)[$p_i$]{} (150,125)[$p_0$]{} (177,123)[$\cdots$]{} (205,125)[$p_{j-2}$]{} (233,125)[$p_{j-1}$]{} (2,145)[${\mathcal{I}_s}$]{} (16,145)[$C_{j+1}$]{} (65,173)[(-1,-2)[15]{}]{} (63,176)[$C_{j+2}$]{} (122,169)[(-1,-2)[15]{}]{} (122,172)[$C_{i}$]{} (152,168)[(0,-1)[30]{}]{} (148,172)[$C_{0}$]{} (195,173)[(1,-2)[15]{}]{} (186,177)[$C_{j-2}$]{} (223,148)[$C_{j-1}$]{} (-11,133)[$\overline{C}$]{} (-15,166)[$C_j$]{} (50,106)[(a) $XTXYUY$ is strictly admissible.]{} (15,30)[$p_{j+1}$]{} (40,30)[$p_{j+2}$]{} (70,28)[$\cdots$]{} (109,39)[(1,-2)[6]{}]{} (113,20)[$p_i$]{} (102.5,39)[(-1,-2)[6]{}]{} (91,20)[$p_0$]{} (128,28)[$\cdots$]{} (152,30)[$p_{j-2}$]{} (175,30)[$p_{j-1}$]{} (2,50)[${\mathcal{I}_s}$]{} (16,50)[$C_{j+1}$]{} (65,78)[(-1,-2)[15]{}]{} (63,81)[$C_{j+2}$]{} (146,78)[(1,-2)[15]{}]{} (137,83)[$C_{j-2}$]{} (170,51)[$C_{j-1}$]{} (-11,38)[$\overline{C}$]{} (-15,71)[$C_j$]{} (50,-2)[(b) $XTXYUY$ is not admissible.]{}
The condition that $XTXYUY$ is strictly admissible is the same as saying the interstices do not intersect along $\overline{C}$. This is easily seen to be equivalent to the condition that $p_i<p_0$. Now keeping all other cross ratios fixed, increasing $x$ by some positive number $c$ has the following effect on the points $\{ p_{k} \}$:
- $p_{j}, p_{j+1}, \cdots,p_{i}$ are left unchanged;
- $p_1,p_2,\cdots,p_{j-1}$ are all shifted to the right by $c$;
- $p_0$ is shifted to the right by more than $c$ since the radius of the circle $C_0$ is decreased.
It follows that for $x$ sufficiently large and $y>\beta$, $XTXYUY$ is strictly admissible. Furthermore, the above shows that there is a smallest value $x_1$ of $x$ when the word first becomes admissible but not strictly admissible, this occurs when $p_0=p_i$. In this case, $h(x_1,y_0)=0$. We have $x_1>\alpha$ since $XTX$ as a proper subword of an admissible word is strictly admissible.
Since $h(x,y_0)$ is continuous and approaches infinity when $x \longrightarrow \infty$, it follows that there exists $x_2>x_1>\alpha$ for which $h(x_2,y_0)=v_4$, this must be the value we have already found since it was the unique solution with $x>\alpha$. Since $x_2>x_1$, $XTXYUY$ is strictly admissible.
We now use the strict admissibility of $XTXYUY$ to show that the curve defined by $h(x,y)=v_4$ with $x>\alpha$ and $y>\beta$ is the graph of a decreasing function with vertical asymptote $x=\alpha$ and horizontal asymptote $y=\beta$. The gradient $\nabla h=\langle h_x,h_y \rangle$ at a point on the curve $h(x,y)=v_4$ can be calculated using the product rule as in the proof of proposition \[Prop:Derivative\]. We have $h_x$ given by the $(2,2)$ entry of the matrix $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0& 1\\ \end{array}\right)}TXYUY+XT{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0& 1\\ \end{array}\right)}YUY \\
&=&
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0& 1\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} - & + \\ -& +\\ \end{array}\right)}
+{\left(\begin{array}{cc} - & +\\ -& +\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0& 1\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} - & + \\ -& +\\ \end{array}\right)}\\
&=&
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ -& +\\ \end{array}\right)}
+{\left(\begin{array}{cc} - & +\\ -& +\\ \end{array}\right)}={\left(\begin{array}{cc} - & +\\ -& +\\ \end{array}\right)}
\\\end{aligned}$$ where the $(+)$ and $(-)$ entries follows from the fact that $XTXYUY$ is strictly admissible and hence so are all subwords. Similarly, $h_y$ is given by the $(2,2)$ entry of the matrix $$XTX{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0& 1\\ \end{array}\right)}UY+XTXYU{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0& 1\\ \end{array}\right)} =
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} - & +\\ -& +\\ \end{array}\right)}$$ Hence, $\nabla h=\langle h_x,h_y \rangle=\langle +,+\rangle$ so $h(x,y)=v_4$ defines $y$ as a decreasing function of $x$ for $x>\alpha$, $y>\beta$. The fact that $y=\beta$ is a horizontal asymptote and $x=\alpha$ is a vertical asymptote follows from an easy analysis of $h(x,y)$ as $x \longrightarrow \alpha^+$ and $y \longrightarrow \beta^+$.
Clearly, the same analysis can be applied to the other two surfaces $S_2$ and $S_3$ given by $x>\alpha$, $y>\beta$, $z>\gamma$ and the equations $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{(2,2) entries of }
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
YUYZVZ=-(XTX)^{-1}
\\
ZVZXTX=-(YUY)^{-1}
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ respectively. $S_2$ is given by an equation of the form $h_2(y,z)=t_4$ which defines $z$ as a decreasing function of $y$ and $S_3$ is given by an equation of the form $h_3(z,x)=u_4$ which defines $x$ as a decreasing function of $z$. The intersection of $S_2$ and $S_3$ is a curve parameterized by $z \in (\gamma, \infty)$ whose projection onto the $xy$-plane is a curve with positive slope which approaches the point $(\alpha, \beta)$ as $z \longrightarrow \infty$ and whose $x$ and $y$ coordinates approach $\infty$ as $z \longrightarrow \gamma^+$. Since $h(x,y)=v_4$ has negative slope with asymptotes at $x=\alpha$ and $y=\beta$, there is a unique point of intersection of $S_1$ with the curve of intersection of $S_2$ and $S_3$, hence of the 3 surfaces. To complete the proof of the claim, we apply proposition \[Prop:MatrixIdentity\] with $A=XTX$, $B=YUY$ and $C=ZVZ$.
The uniqueness part of the claim now implies that the projection map $p$ is one-to-one. The existence part implies that in fact, ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ is homeomorphic to $$\{(x_1,\cdots,x_{6g-6}) \in {\mathbb R}_+^{6g-6} ~|~ T,U, V \; \hbox{are strictly admissible} \}.$$ Now the last part of the lemma follows from the convexity properties proven in \[Prop:Convex\].
Rigidity for one circle packings
================================
Rigidity
--------
In the previous section, we gave a complete description of the cross ratio parameter space ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ for a triangulation $\tau$ of $\Sigma_g$ with one vertex. By definition, each element of ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ determines a projective structure on $\Sigma_g$ together with a circle packing with nerve $\tau$. The forgetting map $f : {\mathcal C}_{\tau} \longrightarrow {\mathcal P}_g$ is an embedding if we can show that the circle packings are rigid, that is, given any two circle packings $P_1$ and $P_2$ on a surface with projective structure such that their nerves are isotopic, then there exists a projective automorphism of the surface isotopic to the identity taking $P_1$ to $P_2$. There have been many recent papers concerning rigidity results of circle packings, the most general perhaps being [@He] which also contains a comprehensive list of references. However, the results do not seem to apply to our problem, indeed, many of the methods do not generalize and many basic results like the ring lemma do not apply in our case. We prove the following result which implies rigidity of circle packings in the one-circle case. The main theorem then follows as a corollary of lemma \[Lem:Cell\] and lemma \[Lem:Rigid\].
\[Lem:Rigid\] Suppose that $\tau$ is a triangulation of $\Sigma_g$ with one vertex and ${\bf c}, {\bf c'} \in {\mathcal C}_{\tau}$. Then if $f({\bf c}) = f({\bf c'})$, in other words, ${\bf c}$ and ${\bf c'}$ define the same projective structure on $\Sigma_g$, then ${\bf c}={\bf c'}$. Hence, the circle packings of $\Sigma_g$ by one circle are rigid.
[*Proof:*]{} We adopt the notation of proposition \[Prop:Derivative\], lemma \[Lem:Manifold\] and \[Lem:Cell\] so that the $3$ values of ${\bf c}$ (respectively ${\bf c'}$) are denoted by $x$, $y$, $z$ (respectively $x'$, $y'$, $z'$) and are the cross ratios of three edges of the dual graph $\tau'$ meeting at a non-separating vertex $v'$. The corresponding words of associated matrices for ${\bf c}$ and ${\bf c'}$ are given by $$W= XTXYUYZVZ, \qquad W'=X'T'X'Y'U'Y'Z'V'Z'$$ where $X={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& x\\ \end{array}\right)}$, $Y={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& y\\ \end{array}\right)}$, $Z={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& z\\ \end{array}\right)}$, and $T={\left(\begin{array}{cc} t_1 & t_2 \\ t_3& t_4\\ \end{array}\right)}$, $U={\left(\begin{array}{cc} u_1 & u_2 \\ u_3& u_4\\ \end{array}\right)}$ and $V={\left(\begin{array}{cc} v_1 & v_2 \\ v_3& v_4\\ \end{array}\right)}$ are subwords of $W$ of lengths $j-2$, $i-j-3$ and $12g-i-7$ respectively and depend only on $6g-6$ variables, and similarly for $X'$, $Y'$, $Z'$, $T'$, $U'$ and $V'$. We note that these matrices are in $SL_2({\mathbb C})$ but when we consider the holonomy representation, we consider them also as elements in $PSL_2({\mathbb C})$, there should be no confusion as the choice should be clear from the context.
We first fix the developing map and hence the holonomy representation for both ${\bf c}$ and ${\bf c'}$ by developing the circle to the real line and the interstice containing $v'$ to the standard interstice. We get a configuration of circles $\{\overline{C}, C_1, \cdots,C_{12g-6}\}$ where $\overline{C}$ is the real line, $C_1$ is the circle $|z-\sqrt{-1}/2|=1/2$ and $C_{12g-6}$ is the line $Im(z)=1$ for ${\bf c}$ and a similar configuration for ${\bf c'}$. Let $\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \gamma_3 \in \pi_1(\Sigma_g)$ where $\gamma_1:s_1 \rightarrow s_j$, $\gamma_2:s_{j+1}\rightarrow s_{i-1}$, $\gamma_3:s_{i}\rightarrow s_{12g-6}$. Then $\gamma_3 \gamma_2 \gamma_1=id$ and if $\rho$ and $\rho'$ are the holonomy representations corresponding to ${\bf c}$ and ${\bf c'}$ respectively, then by proposition \[Prop:Holonomy\], $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(\gamma_1)=XTXR^{-1}, & \quad \rho(\gamma_2)=XTXYUYR^{-1}(XTX)^{-1}, \\
\rho'(\gamma_1)=X'T'X'R^{-1}, & \quad \rho'(\gamma_2)=X'T'X'Y'U'Y'R^{-1}(X'T'X')^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $R^{-1}={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & -\sqrt{-1} \\ -\sqrt{-1} & 0\\ \end{array}\right)}$. Now since ${\bf c}$ and ${\bf c'}$ give the same projective structures, the holonomy representations $\rho$ and $\rho'$ must be conjugate, that is, there exists some $H \in PSL_2({\mathbb C})$ such that for any $\gamma \in \pi_1(\Sigma_\gamma)$, $\rho'(\gamma)=H^{-1}\rho(\gamma)H$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
tr(\rho(\gamma_1))&=&\pm tr(\rho'(\gamma_1))\\
\Rightarrow tr(XTXR^{-1})&=&\pm tr(X'T'X'R^{-1})\\
\Rightarrow -t_4 -(t_2+t_3)\sqrt{-1} &=&\pm (-t_4' -(t_2'+t_3')\sqrt{-1}).\end{aligned}$$ Equating real and imaginary parts, and using the fact that $t_4, t_4'>0$, we get $t_4=t_4'$ and $t_2+t_3=t_2'+t_3'$. Note that since $t_4>0$, $tr(\rho(\gamma_1)) \neq 0$ and so $\rho(\gamma_1)$ is not an elliptic element of order 2. Let $t_2'=t_2-k$, so $t_3'=t_3+k$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
X'T'X'&= {\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& x'\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} t_1' & t_2' \\ t_3'& t_4'\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& x'\\ \end{array}\right)} \displaybreak[0] \notag \\
&={\left(\begin{array}{cc} -t_4' & t_3'+t_4'x' \\ t_2'-t_4'x' & t_4'{x'}^2+(t_3'-t_2')x'-t_1'\\ \end{array}\right)} \displaybreak[0] \notag \\
&={\left(\begin{array}{cc} -t_4 & t_3+(t_4x'+k) \\ t_2-(t_4x'+k) & t_4{x'}^2+(t_3-t_2+2k)x'-t_1'\\ \end{array}\right)} \displaybreak[0] \notag \\
&= {\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& x''\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} t_1 & t_2 \\ t_3& t_4\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& x''\\ \end{array}\right)} \displaybreak[0] \notag \\
&=X''TX''\qquad \hbox{where} \quad x''=x'+\frac{k}{t_4}, \quad X''={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& x''\\ \end{array}\right).} \displaybreak[0] \notag\end{aligned}$$ $X''TX''$ is strictly admissible since $X'T'X'$ is strictly admissible (admissibility of $X''T$ and $TX''$ follows from proposition \[Prop:ByX\] by looking at the $(1,2)$ entry and the $(2,1)$ entries and admissibility of $X''TX''$ then follows from the $(2,2)$ entry). Similarly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
Y'U'Y'&=& {\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& y''\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} u_1 & u_2 \\ u_3& u_4\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& y''\\ \end{array}\right)} =Y''UY''\\
\hbox{and}\qquad Z'V'Z'&=& {\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& z''\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} v_1 & v_2 \\ v_3& v_4\\ \end{array}\right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& z''\\ \end{array}\right)} =Z''VZ''.\\\end{aligned}$$
By the uniqueness part of the claim in the proof of lemma \[Lem:Cell\], we get that $x''=x$, $y''=y$ and $z''=z$ so that $XTX=X'T'X'$, $YUY=Y'U'Y'$ and $ZVZ=Z'V'Z'$. Hence $\rho(\gamma_1)=\rho'(\gamma_1)$, $\rho(\gamma_2)=\rho'(\gamma_2)$ and $\rho(\gamma_3)=\rho'(\gamma_3)$, that is, the conjugating element $H$ commutes with $\rho(\gamma_1), \rho(\gamma_2)$ and $\rho(\gamma_3)$.
We now claim that $\rho(\gamma_1)$ and $\rho(\gamma_2)$ do not commute. If true, then $H=I$ since it commutes with both $\rho(\gamma_1)$ and $\rho(\gamma_2)$, and they are not elliptics of order 2. Hence $\rho=\rho'$ and the two configurations for ${\bf c}$ and ${\bf c'}$ are identical and so ${\bf c}={\bf c'}$.
It remains to prove that $\rho(\gamma_1)$ and $\rho(\gamma_2)$ do not commute (equivalently, $\rho(\gamma_1)$, $\rho(\gamma_2)$ and $\rho(\gamma_3)$ do not pairwise commute since $\gamma_3 \gamma_2 \gamma_1=id$).\
Suppose not. Consider the configuration of circles $\{\overline{C}, C_1, \cdots, C_{12g-6}\}$. Recall that the tangency points $\{p_m\}$ of $\overline{C}$ with $C_m$ satisfy $$0=p_1<p_j<p_{j+1}<p_{i-1}<p_i<p_{12g-6}=\infty$$ with $\rho(\gamma_1)(p_1)=p_j$, $\rho(\gamma_2)(p_{j+1})=p_{i-1}$, $\rho(\gamma_3)(p_{i})=p_{12g-6}$.\
We have $\rho(\gamma_2)(\overline{C})=C_{i-1}$ is tangent to $\overline{C}$, hence $\rho(\gamma_1)(\rho(\gamma_2)(\overline{C}))$ is tangent to $\rho(\gamma_1)(\overline{C})=C_j$. By assumption $\rho(\gamma_1)\rho(\gamma_2)=\rho(\gamma_2)\rho(\gamma_1)$ so $$\rho(\gamma_1)(\rho(\gamma_2)(\overline{C}))=\rho(\gamma_2)\rho(\gamma_1)(\overline{C})=\rho(\gamma_3^{-1})(\overline{C})=C_i$$ is tangent to $C_j$. Similarly, permuting the roles of $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$ and $\gamma_3$, the commuting condition implies that $C_{j+1}$ is tangent to $C_{12g-6}$ and $C_{i-1}$ is tangent to $C_1$. Now $C_{j+1}$ is tangent to $C_{12g-6}$ and $\overline{C}$ implies that $C_{j+1}=\{z \in {\mathbb C}: |z-(a+\sqrt{-1}/2)|=1/2\}$, the circle of radius $1/2$ with center at $a+\sqrt{-1}/2$ where $p_{j+1}=a>0$ (see Figure \[Fig:Tangent\]). Let $r$ be the radius of the circle in the upper half plane tangent to the real line at the origin and also tangent to $C_{j+1}$. Since $C_j$ is tangent to $C_{j+1}$ and its point of tangency with the real line lies between $0$ and $p_{j+1}$, the radius of $C_j$ is less than $r$. Now since $C_{i-1}$ is tangent to $C_1$ and its point of tangency $p_{i-1}$ with the real line lies between $p_{j+1}$ and $\infty$, the radius of $C_{i-1}$ is greater than $r$. Hence the radius of $C_j$ is strictly less than the radius of $C_{i-1}$ with the points of tangencies satisfying $p_j<p_{i-1}$. Now $C_i$ is tangent to $C_{i-1}$ and its tangency point with the real line lies between $p_{i-1}$ and $\infty$ which implies that it does not intersect $p_{j}$, giving a contradiction. Hence $\rho(\gamma_1)$ and $\rho(\gamma_2)$ do not commute.
(280,70) (0,0) (15,7)[$p_{1}$]{} (40,7)[$p_{2}$]{} (58,5)[$\cdots$]{} (79,7)[$p_{j}$]{} (96,7)[$p_{j+1}$]{} (120,7)[$p_{j+2}$]{} (144,5)[$\cdots$]{} (160,7)[$p_{i-1}$]{} (195,5)[$\cdot\ \ \cdot\ \ \cdot\ \ $]{} (250,7)[$p_{i}$]{} (22,25)[$C_{1}$]{} (65,54)[(-1,-2)[15]{}]{} (63,56)[$C_{2}$]{} (87,26)[$C_{j+1}$]{} (135,53)[(-1,-2)[15]{}]{} (133,55)[$C_{j+2}$]{} (211,25)[$C_{i-1}$]{} (267,50)[(-1,-2)[15]{}]{} (265,52)[$C_{i}$]{} (-11,13)[$\overline{C}$]{} (-35,43)[$C_{12g-6}$]{}
Concluding remark
-----------------
Much of our arguments above rely on the combinatorics of the one circle packing and it remains unsolved whether the main theorem holds for a general triangulation $\tau$ of $\Sigma_g$. There are also other aspects to be explored, for example one can look at circle packings on surfaces with cone projective structures, where the cone points would be the centers of some of the circles of the packing. Some results have been obtained and details will be given in a future paper. Of particular interest is the case of branched circle packings, this correspond to cone points with cone angles which are multiples of $2\pi$. For example one can look at the deformation space of cone projective structures on the surface admitting a branched circle packing by one circle with branch point of multiplicity one, this would correspond to the condition that $W_v=I$ and that in the developing map, each circle is surrounded by $12g-6$ circles which wrap around the circle exactly twice. It seems that in this case, the deformation space ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ may admit some interesting topology, analogous to the case of the components of the space of representations $Hom( \pi_1(\Sigma_g), PSL_2({\mathbb R}))/PSL_2({\mathbb R})$ where the Euler class is not $\pm (2-2g)$.
Appendix
========
We consider the case of the torus $\Sigma_1$ with a circle packing by one circle. Here the nerve $\tau$ consists of one vertex $v$ and 3 edges $e_1$, $e_2$ and $e_3$ with cross ratios $x>0$, $y>0$ and $z>0$ respectively and associated matrices $X={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& x\\ \end{array}\right)}$, $Y={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& y\\ \end{array}\right)}$ and $Z={\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1& z\\ \end{array}\right)}$. The word associated to the vertex is given by $W=XYZXYZ$ and by condition $(1)$ of lemma \[Lem:MainLemma\], $$\begin{aligned}
XYZXYZ&=&-I\\
\Leftrightarrow XYZ&=&-(XYZ)^{-1}\\
\Leftrightarrow {\left(\begin{array}{cc} -y & yz-1 \\ 1-xy& xyz-x-z\\ \end{array}\right)}&=&{\left(\begin{array}{cc} x+z-xyz & yz-1 \\ 1-xy & y\\ \end{array}\right)}\\
\Leftrightarrow \qquad xyz &=&x+y+z. \qquad \qquad \qquad
\qquad (**)\end{aligned}$$ Note that three equations derived from the matrix identity reduces to just one equation in this case. Condition $(2)$ of lemma \[Lem:MainLemma\] is automatically satisfied if $x$, $y$ and $z$ are all positive and satisfy $(**)$ since $xy-1=(x+y)/z>0$, $yz-1=(y+z)/x>0$, $zx-1=(z+x)/y>0$, and $xyz-x-z=y>0$ hence $XYZ$ is strictly admissible and so $XYZXYZ$ corresponds to a configuration where the surrounding circles wrap around the central circle exactly once. The cross ratio parameter space ${\mathcal C}_{\tau}$ is hence given by $${\mathcal C}_{\tau}=\{(x,y,z) \in {\mathbb R}^3 |~xyz=x+y+z, \, x,y,z > 0 \}$$ and the image of the projection to the $xy$-plane is the set $$p({\mathcal C}_{\tau})=\{(x,y) \in {\mathbb R}^2 |~xy-1>0, \, x,y > 0 \}$$ which is convex.
To show that the circle packings are rigid, we directly compute the trace of the holonomy representation of a pair of generating elements of $\pi_1(\Sigma_1)$ (note that $\pi_1(\Sigma_1)$ is abelian and so the holonomy image of $\pi_1(\Sigma_1)$ in $PSL_2({\mathbb C})$ is necessarily an elementary group unlike the higher genus case). From example \[Ex:Holonomy\], $\pi_1(\Sigma_1)$ is generated by $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(\gamma_1)&=& ZXR ={\left(\begin{array}{cc} x\sqrt{-1} & x-\sqrt{-1} \\ (xz-1)\sqrt{-1}& (xz-1)-z\sqrt{-1}\\ \end{array}\right)}\\
\rho(\gamma_2)&=& ZXYRZ^{-1} =Z{\left(\begin{array}{cc} y\sqrt{-1} & y-\sqrt{-1} \\ (yx-1)\sqrt{-1}& (yx-1)-x\sqrt{-1}\\ \end{array}\right)}Z^{-1} \\\end{aligned}$$ so $\hbox{tr}(\rho(\gamma_1))=\pm (xz-1+(x-z)\sqrt{-1})$, $\hbox{tr}(\rho(\gamma_2))=\pm(yx-1+(y-x)\sqrt{-1})$. If $(x',y',z')$ is another point in the cross ratio parameter space which gives the same projective structure, then equating the traces, we get $$\begin{aligned}
x'z'-1+(x'-z')\sqrt{-1}&=&\pm (xz-1+(x-z)\sqrt{-1}),\\
\quad y'x'-1+(y'-x')\sqrt{-1}&=&\pm(yx-1+(y-x)\sqrt{-1}). \end{aligned}$$ Equating real and imaginary parts and taking into account the inequalities satisfied by the variables, we get $x'=x$, $y'=y$ and $z'=z$, hence the circle packing is rigid. It follows that the space of projective structures on the torus admitting a circle packing by one circle is homeomorphic to ${\mathbb R}^2$. Finally, we note that a projective structure on the torus is necessarily an euclidean or similarity structure, in the case of the euclidean structure, it is the one with fundamental domain a regular hexagon. In the other cases, it can be easily shown that the developing maps of the similarity structures obtained in this way are precisely the well-known Doyle spirals.
[9]{}
L. Ahlfors: [*Complex Analysis. An introduction to the theory of analytic functions of one complex variable*]{}, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York-Toronto-London, 1953. xii+247 pp. E.M. Andreev: [*Convex polyhedra of finite volume in Lobacevskii space*]{}, Mat. Sbornik (Russian) [**83**]{}, (1970), 256-260; Math. USSR Sbornik (English) [**12**]{} (1970), 255-259. A.F. Beardon and K. Stephenson: [*The uniformization theorem for circle packings*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**39**]{} (1990), 1383–1425. A.F. Beardon and K. Stephenson: [*The Schwarz-Pick lemma for circle packings*]{}, Illinois J. Math. [**35**]{} (1991), 577–606. R. Bers: [*Finite dimensional Teichmüller spaces and generalizations*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 5 (1981), 131-172. P. Bowers and K. Stephenson: [*The set of circle packing points in the Teichmüller space of a surface of finite conformal type is dense*]{}, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., [**111**]{} (1992) 487-513. R. Brooks: [*Circle packings and co-compact extensions of Kleinian groups*]{}, Invent. Math., [**86**]{} (1986), 461-469. Y. Colin de Verdière: [*Un principe variationnel pour les empilements de cercles (French) \[A variational principle for circle packings\],*]{} Invent. Math., [**104**]{} (1991), 655–669. Z. He: [*Rigidity of infinite disk patterns,*]{} Ann. of Math. (2) [**149**]{} (1999), no. 1, 1–33. D. Hejhal: [*Monodromy groups and linearly polymorphic functions*]{}, Acta Math., [**135**]{} (1975), 1-55. Y. Kamishima and S.P. Tan: [*Deformation Spaces associated to Geometric Structures*]{}, Advanced Studies in Pure Mathematics, [**20**]{} (1992), 263-300. S. Mizushima: [*Circle packings on complex affine tori*]{}, Osaka J.Math. [**37**]{} (2000), 873-881. B. Rodin: [*Schwarz’s lemma for circle packings,*]{} Invent. Math. [**89**]{} (1987), no. 2, 271–289. B. Rodin and D. Sullivan:[*The convergence of circle packings to the Riemann mapping*]{}, J. Differential Geom. [**26**]{} (1987), no. 2, 349–360. W. P. Thurston: The geometry and topology of 3-manifolds, Lecture Notes, Princeton Univ., 1977/78.
[^1]: The third author gratefully acknowledges support of the National University of Singapore academic research grant R-146-000-031-112 and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Sciences for support for a visit to the Tokyo Institute of Technology in May 2000.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Convolutional neural networks can be trained to perform histology slide classification using weak annotations with multiple instance learning (MIL). However, given the paucity of labeled histology data, direct application of MIL can easily suffer from overfitting and the network is unable to learn rich feature representations due to the weak supervisory signal. We propose to overcome such limitations with a two-stage semi-supervised approach that combines the power of data-efficient self-supervised feature learning via contrastive predictive coding (CPC) and the interpretability and flexibility of regularized attention-based MIL. We apply our two-stage CPC + MIL semi-supervised pipeline to the binary classification of breast cancer histology images. Across five random splits, we report state-of-the-art performance with a mean validation accuracy of 95% and an area under the ROC curve of 0.968. We further evaluate the quality of features learned via CPC relative to simple transfer learning and show that strong classification performance using CPC features can be efficiently leveraged under the MIL framework even with the feature encoder frozen.'
author:
- |
Ming Y. Lu, Richard J. Chen, Jingwen Wang, Debora Dillon and Faisal Mahmood\
Division of Computational Pathology, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital,\
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115\
`[email protected], [email protected]`\
title: |
Semi-Supervised Histology Classification using\
Deep Multiple Instance Learning and\
Contrastive Predictive Coding
---
Introduction
============
The standard-of-care for diagnosis and prognosis of breast cancer is the subjective interpretation of histology slides, which is both time-consuming and suffers from inter-observer variability [@bad]. Deep learning has been widely applied to histology classification at the level of patches and small regions of interests (ROIs), yielding remarkable performance when sufficient labeled training data are provided [@bc; @sup_1; @sup_2; @sup_3; @sup_4; @sup_5; @sup_6; @sup_7]. However, patch or pixel-level annotation is often difficult and costly to curate. By considering each labeled image as a collection of many smaller, unlabeled patches, multiple instance learning (MIL) enables training of neural networks for histopathology image classification without patch-level annotations [@campanella2019clinical]. An attention-based Deep MIL approach has recently been proposed which achieves state-of-the-art performance across many MIL benchmarks [@ilse2018attention].
However, direct application of deep MIL to histopathogical image analysis carries many challenges. Notably, it is common to have limited number of slides available for training, especially for rare conditions. This makes it difficult for a MIL network to adequately learn useful feature representations and as a result we found that MIL tends to drastically overfit. Another challenge is the need to process a bag of many instances at a time, usually in a single batch. This makes backpropagation infeasible due to the large size of tissue microarrays and whole slides and the memory constraints of modern GPUs. As a result, patches need to be sampled, resulting in noisy bag labels [@sample], or the feature network needs to remain fixed during training to save memory.
We propose a two-stage semi-supervised approach that attempts to help mitigate both of these key challenges by combining MIL with data-efficient self-supervised learning via contrastive predictive coding (CPC) [@CPC]. We demonstrate that despite limited labeled data, by taking advantage of the large amount of unlabeled instances available in a MIL dataset, we can learn rich feature representations that significantly boost downstream supervised learning performances. We also demonstrate that we can freeze the pretrained feature network and still achieve good performances under the MIL framework while saving significant amount of GPU memory required for training, which theoretically enables us to efficiently scale up to working with large weakly annotated histopathology data. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work on weakly-supervised histology classification that relies on self-supervised feature learning using contrastive predictive coding.
Method
======
**Deep Attention-based MIL** Under the MIL framework, each data point is a “bag” of $N$ unordered “instances”: $X_i = \{x_1, x_2, ... , x_N\}$ and a corresponding bag label $Y_i$, where $N$ can vary across bags. Each instance $x_k$ is assumed to possess an unknown instance label $y_k$, either positive or negative. The goal of MIL is to learn the bag label $Y_i$ for unseen bags, where $Y_i$ is positive if at least one instance is positive, and is negative otherwise. Given an arbitrarily sized image and a corresponding binary label, a natural way to apply MIL is to treat each image as a bag of smaller, unlabeled patches. The current state-of-the-art deep learning-based MIL method [@ilse2018attention] uses a permutation invariant aggregation function called “Attention-based MIL pooling.” A CNN encodes each instance $\mathbf{x_k}$ into a low-dimensional embedding $\mathbf{z_k}$. A multi-layered attention network, with parameters $\mathbf{w}, \mathbf{V}, \text{and } \mathbf{U}$ learns to assign a weight $a_k$ (Eqn 1) to each embedding and predicts a bag embedding $\mathbf{z}$ by taking their weighted average (Eqn 2). Given the aggregated features, a linear layer is finally used to predict the probability of a positive bag. $$a_{k}=\frac{\exp \left\{\mathbf{w}^{\top}\left(\tanh \left(\mathbf{V} \mathbf{z}_{k}^{\top}\right) \odot \operatorname{sigm}\left(\mathbf{U h}_{k}^{\top}\right)\right)\right\}}{\sum_{j=1}^{N} \exp \left\{\mathbf{w}^{\top}\left(\tanh \left(\mathbf{V} \mathbf{z}_{j}^{\top}\right) \odot \operatorname{sigm}\left(\mathbf{U z}_{j}^{\top}\right)\right)\right\}}$$ $$\mathbf{z}=\sum_{k=1}^{N} a_{k} \mathbf{z}_{k}$$ Attention MIL pooling is trainable and allows the network to identify discriminative instances. However, when training end-to-end, the feature network might receive meaningful gradient signals from just instances that make substantial contributions to the bag representations. As a result, when labeled data are limited, due to the weak supervisory signals of MIL, the feature network might struggle to learn rich, high-level representations and the overall model can suffer from severe overfitting. To address these limitations, we propose a two-stage semi-supervised approach where we first pre-train the feature network via self-supervised feature learning that leverages information in every single instance in the dataset. During the 2nd stage of supervised learning, we use a margin-based loss function. Additionally, to prevent the attention network from overfitting by assigning high attention weights to a few negative instances, we minimize the KL-divergence between the attention weight distribution and the uniform distribution when the bag label is negative, encouraging the network to make equal usage of negative instances.
**Contrastive Predictive Coding** A recent breakthrough in self-supervised feature learning for downstream supervised tasks is contrastive predictive coding (CPC) [@CPC] [@CPC2]. Given a data sequence $\{x_t\}$, a feature network $g_{enc}$ first encodes each observation into a low-dimensional embedding $z_t$. An auto-regressive context network $g_c$ then computes the context by aggregating all observations prior to $t$, namely, $c_t = g_c(\{z_i\}), \text{for } i \leq t$. At its core, the CPC objective aims to maximize the mutual information between the context $c_t$, the present, and future observations $z_{t+k}, k>0$. This can be efficiently achieved by using a contrastive loss. The network is tasked with correctly identifying $z_{t+k}$ among a set containing other negative samples. Prediction for $z_{t+k}$ is made linearly with weights $W_k$: $\hat{z}_{t+k}=W_{k} c_{t}$. When the bi-linear model is used to assign target probability, the CPC objective becomes the binary cross-entropy loss for the positive target: $$\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{CPC}}=-\underset{Z}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\log \frac{\text{exp}(z_{t+k}^T \hat{z}_{t+k})}{\sum_{z_{i} \in Z} \text{exp}(z_{i}^T \hat{z}_{t+k})}\right]$$ When applying to images, CPC is performed by extracting small, overlapping patches from each image in a raster scan manner to create a grid of spatially dependent data observations. The contrastive prediction task is to summarize rows of patches in the grid and then predict multiple unseen rows below from top to bottom. Patches from both the same image and other images in the mini-batch can act as negative samples and the aforementioned contrastive loss summed over each spatial location predicted [@CPC2].
Given limited labeled data, we alleviate the burden of the feature network during weakly supervised learning by pretraining the network on unlabeled instances using CPC. We train on unlabeled patches that can be readily extracted from any image in the dataset, with the hope of learning histopathology specific high-level feature representations that can be meaningfully separated among the binary classes at the instance level.
{width="\linewidth"}
Experiments and Results
=======================
**Dataset** We validate the effectiveness of CPC + MIL on the weakly supervised classification of H&E stained breast cancer image data. The ICIAR 2018 BACH dataset [@bach] has a total of 400 labeled images of size $2048\times1536$. We consider the binary classification of carcinoma (in situ or Invasive) vs. non-carcinoma (Nomral or Benign). We first obtain contours for the tissue regions in each image and extract $256\times256$ patches within those regions (Appendix A).
**CPC Implementation** We further extract small overlapping patches from each $256\times256$ patch and use a modified ResNet50 to extract a 1024-dimensional feature vector for each spatial location. The result is a grid of features with dimensions $7\times7\times1024$ for each $256\times256$ image. We use a custom, PixelCNN-style autoregressive network [@pixelCNN] [@pixelCNN2] that uses residual blocks of masked convolution layers to compute the context for each location of the feature grid. By using masked convolution, we ensure for each grid location, its receptive field covers only the rows above it (Appendix B). The result is a grid of context vectors also with dimensions $7\times7\times1024$. We use independent linear layers to predict up to 3 rows of features downstream from an arbitrarily chosen row of context vectors.
**MIL Implementation** During training, all patches in the same bag are collectively provided to the network in a single batch along with the image label. We observed the model is less prone to overfitting when using a smooth margin-based SVM loss [@smoothsvm] and our proposed regularization instead of the standard cross-entropy loss. Using attention-MIL with no pretraining as a baseline, we evaluate the performance gained by either using transfer learning from ImageNet or self-supervised pretraining via CPC, both when the encoder is frozen and finetuned. For each split, 100 images (25%) are randomly drawn for validation and the remaining 300 (75%) are used for training. More training details are included in Appendix C.
\[!h\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method Accuracy ($\%$) AUC ROC
--------------------------- ------------------------------------------ -------------------
MIL + ImageNet (CE) 84.4 $\pm$ 9.40 0.933 $\pm$ 0.514
MIL + ImageNet (R) 86.0 $\pm$ 4.64 0.939 $\pm$ 0.240
(r)[1-3]{} MIL + CPC (CE) 91.8 $\pm$ 7.53 0.959 $\pm$ 0.052
MIL + CPC (R) **95.0 $\pm$ 2.65 & **0.968 $\pm$ 0.022\
****
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Comparison between different MIL pipelines using random five-fold validation, $\pm$ standard deviation (we use smooth SVM loss + KL-div regularization for all experiments in this section)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method Accuracy ($\%$) AUC ROC
---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------
MIL 62.6 $\pm$ 11.6 0.611 $\pm$ 0.186
MIL + ImageNet 86.0 $\pm$ 4.64 0.939 $\pm$ 0.024
MIL + CPC **95.0 $\pm$ 2.65 & **0.968 $\pm$ 0.022\
(r)[1-3]{} MIL + ImageNet, Frozen & 82.8 $\pm$ 2.95 & 0.891 $\pm$ 0.026\
MIL + CPC, Frozen & **90.6 $\pm$ 2.88 & **0.939 $\pm$ 0.024\
********
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Comparison between different MIL pipelines using random five-fold validation, $\pm$ standard deviation (we use smooth SVM loss + KL-div regularization for all experiments in this section)
![Attention map visualization examples for key instance identification. In general, we observe that the network mainly attends to regions of high nuclei density and masses of monomorphic cells while mostly ignoring non-informative regions including adipose tissue. However, we do notice that even when the network makes the correct classification, it sometimes fails to attend to all objects of interest including necrotic regions and suspicious, migrating cell masses that might warrant a closer inspection by a pathologist.[]{data-label="fig:attention"}](attention.png){width="0.75\linewidth"}
![MIL + CPC performance for using varying numbers of labels, ranging from the minimum of 1 label per class to a maximum of 150 labels per class[]{data-label="fig:eff"}](data_eff.png){width="0.75\linewidth"}
We note that training CPC + MIL with smooth SVM loss + KL-div regularization appears to perform the best, outperforming MIL alone and MIL + ImageNet on every split. We also take the encoder trained on the entire dataset via CPC (unsupervised) and study the semi-supervised performance of CPC + MIL for varying numbers of labels. On the same five class-balanced random validation splits, instead of using the maximum number of 150 labels per class, training on 50% (75 per class) of the labels still yields a mean AUC of over 0.94. Similarly, with only 16 labels per class, we can achieve a mean validation AUC of over 0.82 (Fig \[fig:eff\]).
Training CPC + MIL with smooth SVM loss + KL-div regularization but with the encoder completely frozen also achieves good performance. This allows us to potentially scale to larger images with much bigger bags since with the encoder frozen, the MIL network has under 800k trainable parameters. To our knowledge, this is the first MIL work to use the smooth SVM loss and KL-div regularization for negative bags. We are also the first to formally apply the MIL framework to this weakly annotated dataset and explore unsupervised feature learning to achieve state-of-the-art binary classification performance. All previously published methods such as [@bach_ref1], [@bach_ref2] use patch-level classifiers by naively assigning the image label to every patch in the image and use transfer learning from ImageNet. Since we avoid assumptions about patch labels and can handle bags of varying sizes, our approach is flexible and potentially scalable to larger image data.
Conclusions and Future Works
============================
We demonstrate that a deep semi-supervised approach using CPC + MIL combined with additional regularization can be effectively applied to the classification of breast cancer histology images even when MIL alone performs poorly due to overfitting on limited labeled data. Given the flexibility of our approach, we hope to scale experiments to whole slide images in the future and provide a data-efficient deep learning tool that can potentially serve as an assistive tool to reduce inter-observer variability and help pathologists improve diagnostic accuracy.
[10]{}
Rohit K Jain, Rutika Mehta, Rosen Dimitrov, Lisbeth G Larsson, Paul M Musto, Kurt B Hodges, Thomas M Ulbright, Eyas M Hattab, Narasimhan Agaram, Muhammad T Idrees, and et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: interobserver and intraobserver variability. , 24(7):917–923, 2011.
Li Shen. End-to-end training for whole image breast cancer diagnosis using an all convolutional design. , 2017.
Andrew R Jamieson, Karen Drukker, and Maryellen L Giger. Breast image feature learning with adaptive deconvolutional networks. In [*Medical Imaging 2012: Computer-Aided Diagnosis*]{}, volume 8315, page 831506. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2012.
Nasir Rajpoot and Talha Qaiser. Her2 challenge contest: A detailed assessment of automated her2 scoring algorithms in whole slide images of breast cancer tissues.
Bastiaan S Veeling, Jasper Linmans, Jim Winkens, Taco Cohen, and Max Welling. Rotation equivariant cnns for digital pathology. In [*International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention*]{}, pages 210–218. Springer, 2018.
Yun Jiang, Li Chen, Hai Zhang, and Xiao Xiao. Breast cancer histopathological image classification using convolutional neural networks with small [SE]{}-[ResNet]{} module. , 14(3):e0214587, March 2019.
Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Maeve Mullooly, Ruth M Pfeiffer, Shaoqi Fan, Pamela M Vacek, Donald L Weaver, Sally Herschorn, Louise A Brinton, Bram van Ginneken, Nico Karssemeijer, et al. Using deep convolutional neural networks to identify and classify tumor-associated stroma in diagnostic breast biopsies. , 31(10):1502, 2018.
Geert Litjens, Clara I S[á]{}nchez, Nadya Timofeeva, Meyke Hermsen, Iris Nagtegaal, Iringo Kovacs, Christina Hulsbergen-Van De Kaa, Peter Bult, Bram Van Ginneken, and Jeroen Van Der Laak. Deep learning as a tool for increased accuracy and efficiency of histopathological diagnosis. , 6:26286, 2016.
Nicolas Coudray, Paolo Santiago Ocampo, Theodore Sakellaropoulos, Navneet Narula, Matija Snuderl, David Feny[ö]{}, Andre L Moreira, Narges Razavian, and Aristotelis Tsirigos. Classification and mutation prediction from non–small cell lung cancer histopathology images using deep learning. , 24(10):1559, 2018.
Gabriele Campanella, Matthew G Hanna, Luke Geneslaw, Allen Miraflor, Vitor Werneck Krauss Silva, Klaus J Busam, Edi Brogi, Victor E Reuter, David S Klimstra, and Thomas J Fuchs. Clinical-grade computational pathology using weakly supervised deep learning on whole slide images. , 25(8):1301–1309, 2019.
Maximilian Ilse, Jakub Tomczak, and Max Welling. Attention-based deep multiple instance learning. In [*International Conference on Machine Learning*]{}, pages 2132–2141, 2018.
Shazia Akbar and Anne L Martel. Cluster-based learning from weakly labeled bags in digital pathology. , 2018.
A[ä]{}ron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. , abs/1807.03748, 2018.
Olivier J. H[é]{}naff, Ali Razavi, Carl Doersch, S. M. Ali Eslami, and A[ä]{}ron van den Oord. Data-efficient image recognition with contrastive predictive coding. , abs/1905.09272, 2019.
Guilherme Aresta, Teresa Ara[ú]{}jo, Scotty Kwok, Sai Saketh Chennamsetty, Mohammed Safwan, Varghese Alex, Bahram Marami, Marcel Prastawa, Monica Chan, Michael Donovan, Gerardo Fernandez, Jack Zeineh, Matthias Kohl, Christoph Walz, Florian Ludwig, Stefan Braunewell, Maximilian Baust, Quoc Dang Vu, Minh Nguyen Nhat To, Eal Kim, Jin Tae Kwak, Sameh Galal, Veronica Sanchez-Freire, Nadia Brancati, Maria Frucci, Daniel Riccio, Yaqi Wang, Lingling Sun, Kaiqiang Ma, Jiannan Fang, Ismael Kone, Lahsen Boulmane, Aur[é]{}lio Campilho, Catarina Eloy, Ant[ó]{}nio Pol[ó]{}nia, and Paulo Aguiar. : Grand challenge on breast cancer histology images. , 56:122–139, August 2019.
Aaron Van Oord, Nal Kalchbrenner, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Pixel recurrent neural networks. In [*International Conference on Machine Learning*]{}, pages 1747–1756, 2016.
Aaron Van den Oord, Nal Kalchbrenner, Lasse Espeholt, Oriol Vinyals, Alex Graves, et al. Conditional image generation with pixelcnn decoders. In [*Advances in neural information processing systems*]{}, pages 4790–4798, 2016.
Leonard Berrada, Andrew Zisserman, and M Pawan Kumar. Smooth loss functions for deep top-k classification. , 2018.
Alexander Rakhlin, Alexey Shvets, Vladimir Iglovikov, and Alexandr A. Kalinin. Deep convolutional neural networks for breast cancer histology image analysis. , abs/1802.00752, 2018.
Aditya Golatkar, Deepak Anand, and Amit Sethi. Classification of breast cancer histology using deep learning. In [*International Conference Image Analysis and Recognition*]{}, pages 837–844. Springer, 2018.
Yun Liu, Krishna Kumar Gadepalli, Mohammad Norouzi, George Dahl, Timo Kohlberger, Subhashini Venugopalan, Aleksey S Boyko, Aleksei Timofeev, Philip Q Nelson, Greg Corrado, et al. Detecting cancer metastases on gigapixel pathology images. 2017.
Appendix A: Data Preprocessing {#appendix-a-data-preprocessing .unnumbered}
==============================
Approximate tissue segmentation is performed on each raw image to obtain contours for the foreground regions (Fig \[fig:preprocess\]). For both CPC and MIL, only patches centered within the contours are extracted and considered. For CPC, we extract $256\times256$ patches with 50% overlap. For MIL, we extract patches of the same size but without overlap.
![Data preprocessing pipeline[]{data-label="fig:preprocess"}](Preprocess.png){width="0.85\linewidth"}
Appendix B: CPC Implementation {#appendix-b-cpc-implementation .unnumbered}
==============================
We further extract small, $64\times64$ patches with 50% overlap from each bigger $256\times256$ unlabeled patch. During training, we apply flips to both the large and small patches as data augmentation. At the small patch level, we also adopt the color channel dropping regularization and spatial jittering [@CPC2]. For the feature encoder, we use a ResNet50 without Batchnorm layers. We truncate the network after the 3rd residual block and spatial pool to compute a 1024-dimensional vector for each $64\times64$ patch. The context network contains a series of masked-convolution blocks (Table 3). Masks are applied to outputs of convolutions such that everything below the current pixel is made hidden.
**Masked Conv Block A** pads the top of the feature grid with zeros and removes the bottom row. Together with convolution masks, this “pad and downshift” operation (Fig \[fig:pad\_downshift\]) ensures that the receptive field of each output neuron only sees the rows that lie above it in the original feature map while avoiding any receptive field blind spots associated with the original PixelCNN implementation [@pixelCNN]. A $7\times7$ masked convolution followed by Batchnorm is then applied and reduces the number of features from 1024 to 256. The feature maps are then split in half. A gated activation function [@pixelCNN2] applies a tanh non-linearity to half of the feature maps and a sigmoid function to the other half and element-wise multiply the two halves to compute the final activation.
[0.45]{} ![Pad and downshift example on $7\times7$ feature map[]{data-label="fig:pad_downshift"}](orig_feature_map.png "fig:"){width="0.75\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} ![Pad and downshift example on $7\times7$ feature map[]{data-label="fig:pad_downshift"}](down_shifted_feature_map.png "fig:"){width="0.75\linewidth"}
**Masked Conv Block B** applies a $3\times3$ masked convolution that increases the number of feature maps from 128 to 256, followed by Bachnorm and the same gated activation that halves the number of channels and add the original input to the output (residual connection). The spatial resolution and depth of the feature map after each Masked Conv Block B therefore remains constant. The last block of the network uses $1\times1$ convolution to increase the feature dimension from 128 back to 1024.
-------------- --------------------------------------------- --
Layer Type
(r)[1-2]{} 1 Masked Conv Block A
2 Masked Conv Block B
...
11 Masked Conv Block B
12 ReLU + Conv $1\times1$ + Batchnorm2d + ReLU
-------------- --------------------------------------------- --
: Context network architecture
We predict up to 3 unseen rows of features for each image, using a batch size of 16 per GPU on 4 NVIDIA Tesla P100’s and a learning rate of 1e-3 with Adam. Our code is implemented in Pytorch and will be made available in the future.
Appendix C: MIL Implementation {#appendix-c-mil-implementation .unnumbered}
==============================
We keep the same ResNet encoder architecture as in CPC. However, when we do transfer learning from ImageNet, we add the Batchnorm layers back to the ResNet to be consistent with the original settings. When the encoder is finetuned end-to-end, we connect a compact gated attention-MIL network [@ilse2018attention] with 256 hidden units directly to the encoder. It predicts an attention score for each 1024-dimensional instance embedding in the bag and their weighted average is efficiently computed by using matrix multiplication.
When training with a frozen encoder, we add an additional trainable fully-connected layer to reduce the dimensions of CPC features from 1024 to 512 before connecting to the attention network. The bag representations are therefore of length 512 instead of 1024. We found that the additional linear layer greatly improve training speed and performance. This likely signals that the binary categories are not completely linearly separable in the CPC feature space and would benefit from additional transformations before classification.
For all scenarios, we utilize light Dropout in the attention network as well as flips, color-jittering [@colorjitter] and spatial jittering as data augmentation during training. For each split, 100 random images (25%) are drawn for validation and the remaining 300 (75%) are used for training. Train/validation splits are class-balanced and are held consistent across experiments by using fixed seeding. We train using an effective batch size of 4 on multiple NVIDIA Tesla P100 or K80 GPUs for up to 100 epochs. We use Adam with a learning rate of 5e-5 when finetuning and 2e-4 when the encoder is frozen. The earlystopping criterion is set to when the validation loss does not improve for more than 25 epochs.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we study the existence and the dynamics of a very special class of motions, which satisfy a strong global minimization property. More precisely, we call a free time minimizer a curve which satisfies the least action principle between any pair of its points without the constraint of time for the variations. An example of a free time minimizer defined on an unbounded interval is a parabolic homothetic motion by a minimal central configuration. The existence of a large amount of free time minimizers can be deduced from the weak KAM theorem. In particular, for any choice of $x_0$, there should be at least one free time minimizer $x(t)$ defined for all $t\geq0$ and satisfying $x(0)=x_0$. We prove that such motions are completely parabolic. Using Marchal’s theorem we deduce as a corollary that there are no entire free time minimizers, i.e. defined on $\R$. This means that the Mañé set of the Newtonian $N$-body problem is empty.'
address:
- 'Centro de Matemática, Universidad de la República, Uruguay'
- 'Centro de Matemática, Universidad de la República, Uruguay'
author:
- Adriana da Luz
- Ezequiel Maderna
title: |
On the free time minimizers of the\
Newtonian $N$-body problem
---
Introduction and results {#sec:1}
========================
Let $E$ be a finite dimensional Euclidean space, and let $m_1,\dots,m_N > 0$ be the masses of $N$ punctual bodies in $E$. The Newtonian $N$-body problem consists in the study of the dynamics of these bodies when the law governing the motion is given by the Newtonian potential $U:E^N\to (0,+\infty]$ $$U(x)=
\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq N}\;m_i\,m_j\;\norm{r_{ij}}^{-1}$$ where $x=(r_1,\dots,r_N)\in E^N$ is a configuration and $r_{ij}=r_i-r_j$. This means that a curve $x:(a,b)\to E^N$, $x(t)=(r_1(t),\dots,r_N(t))$, such that $r_{ij}(t)\neq 0$ whenever $i\neq j$ is the position vector of a true motion of the bodies (in a fixed inertial frame) if an only if their components satisfy the Newton’s equations of motion $$\ddot r_i=\sum_{j\neq i}\,m_j\,\norm{r_{ij}}^{-3}\,r_{ij}.$$
Newton’s equations of motion can be easily derived from the Hamilton’s principle of stationary action, which states that the dynamics is determined by a variational property of the trajectories. More precisely, according to Hamilton’s principle, the trajectories must be extremal curves of the Lagrangian action, thus they must satisfy the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equation. But in fact, as it is well known, every extremal curve of the Lagrangian action is locally minimizing, in the sense that it must solve the least action principle. This viewpoint, in the study of the dynamics of a given mechanical system, is doubtlessly deep and fruitful. Nevertheless, during all the last century, a major problem in the case of Newtonian gravitational model, prevented the use of the direct method of the calculus of variations to prove the existence of particular solutions. Namely, the problem is that the Newtonian potential allows the existence of curves with singularities (collisions) and finite Lagrangian action. A big breakthrough in this problem was done by the discovery essentially due to C. Marchal, of the fact that minimizing orbits always avoid collisions (assuming the obviously necessary hypothesis $\dim E>1$).
Until now the mathematicians agree upon the fact that we only dispose of a little information about the dynamics of an arbitrary trajectory of the Newtonian $N$-body problem, except in the case $N\leq 3$. After the pioneer works of J. Chazy and K. Sundman at the beginning of the last century, C. Marchal, H. Pollard and D. Saari (see for instance [@MarSaa], [@Poll] and [@Saa]) were among the first in continuing the systematic study of the general case, that is to say, without no restriction on the number of bodies nor on the values of the masses. A common factor in these works is the *a priori* assumption that the motion is well defined for all the future. In other words, no singularity is encountered in any future time. Now, Marchal’s theorem enable us to apply all this general theory to minimizing solutions on unbounded intervals which is the subject of this paper.
Recently, important advances were obtained in the study of these trajectories in a more general context. More precisely, the work of Barutello, Terracini and Verzini ([@BTV11], [@BTV11b]) on parabolic trajectories, extends the analysis to a big class of homogeneous potentials.
The variational setting of the N-body problem
---------------------------------------------
In order to explain our main results, let us recall before some usual notations. The Lagrangian is the function $L:TE^N\to (0,+\infty]$ $$L(x,v)=T(v)+U(x)=
\;\frac{1}{2}\;\sum_{i=1}^N\;m_i\,\norm{v_i}^2\;+\;U(x),$$ thus the Lagrangian action of an absolutely continuous curve $\gamma:[a,b]\to E^N$ is $$A(\gamma)=\int_a^b L(\gamma(t),\dot\gamma(t))\,dt$$ and takes values in $(0,+\infty]$. We will denote by $\calC(x,y,\tau)$ the set of curves binding two given configurations $x,y\in E^N$ in time $\tau>0$, that is to say, $$\calC(x,y,\tau)=
\set{\gamma:[a,b]\to E^N \textrm{ absolutely continuous }
\mid b-a=\tau,\,\gamma(a)=x, \gamma(b)=y},$$ and $\calC(x,y)$ will denote the set of curves binding two configurations $x,y\in E^N$ without any restriction on time, $$\calC(x,y)= \bigcup_{\tau>0}\calC(x,y,\tau)\;.$$ In all that follows we will consider curves which minimize the action on these sets, so we need to define the function $\phi:E^N\times E^N\times (0,+\infty)\to\R$, $$\phi(x,y,\tau)=
\inf\set{A(\gamma)\mid\gamma\in\calC(x,y,\tau)},$$ and the *critical action potential*, or the *Mañé critical potential* $$\phi(x,y)=
\inf\set{A(\gamma) \mid \gamma\in\calC(x,y)}=
\inf\set{\phi(x,y,\tau) \mid \tau>0}.$$ defined on $E^N\times E^N$. It is important to say that in the first definition, the infimum is reached for every pair of configurations $x,y\in E^N$. In the second one the infimum is reached if and only if $x\neq y$. As we will see, these facts are essentially due to the lower semicontinuity of the Lagrangian action.
We can now introduce the object of study of this work.
A *free time minimizer* defined on an interval $J\subset\R$ is an absolutely continuous curve $\gamma:J\to E^N$ which satisfies $A(\gamma\mid_{[a,b]})=\phi(\gamma(a),\gamma(b))$ for all compact subinterval $[a,b]\subset J$.
There is a more or less evident way to give an example of a free time minimizer defined on an unbounded interval. we need before to define the minimal configurations of the problem. Recall that the moment of inertia (about the origin) of a given configuration $x\in E^N$ is $$I(x)=\sum_{i=1}^N\;m_i\,\norm{r_i}^2.$$ We say that $a\in E^N$ is a (normal) minimal configuration of the problem when $I(a)=1$ and $U(a)=\min\set{U(x)\mid x\in E^N,\; I(x)=1}$. Also recall that a central configuration is a configuration $a\in E^N$ which admits homothetic motions i.e. of the form $x(t)=\lambda(t)\,a$. This happens if and only if $a$ is a critical point of $\tilde{U}= I^{1/2}U$ and $\lambda$ satisfies the Kepler equation $\ddot\lambda\,\lambda^{2}=-U(a)\,I(a)^{-1}$. Thus minimal configurations are in particular central configurations. For a given central configuration $a$, we can choose a constant $\mu>0$ such that $x(t)= \mu\,t^{2/3}\,a$ is an homothetic motion. We will see that such motions are free time minimizers when the configuration $a$ is minimal.
A less trivial way to show the existence of free time minimizers can be obtained using the weak KAM theory. It was proved by the second author (see [@Mad]) that the critical action potential is a Hölder continuous distance function on $E^N$. From this it is shown that the Hamilton-Jacobi equation of the Newtonian $N$-body problem has global critical solutions in a weak sense. These solutions are viscosity solutions, and to each one it can be associated a lamination of the space of configurations by free time minimizers. More precisely, if the Hamiltonian of the system is $H:T^*M\to [-\infty,+\infty)$, then given a weak solution $u:E^N\to\R$ of the critical Hamilton-Jacobi equation $H(x,d_xu)=0$, and any configuration $x_0\in E^N$, there is a curve $x:[0,+\infty)\to E^N$ which calibrates $u$ and such that $x(0)=x_0$. The fact that the curve is calibrating for the weak KAM solution means that $A(x\mid_{[0,t]})=u(x_0)-u(x(t))$ for all $t>0$. Therefore the curve must be a free time minimizer, since $u$ is a weak subsolution of the critical Hamilton-Jacobi equation, which can be expressed in terms of the action potential saying that $u(x)-u(y)\leq \phi(x,y)$ for any pair of configurations $x,y\in E^N$.
Main results
------------
In this paper we study the asymptotic behavior of a free time minimizer, so we will assume that its domain is an interval $[t_0,+\infty)$; by the previous observations, we know that our object of study is not trivial.
More precisely, we will prove that such kind of motions are completely parabolic, meaning that the velocity of each body goes to zero as $t\to +\infty$. The origin of this name comes from Chazy’s classification of the possible final evolution of motions defined for all future time in the three body problem. In fact, we will show that free time minimizers must have zero energy and that its moment of inertia must grow like $I(x(t))\sim \alpha\, t^{4/3}$ for some positive constant $\alpha >0$. From these facts we will deduce that the motion must be completely parabolic.
On the other hand, we must recall Marchal’s theorem (see [@Chen], [@FerTer] and [@Mar]) which will be crucial for our proofs. It asserts that, if $\dim E \geq 2$ then the curves that minimize the action in some $\calC(x,y,\tau)$, cannot have collisions in any interior time. In particular we know that, except for the one-dimensional case, every free time minimizers defined in an open interval is a solution of Newton’s equation. Therefore, with our notation, we can say that, if the Euclidean space $E$ has dimension at least $2$ and $J\subset\R$ is an open interval, then for every free time minimizer $\gamma:J\to E^N$ we have $\gamma(J)\subset\Omega$, where $\Omega=\set{x\in E^N
\textrm{ such that } U(x)<+\infty}$ denotes the set of configurations without collisions.
Recently, using Marchal’s theorem, the second author has proved in [@Mad2] that every free time minimizer defined on an unbounded interval must have fixed center of mass. This result allow us to use a theorem due to Pollard for give a proof of our main theorem:
\[main\] If $x:[t_0,+\infty)\to E^N$ is a free time minimizer of the N-body problem in an Euclidean space $E$ of dimension at least $2$, then $x$ corresponds to a completely parabolic motion of the bodies.
The next result is a consequence of theorem \[main\] and again of Marchal’s theorem. From its discovery, Marchal’s theorem was used to prove the existence of special orbits by variational methods. Commonly, the technique consists in minimize the action in some special class of curves, such as periodic curves with topological or symmetry constraints, and then apply the theorem to prove that the minimizer is a true motion. Here we will use Marchal’s theorem in the inverse way:
\[nocompleteFTM\] If $\dim E\geq 2$ there are no entire free time minimizers for the N-body problem in $E$, that is to say, an entire motion $x:\R\to E^N$ is never a free time minimizer.
Another application of theorem \[main\] can be obtained by means of the weak KAM theory. It was recently established by A. Venturelli and the second author in [@MadVent] that for any given configuration $x_0\in E^N$, and every minimal normalized configuration $c\in E^N$, there is a completely parabolic motion starting at $x_0$ and asymptotic to a parabolic homothetic motion by $c$. As usual, a motion $x:[t_0,+\infty)\to E^N$ is said to be completely parabolic in the future when $\lim_{t\to\infty} T(t)=0$. This is equivalent to say that all the velocities tend to zero when $t\to\infty$. We will easily deduce from theorem \[main\] that free time minimizers are completely parabolic. On the other hand, as we have say, associated to every critical solution of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation there is a lamination of the space of configurations by calibrating curves which are therefore free time minimizers (see [@Mad] prop. 15). Therefore, we obtain an alternative proof for the abundance of completely parabolic motions:
\[abudance\] Given N different positions $r_1, r_2,\dots, r_N \in E$, there exist $N$ velocities $v_1, v_2,\dots, v_N \in E$ such that the motion determined by these initial positions and velocities is completely parabolic.
There is a subtle difference between the first proof of this result given in [@MadVent] and the proof given here. Our proof uses the existence of a weak KAM solution, and we lose the possibility of choice for the limit shape of the bodies. On the other hand, we gain a stronger minimization property (the parabolic motion is not only globally minimizing, that is, in every compact subinterval of his domain, but also in free time).
As in [@FaMad], the existence of weak KAM solutions for the $N$-body problem is obtained in [@Mad] by a fixed point argument. We hope that a more refined study of the subject can give the existence of particular weak KAM solutions, in such a way that the limit shape of his calibrating curves can be prescribed in advance. These solutions would be similar to the Busemann functions of a complete non compact manifold.
We do not know as yet if there is a limit configuration for a free time minimizer. In fact, only we can say that, if a free time minimizer has an asymptotic configuration in the sense that the normalized configuration $u(t)=I(x(t))^{-1/2}x(t)$ converges to some configuration $a\in E^N$ with $I(a)=1$, then the limit configuration $a$ must be a central configuration such that its parabolic homothetic motion is itself a free time minimizer. On the other hand, this last property seems to be the only requirement on the configuration which is needed to define an associated critical Busemann function. We refer the reader to the work of G. Contreras [@Cont] for a construction of the critical Busemann functions of an autonomous Tonelli Lagrangian and his relationship with the weak KAM theory. These considerations show that the set of configurations with such property is playing the role of the Aubry set at infinity.
Another interesting invariant set in the general theory of Tonelli Lagrangians is the Mañé set. We refer the reader to the original paper of Mañé [@Mane] for the definition of a semistatic curve, as well as to the work of G. Contreras and G. Paternain [@ConPat]. It is not difficult to see that the semistatic curves in these cited works are precisely the free time minimizers in our context (the critical value is $c(L)=0$). The Mañé set is defined as the subset of the tangent bundle $TM$ whose elements are the velocity of some entire semistatic curve (the set $\Sigma(L)$ in the cited literature). Therefore, theorem \[nocompleteFTM\] says that the Mañé set of the Newtonian $N$-body problem is empty.
The paper is organized as follows. The next section is devoted to introduce the main tools and notations we will use. In particular, the lower semicontinuity of the Lagrangian action is showed as well as the homogeneity of the action potential. In the third section, the existence of free time minimizers is proved, and some of its basic properties are discussed. The last section begins recalling a theorem of H. Pollard ([@Poll] theorem 5.1, p. 607) and give the proof of theorem \[main\] and theorem \[nocompleteFTM\].
Preliminaries and notations
===========================
As usual, we will use the notation $I(t)$ for $I(x(t))$ when the curve $x(t)$ is understood. In the same way we will write $U(t)=U(x(t))$, $T(t)=I(\dot x(t))$. Therefore, if $x(t)$ describes a motion of the system, then the quantity $h=T(t)-U(t)$ is the constant total energy of the motion, and the Lagrange-Jacobi relation (or virial relation) can be written $\ddot I=2U+4h$.
We will write $x\cdot y$ the mass inner product of two configurations $x,y\in E^N$, thus we have $I(x)=x\cdot x$. It is easy to see that Newton’s equations admit the synthetic expression $\ddot x =\nabla U(x)$ if the gradient is taken with respect to this inner product. With the obvious identification $TE^N\simeq E^N\times E^N$ we can write $2T(v)=v\cdot v$. If we apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to the product $x(t)\cdot v(t)$, where $v=\dot x$, we get the inequality $2IT-\dot I^2\geq0$, where equality holds if and only if the velocities vector and the configuration vector are collinear. In particular, the equality holds on an open interval of time if and only if the curve is homothetic on this interval.
An excellent presentation of basic geometric constructions for $N$-body problems with homogeneous potentials is the paper of A. Chenciner [@Chen2], to which we refer the reader for other intimately related definitions and properties.
The Lagrangian action in polar coordinates {#polaraction}
------------------------------------------
When a curve $x:[a,b]\to E^N$ avoid the total collision, we can decompose it as the product of a positive real function by an unitary configuration. In other words, we can write $x(t)=\rho(t)\,u(t)$, with $\rho(t)>0$ and $I(u(t))=1$ for all $t\in [a,b]$. Note that these factors are well defined as $\rho=I(x)^{1/2}$ and $u=\rho^{-1}x$.
Therefore we have $\dot x=\dot\rho\,u+\rho\,\dot u$. Since $u^2=u\cdot u=I(u)$ is constant, we also have $u\cdot \dot u=0$, from which we deduce that $\dot x^2=\dot x\cdot \dot x= \dot\rho^2+
\rho^2\,\dot u^2$. If in addition we consider the homogeneity of the Newtonian potential, we have that $U(x)=U(\rho\,u)=\rho^{-1}U(u)$.
Thus we get the following expression for the action of the curve $x$, which will be useful to compare it to other paths joining the same endpoints.
$$\label{polaraction-expression}
A(x)=\frac{1}{2}\int_a^b\dot\rho(s)^2\,ds+
\frac{1}{2}\int_a^b\rho(s)^2\dot u(s)^2\,ds+
\int_a^b\rho(s)^{-1}U(u(s))\,ds.$$
Note that if the curve $x$ is homothetic, the second term vanishes. Thus, in this case, the action of $x$ can be viewed as the Lagrangian action of $\rho$ as a curve in $\R^+$ with respect to the Lagrangian associated to a reduced Kepler problem (central force) in this half-line.
Lower semicontinuity of the Lagrangian action
---------------------------------------------
Frequently in the literature, the curves are considered in the Sobolev space $H^1$, but it is not difficult to see that for this kind of Lagrangian, absolutely continuous curves with finite action must have square-integrable derivative, in particular they are also $1/2$-Hölder continuous. If $x:[a,b]\to E^N$ is an absolutely continuous curve such that $A=A(x)<+\infty$, then obviously we have $$\int_a^b \abs{\dot x(s)}^2\,ds\leq 2A.$$ On the other hand, it is well know that for any absolutely continuous curve, the distance between its extremities is bounded by the integral of the norm of the speed. Hence, given $a\leq s<t\leq b$, we can apply the Bunyakovsky inequality, and we deduce that $$\label{lowerboundaction}
\abs{x(t)-x(s)}\leq
\int_s^t\abs{\dot x(u)}\,du
\leq (2A)^{1/2}\;\abs{t-s}^{1/2}.$$ Here we use the norm in $E^N$ induced by the mass inner product, which is denoted $\abs{x}$, but it is clear that the Hölder continuity not depends on the choice of the norm since they are all equivalent. Thus by Ascoli’s theorem we obtain the following proposition.
\[subsequence\] Let $x_n:[a,b]\to E^N$ be a sequence of absolutely continuous curves for which there is a positive constant $k<+\infty$ such that $A(x_n)\leq k$ for all $n>0$. If $x_n(t)$ converges for some $t\in[a,b]$, then there is a subsequence $x_{n_k}$ which converges uniformly.
In other words, given $x,y\in E^N$, $\tau>0$ and $k>0$, we know that the sets of absolutely continuous curves $$\Sigma(x,y,\tau,k)=
\set{\gamma:[0,\tau]\to E^N
\mid \gamma(0)=x,\;\gamma(\tau)=y,
\textrm{ and } A(\gamma)\leq k}$$ are relatively compact in $C^0([a,b],E^N)$. As we will see, the compactness of such sets is equivalent to the lower semicontinuity of the Lagrangian action on the subset of absolutely continuous curves. Moreover, we will see that it is a consequence of the well known Tonelli’s lemma for strictly convex and superlinear Lagrangians that we state below.
We recall that an autonomous *Tonelli Lagrangian* on a complete Riemannian manifold $M$ is a function $L:TM\to\R$ of class $C^2$, which is strictly convex on each fiber of $TM$, and such that for each positive constant $\alpha>0$ there is $C_\alpha\in\R$ such that $L(x,v)\geq
\alpha\,\norm{v}+C_\alpha$ for all $(x,v)\in TM$. We will denote $A_L(x)$ the corresponding Lagrangian action of an absolutely continuous curve $x$ in $M$.
\[Tonelli’s lower semicontinuity\] Let $M$ be a Riemannian manifold, and let $L:TM\to\R$ be a Tonelli Lagrangian on $M$. Suppose that $x_n:[a,b]\to M$ is a sequence of absolutely continuous curves such that $\sup A_L(x_n)<+\infty$. If $x_n$ converges uniformly to a curve $x$, then the limit curve $x$ is absolutely continuous, and $A_L(x)\leq \liminf A_L(x_n)$.
There are several proofs in the literature of the above lemma, see for instance the first appendix in [@Mat], where an equivalent version is given. We can deduce from this lemma the following theorem, also due to Tonelli, which assures the existence of absolutely continuous minimizers.
Let $M$ be a complete connected Riemannian manifold, and let $L:TM\to\R$ be an autonomous Tonelli Lagrangian on $M$. Given $x,y\in M$ and $\tau>0$, the action $A_L$ takes a minimum value over the set of all absolutely continuous curves $\gamma:[0,\tau]\to M$ such that $\gamma(0)=x$ and $\gamma(\tau)=y$.
For each $k\in\R$, let $\Sigma_k$ be the set of absolutely continuous curves $\gamma:[0,\tau]\to M$ such that $A_L(\gamma)\leq k$. Since $M$ is connected, the sets $\Sigma_k$ are nonempty for sufficiently large values of $k$. From the superlinearity of $L$ we can deduce as before, that each curve in $\Sigma_k$ is $1/2$-Hölder continuous, with a Hölder constant which only depends in $k$. Therefore, since $M$ is complete, we can apply Ascoli’s theorem as in proposition \[subsequence\], and we get that the sets $\Sigma_k$ are relatively compact in the $C^0$-topology. But if we apply Tonelli’s lemma to a convergent sequence in some $\Sigma_k$ we conclude that the limit curve is also in $\Sigma_k$. Thus, each $\Sigma_k$ is actually compact in the $C^0$-topology.
We note now that the Lagrangian is bounded below, since the superlinearity implies that $A_L(\gamma)\geq \tau\,C_1$. Thus $k_0= \inf\set{k\in\R
\mid\Sigma_k\neq\emptyset}$ is well defined. Since $\Sigma_{k_0}=\cap_{k>k_0}\Sigma_k$ we can conclude that $\Sigma_{k_0}\neq\emptyset$. But it is clear that each $\gamma\in\Sigma_{k_0}$ is a minimizer of $A_L$ in the required set of curves.
Using Fatou’s lemma we can obtain a Tonelli’s theorem which works for the Lagrangian action of the Newtonian $N$-body problem. As before, first we need to establish the lower semicontinuity of the action.
\[LowerSC-NBP\] Let $x_n:[a,b]\to E^N$ be a sequence of absolutely continuous curves which converges uniformly to a limit curve $x$, and such that $\sup A(x_n)<+\infty$. Then, $x$ is also an absolutely continuous curve, and $A(x)\leq \liminf A(x_n)$.
Let $L_0$ be the quadratic Lagrangian in $E^N$ given by $$L_0(x,v)=\frac{1}{2}\abs{v}^2$$ and let $A_0$ be the associated action. Certainly $L_0$ is a Tonelli Lagrangian on $E^N$, therefore Tonelli’s lemma can be applied. Thus we have that $x$ is absolutely continuous, and that $$A_0(x)\leq \liminf A_0(x_n).$$ On the other hand, since $U$ is a positive measurable function, by Fatou’s lemma we have $$\int_a^b U(x(s))\,ds=
\int_a^b \liminf U(x_n(s))\,ds\leq
\liminf \int_a^b U(x_n(s))\,ds.$$ Since $$A(x)=A_0(x)+\int_a^b U(x(s))\,ds$$ we get $A(x)\leq \liminf A(x_n)$ what was required to be proved.
An evident corollary of lemma \[LowerSC-NBP\] is the existence of absolutely continuous minimizers on each set of curves $\calC (x,y,\tau)$.
\[TonelliNBP\] Given two configurations $x,y\in E^N$ and $\tau > 0$, there is at least one curve $\gamma\in\calC (x,y,\tau)$ such that $A(\gamma)=\phi(x,y,\tau)$.
By proposition \[subsequence\] and lemma \[LowerSC-NBP\], we already know that given $c\in\R$, the sets of absolutely continuous curves $$\Sigma(x,y,\tau,c)=
\set{\gamma:[0,\tau]\to E^N
\mid \gamma(0)=x,\gamma(\tau)=y,
\;\textrm{and }A(x)\leq c}$$ are compact subsets of $C^0([0,\tau],E^N)$. Moreover, since $L>0$ and $E^N$ is connected, they are empty for $c\leq 0$, and nonempty for sufficiently large values of $c>0$.
We observe now that $\phi(x,y,\tau)=
\inf\set{c>0\mid
\Sigma(x,y,\tau,c)\neq\emptyset}$. Hence the intersection for $c>\phi(x,y,\tau)$ of these nonempty compact sets is also nonempty, and each curve $\gamma$ in the intersection satisfies $A(\gamma)=\phi(x,y,\tau)$.
Regularity of minimizers and Marchal’s theorem
----------------------------------------------
Everything what we said would not be useful for anything, unless we are able to show that absolutely continuous minimizers correspond to true motions or, in other words, to solutions of Newton’s equation. We will explain why this happens briefly.
For a Tonelli Lagrangian on a smooth manifold, it is very well known that a $C^1$ minimizer is in fact of class $C^2$ and satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equations. Therefore it suffices to show that an absolute continuous minimizer is of class $C^1$. The proof of this fact, which actually holds even for time dependent Tonelli Lagrangians (see [@Mat]) is a little arduous, but for a mechanical system is not it as much. We must recall first a classical result of the calculus of variations, which tell us that if $\gamma\in\calC(x,y,\tau)$ is a critical point of the Lagrangian action, then in local coordinates we can write $$\Leg(\gamma(t),\dot\gamma(t))=
\left(\gamma(t),\,u+\int_0^t
\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}
(\gamma(s),\dot\gamma(s))\,ds\,\right)$$ where $\Leg:TM\to T^*M$ is the Legendre transform, $u\in(\R^n)^*$, and the equality holds for almost every $t\in [0,\tau]$.
Note that for a mechanical system, i.e. of the form $L(x,v)=g(v,v)+U(x)$, where $g$ is a Riemannian metric, and $V$ a smooth function en $M$, the right hand of this equality is a continuous function of $t$, since (in local coordinates) we have $$\frac{\partial L}{\partial x}
(\gamma(s),\dot\gamma(s))=
DU(\gamma(s))$$ for all $s\in[0,\tau]$. Since $\Leg$ is a diffeomorphism of class $C^1$, we conclude that $\dot\gamma$ is actually a continuous function. We refer the reader to [@AbbonSch] (proposition 3.1) for a more detailed explanation and other basic properties of the Lagrangian action.
Finally, we observe that our Lagrangian is a smooth mechanical system in $\Omega$, the open and dense subset of $E^N$ where $U<+\infty$. Since the above considerations are of a local nature, we conclude that an absolutely continuous minimizer whose image is contained in $\Omega$ must be smooth.
Tonelli’s theorem results extremely useful combined with Marchal’s theorem that we recall now. From such combination and the above considerations we can conclude that, except in the collinear case ($\dim E=1$), Tonelli minimizers are smooth in the interior of its domain.
\[Marchal [@Mar], Chenciner [@Chen], Ferrario-Terracini [@FerTer]\] Suppose $\dim E\geq 2$. If $\gamma:[a,b]\to E^N$ is such that $A(\gamma)=\phi(\gamma(a),\gamma(b),b-a)$, then $\gamma(t)\in \Omega$ for all $t\in (a,b)$.
Combining Marchal’s theorem with \[TonelliNBP\] and the above considerations we obtain the following corollary.
If $\dim E\geq 2$, then for every pair of configurations $x,y\in E^N$, and every positive time $\tau > 0$, there is at least one curve $\gamma\in\calC (x,y,\tau)$ such that $$A(\gamma)=\phi(x,y,\tau)\,$$ and such that $$\gamma(t)\in\Omega \textrm{ for every }
t\in (0,\tau)\,.$$
In particular the restriction of $\gamma$ to $(0,\tau)$ satisfies Newton’s equations, that is to say, it is a true motion of the $N$-body problem.
Homogeneity of the critical action potential {#homogeneity-section}
--------------------------------------------
We shall introduce now some properties which are consequence of the homogeneity of the Newtonian potential. Given a curve $\gamma\in\calC (x,y,\tau)$ and two positive numbers $\lambda,\mu >0$ we define the curve $\gamma_{\lambda,\mu}\in
\calC(\lambda x,\lambda y,\mu)$ in the obvious way. If $\gamma$ is defined for $t\in[a,b]$, with $b-a=\tau$, then $\gamma_{\lambda,\mu}$ can be defined for $s\in [\mu\tau^{-1}a,\mu\tau^{-1}b]$ by $$\gamma_{\lambda,\mu}(s)=
\lambda\,\gamma(\tau\mu^{-1}s)$$
Using these curves we can deduce the following lemma and corollaries.
\[homotecia.repar\] If $\mu=\lambda^{3/2}\tau$, then $A(\gamma_{\lambda,\mu})=
\lambda^{1/2}A(\gamma)$.
A simple computation shows that the action of $\gamma_{\lambda,\mu}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
A(\gamma_{\lambda,\mu})&\;=\;&
\frac{\lambda^2\tau^2}{\mu^2}\frac{1}{2}
\int_{\mu\tau^{-1}a}^{\mu\tau^{-1}b}
\abs{\dot\gamma(\tau\mu^{-1}s)}^2\,ds+
\frac{1}{\lambda}\int_{\mu\tau^{-1}a}^{\mu\tau^{-1}b}
U(\gamma(\tau\mu^{-1}s))\,ds\\
& &\\
&\;=\;&\frac{\lambda^2\tau}{\mu}
\frac{1}{2}\int_a^b
\abs{\dot\gamma(t)}^2\,dt+
\frac{\mu}{\lambda\tau}\int_a^b
U(\gamma(t))\,dt.\end{aligned}$$
It suffices now to make the substitution $\mu=\lambda^{3/2}\tau$.
\[phitau-homogeneo\] For all $x,y\in E^N$ and for every $\tau,\lambda>0$ we have $$\phi(\lambda x,\lambda y,\lambda^{3/2}\tau)=
\lambda^{1/2}\phi(x,y,\tau).$$
Let $\epsilon>0$ and $\gamma\in\calC (x,y,\tau)$ such that $A(\gamma)\leq \phi(x,y,\tau)+\epsilon$. Setting $\mu=\lambda^{3/2}\tau$, we write $\gamma_\lambda$ instead of $\gamma_{\lambda,\mu}$. Thus we can apply lemma \[homotecia.repar\], and we get that $$\begin{aligned}
A(\gamma_\lambda)& = &\lambda^{1/2}A(\gamma)\\
&\leq & \lambda^{1/2}\phi(x,y,\tau)+
\lambda^{1/2}\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\gamma_\lambda\in
\calC(\lambda x,\lambda y,\lambda^{3/2}\tau)$, and $\epsilon>0$ is arbitrary, we deduce that $$\phi(\lambda x,\lambda y,\lambda^{3/2}\tau)
\leq\lambda^{1/2}\phi(x,y,\tau).$$ Therefore we also have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(x,y,\tau) & = &
\phi(\lambda^{-1}\lambda x,
\lambda^{-1}\lambda y,
\lambda^{-3/2}\lambda^{3/2}\tau)\\
& \leq & \lambda^{-1/2}
\phi(\lambda x,\lambda y,\lambda^{3/2}\tau),\end{aligned}$$ which proves the reverse inequality.
\[phi-homogeneo\] For all $x,y\in E^N$, and every $\lambda>0$, we have $\phi(\lambda x,\lambda y)=
\lambda^{1/2}\phi(x,y)$.
Take the infimum over $\tau>0$ in the equality given by corollary \[phitau-homogeneo\].
\[inv-rescalingFTM\] Given a free time minimizer $\gamma:[a,b]\to E^N$, and $\lambda>0$, the curve $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_\lambda:
[\lambda^{3/2}a,\lambda^{3/2}b]&\to& E^N\\
t&\mapsto&
\gamma_\lambda(t)=
\lambda\gamma(\lambda^{-3/2}t)\end{aligned}$$ is also a free time minimizer.
If we denote $x=\gamma(a)$ and $y=\gamma(b)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
A(\gamma_\lambda)&=&\lambda^{1/2}A(\gamma)\\
&=& \lambda^{1/2}\phi(x,y)\\
&=& \phi(\lambda x,\lambda y).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, it is clear that $\gamma_\lambda\in\calC(\lambda x,\lambda y)$, thus $\gamma_\lambda$ is a free time minimizer.
The Mañé critical energy level {#Manie-section}
------------------------------
In the Mañé works, the critical energy level of a Tonelli Lagrangian $L:TM\to\R$ on a connected compact manifold $M$ is defined as $$c(L)=\inf\set{c\in\R\mid
A_{L+c}(\gamma)\geq 0
\textrm{ for every closed curve }\gamma}.$$ It is easy to show that, if for some $c\in\R$ there is a closed curve $\gamma$ such that $A_{L+c}(\gamma)<0$, then for any given pair of points $x,y\in M$ the Lagrangian action of $L+c$ has no lower bound in the set of all absolutely continuous curves from $x$ to $y$. On the other hand, it can be proved that the Lagrangian $L+c(L)$ admits free time minimizers for any pair of prescribed endpoints $x,y\in E^N$. Moreover, the energy constant of this curves (also called semistatics) is exactly $c(L)$, and using them and the compactness of the manifold it can be proved the existence of invariant measures supported in the critical energy level, and the existence of several compact invariant sets with interesting dynamical properties. We did not wish to develop here this theory more than necessary to show the existing analogy, even if our Lagrangian flow is not complete. We will only show that in the Newtonian $N$-body problem we have $c(L)=0$, and that free time minimizers have zero energy.
For a natural mechanical system with bounded potential energy $V:M\to\R$, it is very easy to see that $c(L)=\sup V$. Suppose first that $c<\sup V$. Then there is some open subset $A\subset M$ in which $c<V$. Any constant curve $\gamma(t)=p\in A$ defined in some time interval $[0,\tau]$ is a closed curve, and clearly we have $A_{L+c}(\gamma)=\tau(c-V(p))<0$. This proves that $c(L)\geq\sup V$. On the other hand, if $c=\sup V$, then $L+c=T-V+c\geq 0$, thus $A_{L+c}(\gamma)\geq 0$ whatever the curve $\gamma$ is. In our setting the potential energy is the function $V=-U$, hence the critical energy level is zero.
Suppose that $\gamma:[a,b]\to M$ is an absolutely continuous curve, with finite action $A_L(\gamma)$, and binding the points $x=\gamma(a)$ and $y=\gamma(b)$ in time $\tau=b-a$. A particular kind of variation of the curve $\gamma$ can be obtained by reparametrization. Consider for instance, for $\alpha>0$, the linear reparametrization $\gamma_\alpha:
[\alpha a,\alpha b]\to E^N$, $\gamma_\alpha(s)=
\gamma(\alpha^{-1}s)$. Thus we have $\gamma_\alpha\in\calC(x,y,\alpha\tau)$ and $\gamma_1=\gamma$. The action of $\gamma_\alpha$ is $$\begin{aligned}
A(\gamma_\alpha)&=&\alpha^{-2}\,
\frac{1}{2}\int_{\alpha a}^{\alpha b}
\abs{\dot\gamma(\alpha^{-1}s)}^2\,ds +
\int_{\alpha a}^{\alpha b}
U(\gamma(\alpha^{-1}s))\,ds\\
&=&\alpha^{-1}\,\frac{1}{2}
\int_a^b\abs{\dot\gamma(t)}^2\,dt +
\alpha\,\int_a^b U(\gamma(t))\,dt.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\frac{d}{d\alpha}A(\gamma_\alpha)
\mid_{\alpha=1}\,=\,
-\int_a^b\left(\frac{1}{2}\,\abs{\dot\gamma(t)}^2-
U(\gamma(t))\right)\,dt,$$ from which the following lemma can be deduced.
\[zeroenergy\] Let $I\subset\R$ be an open interval. If $\gamma:I\to E^N$ is a free time minimizer, then $\gamma$ is a trajectory with zero energy.
It is clear that for every compact subinterval $[a,b]\subset I$, we have that $\gamma\mid_{[a,b]}$ is a Tonelli minimizer, meaning that $A(\gamma\mid_{[a,b]})=
\phi(\gamma(a),\gamma(b),b-a)$. By Marchal’s theorem we know that $\gamma(t)\in\Omega$ for every $t\in (a,b)$. Since $[a,b]\subset I$ is arbitrary, we conclude that $\gamma(I)\subset\Omega$. This implies that $\gamma$ is a smooth curve which corresponds to a true motion. Therefore $\gamma$ must have constant energy $h=T(t)-U(t)$.
We fix now some interval $[a,b]\subset I$ and we define the variation $\gamma_\alpha$ as above given by linear reparametrization of time. Since $\gamma\mid_{[a,b]}$ is also a free time minimizer, we must have $$\frac{d}{d\alpha}A(\gamma_\alpha)
\mid_{\alpha=1}\,=\,-h(b-a)\,=\,0$$ which proves that $h=0$.
Existence of free time minimizers
=================================
Free time minimizers between two given configurations
-----------------------------------------------------
We know that for each configuration $x\in E^N$ and each $\tau>0$ there is a Tonelli minimizer $\gamma\in\calC (x,x,\tau)$ defined in $[0,\tau]$. It was proved ([@Mad] corollary 10) that we must have $A(\gamma)=\phi(x,x,\tau)\leq \mu \tau^{1/3}$ for a constant $\mu>0$ which not depends on $x$. Therefore we have $\phi(x,x)=0$. In other words, given $x\in E^N$, we can leave $x$ and return to $x$ with small displacements, in small times, and in such a way that the action becomes arbitrarily small. However, this does not happen when the extremal configurations are different. If $x\neq y$ and we try to minimize the action from $x$ to $y$, we can see that a curve defined on a short interval of time has a too expensive action because the average kinetic energy must be large. On the other hand, also we will see that once two configurations $x,y\in E^N$ are fixed, the minimal action $\phi(x,y,\tau)$ becomes arbitrarily large for $\tau>0$ large enough. These arguments enable us to prove the following result.
\[FTMbetween2conf\] Given any two different configurations $x\neq y$ in $E^N$, there is $\tau>0$ and $\gamma\in\calC(x,y,\tau)$ such that $A(\gamma)=\phi(x,y)$.
Of course, in case $x=y$ we can define the free time minimizer as the constant curve on a trivial interval of zero length, but this convention will be useless for us. We will need the following lemma.
\[estimaciontaumin\] Let $d=\norm{x-y}$, $m_0=\min \set{m_1,\dots,m_N}$ and $\tau>0$. If $\gamma\in\calC(x,y,\tau)$ is such that $A(\gamma)\leq A$, then $2A\,\tau\geq m_0\,d^2$.
Let $x=(r_1,\dots,r_N)$ and $y=(s_1,\dots,s_N)$. Since $\norm{x-y}=\max\norm{r_i-s_i}_E$, we can choose $i_0\in\set{1,\dots,N}$ for which $d=\norm{r_{i_0}-s_{i_0}}_E$. Using now the inequality (\[lowerboundaction\]) of the precedent section, we get $2A(\gamma)\,\tau\geq \abs{x-y}^2$. Since $\abs{x-y}^2\geq m_{i_0}\norm{r_{i_0}-s_{i_0}}_E^2$ we conclude that $2A\,\tau\geq m_0\,d^2$.
Let $x\neq y$ be two given configurations. A sequence of curves $\gamma_n\in \calC(x,y,\tau_n)$, $n\geq 0$, will be called minimizing if it satisfies $\phi(x,y)=\lim A(\gamma_n)$. Of course, the existence of such sequences of curves follows from the definition of $\phi(x,y)$.
As a first step of the proof we will show that, given a sequence $\gamma_n\in \calC(x,y,\tau_n)$ for which $A=\sup\set{A(\gamma_n)}<+\infty$, there are positive constants $0<T_0<T_1$ such that for all $n\geq 0$ we have $T_0\leq \tau_n \leq T_1$. We observe first that by lemma \[estimaciontaumin\], we know that the lower bound $\tau_n\geq T_0= m_0\,d^2/2A$, where $d=\norm{x-y}>0$ and $m_0=\min \set{m_1,\dots,m_N}$, holds for all $n\geq 0$. Moreover, if we fix any $n\geq 0$, and we restrict the curve $\gamma_n$ to an interval $[0,t]$ with $t\leq \tau_n$, once again by application of lemma \[estimaciontaumin\] we deduce that $$d_n(t)=\norm{\gamma_n(t)-x}\leq (2A\,\tau_n/m_0)^{1/2}$$ hence we have $$\label{31}
\norm{\gamma_n(t)}\leq\norm{x}+(2A\,\tau_n/m_0)^{1/2}.$$ Once we know the positions are bounded, we get a lower bound for the Newtonian potential throughout the curve $\gamma_n$. Indeed, if $\norm{z}\leq K$ then $U(z)\geq m_0^2/2K$. Thus we have $$U(\gamma_n(t))\geq
\frac{m_0^2}{2(\norm{x}+(2A\,\tau_n/m_0)^{1/2})}$$ for all $t\in[0,\tau_n]$, and we conclude that the inequality $$A\geq A(\gamma_n)\geq
\frac{\tau_n\,m_0^2}{2(\norm{x}+(2A\,\tau_n/m_0)^{1/2})}$$ holds for all $n\geq 0$. But the right hand of the last inequality is upper bounded if and only if the sequence $\tau_n$ also is it. Thus we have proved the existence of the positive constants $T_0<T_1$ as required.
The second step of the proof consists in applying the first step to some minimizing sequence of curves, which allow us to deduce the existence of a new minimizing sequence of curves, but contained in a fixed set $\calC(x,y,\tau)$.
More precisely, we start by choosing a minimizing sequence $\gamma_n\in \calC(x,y,\tau_n)$, $n\geq 0$. Since we know that $0<T_0\leq \tau_n\leq T_1$ for all $n\geq 0$, we can assume without loss of generality that $\tau_n\to \tau>0$. Then we define $\gamma^*_n:[0,\tau]\to E^N$ by $\gamma^*_n(t)=\gamma_n(\tau_n\,t/\tau)$, and we can write $$A(\gamma^*_n)=\frac{\tau_n}{\tau}\frac{1}{2}\,
\int_0^{\tau_n}\abs{\dot\gamma_n(t)}^2\,dt\,+\,
\frac{\tau}{\tau_n}\int_0^{\tau_n}U(\gamma_n(t))\,dt$$ from which we deduce that $\lim A(\gamma^*_n)=\lim A(\gamma_n)=\phi(x,y)$. Since each curve $\gamma^*_n$ is in $\calC(x,y,\tau)$, we conclude that $\phi(x,y,\tau)\leq\phi(x,y)$. Thus we must have $\phi(x,y,\tau)=\phi(x,y)$, which reduces the proof to the application of the Tonelli’s theorem \[TonelliNBP\].
Homothetic free time minimizers
-------------------------------
Now we prove, as we announced in the introduction, that every parabolic homothetic motion by a minimal configuration $a\in E^N$ is a free time minimizer. Recall that a minimal configuration is nothing but a global minimum of the homogeneous function $I^{1/2}U$.
We start assuming that the minimal configuration $a_0$ is also a normal configuration, in the sense that $I(a_0)=1$. Thus we have $U(a_0)=U_0$ where $U_0=\min\set{U(x)\mid I(x)=1}$. The corresponding parabolic homothetic ejection is the curve $\gamma_0(t)=\mu_0\,t^{2/3}a_0$, where $\mu_0$ is the only positive constant such that the curve $\gamma_0$ defines a motion for $t>0$. A simple computation shows that the value of $\mu_0$ must be $(9\,U_0/2)^{1/3}$. Note that $\gamma_0$ passes through $a_0$ in time $t_0=\mu_0^{-3/2}>0$.
If $t_1>t_0$ then we have $A(\gamma)\geq A(\gamma_0\mid_{[t_0,t_1]})$ for every $\gamma\in\calC(a_0,\gamma_0(t_1))$. Moreover, the equality holds if and only if $\gamma=\gamma_0\mid_{[t_0,t_1]}$ (modulo translation in time).
Let $\gamma$ be a curve in $\calC(a_0,\gamma_0(t_1))$. Let us suppose that $\gamma $ is defined in a given interval of time $[s_o,s_1]$. Thus we have $\gamma(s_0)=\gamma_0(t_0)=a_0$ and $\gamma(s_1)=\gamma_0(t_1)$. It is clear that there is a unique number $s'\in [s_0,s_1)$ such that $I(\gamma(s'))=1$ and such that $I(\gamma(s))>1$ for every $s\in (s',s_1]$. Thus we can define the curve $\gamma_1$ as $\gamma\mid_{[s',s_1]}$, and obviously we have $A(\gamma)\geq A(\gamma_1)$ with equality holding if and only if $s'=s_0$.
Since $\gamma_1(s) \neq 0 $ we can now write $\gamma_1$ in polar coordinates $\gamma_1(s)=\rho_1(s)u_1(s)$, where $\rho(s)\geq 1$ and $I(u_1(s))=1$ for all $s\in[s',s_1]$. Let now $\gamma_2\in\calC(a_0,\gamma_0(t_1))$ be a second curve, that we define as $\gamma_2(s)=\rho_1(s)a_0$ for $s\in[s',s_1]$. Using the expression of the Lagrangian action in polar coordinates deduced in section (\[polaraction\]) we conclude that $A(\gamma_2)\leq A(\gamma_1)$ and that the equality holds if and only if $\gamma_2=\gamma_1$.
More precisely the action of $\gamma_2$ in polar coordinates is $$A(\gamma_2)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{s'}^{s_1}\dot\rho_1(s)^2\,ds+
U_0\,\int_{s'}^{s_1}\rho_1(s)^{-1}\,ds.$$ Note that this quantity is exactly the Lagrangian action of $\rho_1(s)$ for the Kepler problem in the line with Lagrangian $$L_{\kappa}(\rho,\dot\rho)= \frac{1}{2}\dot\rho\,^2+\frac{U_0}{\rho}\,.$$ On the other hand, we know that for this Keplerian Lagrangian there is a free time minimizer curve from $\rho_1(s')=1$ and $\rho_1(s_1)=\mu_0t_1^{2/3}$, and must have zero energy. This assertion can be proved by direct computations, or using the same arguments given in the proof of theorem \[FTMbetween2conf\]. It is very easy to see that there is only one extremal curve of the Lagrangian $L_{\kappa}$ (modulo translation of the time interval), with zero energy and the required extremities, namely $\rho(s)=\mu_0s^{2/3}$ for $s\in[t_0,t_1]$.
We conclude that $A(\gamma_2)\geq A(\gamma_0\mid_{[t_0,t_1]})$. Moreover, the equality holds if and only if $\rho_1(s)=\mu_0(t_0+s-s')^{2/3}$ for all $s\in [s',s_1]$, in which case we must also have $s_1-s'=t_1-t_0$.
The above considerations finish the proof of the lemma, since we have showed that $$A(\gamma)\geq A(\gamma_1)\geq\ A(\gamma_2)
\geq A(\gamma_0\mid_{[t_0,t_1]})$$ and that we have equality if and only if $\gamma(s)=\gamma_0(t_0+(s-s_0))$.
Let $a\in E^N$ be a minimal configuration, and $\mu>0$ such that the curve defined for $t>0$ as $\gamma(t)=\mu\, t^{2/3}a$ is an homothetic (parabolic) motion. The continuous extension of $\gamma$ to $[0,+\infty)$ is a free time minimizer with total collision at $t=0$.
In order to apply the previous lemma, we write $\gamma$ in the form $\gamma(t)=\mu_0\,t^{2/3}a_0$ with $I(a_0)=1$. Therefore we know that, if $\gamma(t_0)=a_0$ and $t_1>t_0$, then $\gamma\mid_{[t_0,t_1]}$ is a free time minimizer.
Let us fix $T>0$ and $\epsilon\in (0,T)$. Taking $\lambda>0$ in such a way that $\epsilon=\lambda^{3/2}t_0$ and using corollary \[inv-rescalingFTM\], we can deduce that $\gamma\mid_{[\epsilon,T]}$ is also a free time minimizer. This means that $$A(\gamma\mid_{[\epsilon,T]})=\phi(\gamma(\epsilon),\gamma(T))\,.$$ But $$\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}A(\gamma\mid_{[\epsilon,T]})=
A(\gamma\mid_{[0,T]})$$ and $\phi$ is continuous, so we conclude that $\gamma\mid_{[0,T]}$ is a free time minimizer. Since $T>0$ is arbitrary, the proof is complete.
Calibrating curves of weak KAM solutions
----------------------------------------
As we said, thanks to the weak KAM theorem we know that there are a lot of free time minimizers defined over unbounded intervals. Moreover, this theory allows to establish that for any configuration of bodies $x\in E^N$, there is at least one free time minimizer $\gamma_x(t)$ defined for all time $t\geq 0$ and such that $\gamma_x(0)=x$ (see [@Mad], proposition 15).
The interesting fact here, is that we have a lamination of $E^N$ by such curves associated to each weak KAM solution of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. They are called calibrating curves of the weak KAM solution. One of the main reasons for studying the dynamics of these curves is precisely the link with weak KAM theory. We hope that the results presented here will be useful to characterize the set of these weak solutions, either in the general case or for generic values of the masses.
Proof of theorems \[main\] and \[nocompleteFTM\]
================================================
The following two results established by Pollard in [@Poll] will be used in the proof of theorem \[main\]. In both cases it is assumed that the center of mass of the motion is fixed at $0\in E$.
\[Ilowerbound\] If the energy of a motion $x:[t_0 ,+\infty)\to \Omega$ is zero, and the center of mass satisfies $G(x(t))=0$ for all $t\geq t_0$, then there is a positive constant $\alpha_0>0$ such that $I(t)\geq \alpha_0 (t-t_0)^{4/3}$ for all $t\geq t_0$.
\[PollardAlternative\] Let $x:[t_0 ,+\infty)\to \Omega$ be a motion of zero energy such that the center of mass satisfies $G(x(t))=0$ for all $t\geq t_0$. Then either $$U(t)\sim \alpha\,t^{-2/3} \;\;\;\textit{ and }
\;\;\;I(t)\sim (9/4)\,\alpha\, t^{4/3}\,,$$ for some positive constant $\alpha>0$, or $$\lim r(t)\,t^{-2/3}=0 \;\;\textit{ and }
\;\;\lim I(t)\,t^{4/3}= +\infty\,,$$ where $r(t)=\min\set{\norm{r_{ij}(t)}\mid 1\leq i<j\leq N}$.
Recall now that the center of mass of a given configuration $x=(r_1,\dots,r_N)\in E^N$ is barycenter of the weighted positions $r_i$. We can define it as the linear map $G:E^N \to E$ given by $G(x)=M^{-1}\sum m_ir_i$, where $M=\sum m_i$ is the total mass of the system.
The important property of the center of mass is that he has an affine motion when it is computed along every motion. This fundamental property which correspond to the conservation of the linear moment, allow us to reduce the study of a given motion $x(t)$ to the corresponding [*internal motion*]{}, $y(t)=(r_1(t)-G(x(t)),\dots,r_N(t)-G(x(t))$ , since $y(t)$ must be also a solution of Newton’s equations. Therefore we can say that every motion is the composition of an uniform translation in space with a particular motion contained in $\ker G$ which is nothing but the orthogonal space of the diagonal $\Delta\subset E^N$ with respect to the mass inner product.
For the above reason it is usual in almost all the literature on the subject, to assume that the motions have the center of mass fixed at $0\in E$.
In order to prove our main results, we shall combine these theorems of Pollard with the following lemma recently proved by the second author, which exclude the collinear case in theorem \[main\], since his proof uses Marchal’s theorem.
\[fixedCM\] If $\dim E\geq 2$ and $x:[0,+\infty)\to E^N$ is a free time minimizer then the center of mass $G(x(t))$ is constant.
However, we expect that this lemma remains true even in case $\dim E=1$, as well as theorem \[main\]. This would be true for example if we could prove the following conjecture.
If $\dim E=1$ and $x:[0,+\infty)\to E^N$ is a free time minimizer then there is a finite set $\calT_x\subset [0,+\infty)$ such that $x(t)$ is a configuration with collisions if and only if $t\in \calT_x$.
The collinear case seems to be more approachable, since we know that there are exactly $n!$ central configurations and it can be proved that for generic values of the masses only two (symmetric) of such configurations are minimal.
We start the proof with the analysis of the inertia of a free time minimizer.
\[g-bounded\] Let $x:[t_0,+\infty)\to\Omega$ be a free time minimizer. Then the function $g:[t_0,+\infty)\to\R$ defined by $$g(t) = \dot I(t)\,I(t)^{-1/4}$$ is increasing and bounded.
Since $h=0$, we have that $T(t)=U(t)$ for all $t\geq t_0$, and the Lagrange-Jacobi relation gives $\ddot I(t)=2U(t)=2T(t)$. Thus the derivative of $g$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\dot g & = & \ddot I\,I^{-1/4}-
\frac{1}{4}\dot I^2I^{-5/4}\\
& = & \frac{1}{4}\left(
8\,IT-\dot I^2
\right)\,I^{-5/4}.\end{aligned}$$ But on the other hand, we know that $2\,IT-\dot I^2\geq 0$. Therefore we conclude that $$\dot g \geq \frac{3}{2}\,UI^{-1/4}> 0.$$ Thus we have proved that the function $g$ is increasing. We must use now the minimization property in order to prove that $g$ is bounded.
Fix $t>t_0$ and any normal configuration $a\in E^N$, that is, such that $I(a)=1$. We will compare the Lagrangian action of the free time minimizer $x$ restricted to the interval $[t_0,t]$ with the action of the homothetic curve $\hat x:[t_0,t]\to E^N$ given by $\hat x(s)=\rho(s)a$ where $\rho(s)=I(x(s))^{1/2}$. Here we will use the polar notation $x=\rho\,u$ where $u(s)$ is the normalized configuration of $x(s)$. Also we will write $\rho_0$ and $\rho_t$ for denote $\rho(t_0)$ and $\rho(t)$ respectively, as well as $u_0$ and $u_t$ for $u(t_0)$ and $u(t)$.
By the triangular inequality we have $$A(x\mid_{[t_0,t]})=\phi(\rho_0u_0,
\rho_tu_t)\leq A(\hat x)+
\phi(\rho_0u_0,\rho_0 a)+
\phi(\rho_t a,\rho_tu_t).$$ Moreover, since $S=\set{u\in E^N\mid I(u)=1}$ is compact, using corollary \[phi-homogeneo\] we can write $$A(x\mid_{[t_0,t]})\leq A(\hat x)+
\Lambda(\rho_0^{1/2}+\rho_t^{1/2})\,,$$ where $\Lambda=\max\set{\phi(x,y)\mid x,y\in S}$.
Using the formula for the action in polar coordinates \[polaraction-expression\] we have that $$A(x\mid_{[t_0,t]})=
\frac{1}{2}\int_{t_0}^t\dot\rho(s)^2\,ds+
\frac{1}{2}\int_{t_0}^t\rho(s)^2\dot u(s)^2\,ds+
\int_{t_0}^t\rho(s)^{-1}U(u(s))\,ds\,,$$ and that $$A(\hat x)=
\frac{1}{2}\int_{t_0}^t\dot\rho(s)^2\,ds+
U(a)\int_{t_0}^t\rho(s)^{-1}\,ds\,.$$ We note that both expressions have the same first term, that the second term in the expression of $A(x\mid_{[t_0,t]})$ is positive, and that using the Lagrange-Jacobi relation (which gives $\ddot I=2\,U$ in this case) we can write $$\int_{t_0}^t\rho(s)^{-1}U(u(s))\,ds=
\int_{t_0}^tU(x(s))\,ds=
\frac{1}{2}\int_{t_0}^t\ddot I(s)\,ds=
\frac{1}{2}(\dot I(t)-\dot I(t_0))\,.$$ Therefore, from the above considerations and the previous inequality we deduce that $$\frac{1}{2}(\dot I(t)-\dot I(t_0))\leq
U(a)\int_{t_0}^t\rho(s)^{-1}\,ds+
\Lambda(\rho_0^{1/2}+\rho_t^{1/2})\,.$$ But $\rho(s)=I(s)^{1/2}$, thus by theorem \[Ilowerbound\] we have $$\int_{t_0}^t\rho(s)^{-1}\,ds\leq
\alpha_0^{-1/2}\int_{t_0}^t(s-t_0)^{-2/3}\,ds=
3\alpha_0^{-1/2}\,
(t-t_0)^{1/3}\,,$$ and we get the inequality $$\dot I(t)\leq \alpha_1(t-t_0)^{1/3}+
\alpha_2\,I(t)^{1/4}+\alpha_3$$ for some positive constants $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$ and $\alpha_3$. Finally, dividing by $I(t)^{1/4}$ and using again theorem \[Ilowerbound\] we get $$g(t)=\dot I(t)\,I(t)^{-1/4}\leq
\alpha_1\alpha_0^{-1/4}+\alpha_2+
\alpha_3\alpha_0^{-1/4}(t-t_0)^{-1/3}$$ from which we conclude that the function $g$ is bounded.
We can now deduce the following two corollaries
\[Iuperbound\] If $x:[t_0,+\infty)\to\Omega$ is a free time minimizer then there is a constant $\beta>0$ such that $I(t)\leq \beta\, t^{4/3}$.
By the previous proposition we know that there is a positive constant $\beta_0$ such that $\dot I\,I^{-1/4}<\beta_0$. Integrating between $t_0$ and $t>t_0$ we get $$\frac{4}{3}\,(I(t)^{3/4}-I(t_0)^{3/4})
\leq \beta_0(t-t_0)$$ hence $$I(t)\leq (\beta_1(t-t_0)+\beta_2)^{4/3}$$ for some positive constants $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$. Therefore $I(t)\,t^{-4/3}$ must be bounded.
\[UandI\] If $\dim E\geq 2$, and $x:[t_0,+\infty)\to E^N$ is a free time minimizer, then $$U(t)\sim \alpha\,t^{-2/3} \;\;\;\textit{ and }
\;\;\;I(t)\sim (9/4)\,\alpha\, t^{4/3}\,,$$ for some positive constant $\alpha>0$.
By lemma \[fixedCM\] we know that $G(x(t))$ is constant. If we call $G$ this constant vector of $E$, $\delta_G=(G,\dots,G)\in E^N$ the configuration of total collision at $G$, and we write $y(t)=x(t)-\delta_G$ for the *internal motion* of $x$, then it is well known or easy to check that:
1. $y:[t_0,+\infty)\to E^N$ is also a free time minimizer,
2. $G(y(t))=0$ for all $t\geq t_0$,
3. $I(x(t))=M\norm{G}^2+I(y(t))$ where $M=m_1+\dots+m_N$ is the total mass, and
4. $U(x(t))=U(y(t))$ for all $t\geq t_0$.
In particular, Marchal’s theorem implies that $y(t)\in\Omega$ for every $t>t_0$ and we can apply corollary \[Iuperbound\] to the curve $y(t)$. The proof follows then from Pollard’s theorem \[PollardAlternative\].
Suppose that $x:[t_0,+\infty)\to E^N$ is a free time minimizer and that $\dim E\geq 2$. By corollary \[UandI\] we have that $U(t)\to 0$. This implies that all mutual distances $r_{ij}(t)$ tend to infinity. Moreover, since by lemma \[zeroenergy\] we know that the energy of the motion is zero, we also have that $T(t)\to 0$, which is equivalent to say that $\dot r_i(t)\to 0$ for all $i=1,\dots,N$.
Suppose that $x:(-\infty,+\infty)\to E^N$ is a free time minimizer and that $\dim E\geq 2$. Since $I(t)>0$ the normalized configuration $u(t)=I(t)^{-1/2}x(t)$ is well defined for all $t\in\R$. The set of normal configurations $S=\set{x\in E^N\mid I(x)=1}$ is compact, therefore there should be an increasing sequence of positive integers $(n_k)_{k\geq 0}$ and normal configurations $a,b\in S$ such that $\lim u(-n_k)=a$ and $\lim u(n_k)=b$. Note that application of corollary \[UandI\] we know that there are positive constants $\alpha,\beta>0$ such that $I(t)\sim \alpha^2\,t^{4/3}$ for $t\to -\infty$ and $I(t)\sim \beta^2\,t^{4/3}$ for $t\to +\infty$.
To each $k\geq 0$ we will associate a free time minimizer defined on the interval $[-1, 1]$ using corollary \[inv-rescalingFTM\] and the restriction of $x$ to the interval $[-n_k,n_k]$. Thus the sequence of free time minimizers is given by $$\gamma_k:[-1,1]\to E^N\;\;\;
\gamma_k(t)=n_k^{-2/3}x(n_k\,t)\,.$$ Hence we have $$\lim \gamma_k(-1)=
\lim (n_k^{-2/3}I(-n_k)^{1/2}).
\lim u(-n_k)=\alpha\, a\,,$$ and $$\lim \gamma_k(1)=
\lim (n_k^{-2/3}I(n_k)^{1/2}).
\lim u(n_k)=\beta\, b\,.$$ Since for each $k\geq 0$ the curve $\gamma_k$ is a free time minimizer, we have that $$\lim A(\gamma_k)=
\lim\phi(\gamma_k(-1),\gamma_k(1))=
\phi(\alpha\,a,\beta\,b)\,.$$ Therefore we can apply proposition \[subsequence\], and we deduce that there is a subsequence of $(\gamma_k)_{k\geq 0}$ which converges uniformly to some free time minimizer $\gamma:[-1,1]\to E^N$. In particular, we must have $A(\gamma)=\phi(\alpha\,a,\beta\,b)$ and $\gamma(0)=0$, but this is impossible because it contradicts Marchal’s theorem.
*Acknowledgments.* The first author would like to thank Soledad Villar for her infinite patience, support and for her useful advise. The second author would like to express its gratitude to Alain Chenciner, Albert Fathi, Christian Marchal, Susanna Terracini and Andrea Venturelli for very helpful discussions and comments on the subject. Finally, we thank the referee for providing constructive comments and help in improving the contents of this paper.
[99]{}
A smooth pseudo-gradient for the Lagrangian action functional. *Adv. Nonlinear Stud.* **9** (2009), no. 4, 597–623.
Entire parabolic trajectories as minimial phase transitions. *Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations*, to appear (2011).
Entire parabolic trajectories: the planar anisotropic Kepler problem. [*Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.* ]{}, to appear (2011).
Action minimizing solutions of the Newtonian $n$-body problem: from homology to symmetry. *Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. III (Beijing, 2002)*, 279–294, Higher Ed. Press, Beijing, 2002.
Collisions totales, mouvements complètement paraboliques et réduction des homothéties dans le problème des $n$ corps. (French) J. Moser at 70 (Russian). Regul. Chaotic Dyn. **3** (1998), no. 3, 93–106.
Action potential and weak KAM solutions. *Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations* **13** (2001), no. 4, 427–458.
Connecting orbits between static classes for generic Lagrangian systems. *Topology* **41** (2002), no. 4, 645–666.
Weak KAM theorem on non compact manifolds. [*NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl.* ]{}**14** (2007), no. 1-2, 1–27.
On the existence of collisionless equivariant minimizers for the classical $n$-body problem. *Invent. Math.* **155** (2004), no. 2, 305–362.
On weak KAM theory for $N$-body problems. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam.* ]{}**32** (2012) no. 3, 1019–1041.
Translation invariance of weak KAM solutions of the Newtonian $N$-body problem. (2011) [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* ]{}, in press.
Globally minimizing parabolic motions in the $N$-body Problem. [*Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.* ]{}**194** (2009), no. 1, 283–313.
Lagrangian flows: the dynamics of globally minimizing orbits. *Bol. Soc. Brasil. Mat. (N.S.)* **28** (1997), no. 2, 141–153.
How the method of minimization of action avoids singularities. [*Celestial Mech. Dynam. Astronom.* ]{}**83** (2002), no. 1-4, 325–353.
On the final evolution of the $n$-body problem. [*J. Differential Equations* ]{}**20** (1976), no. 1, 150–186.
Action minimizing invariant measures for positive definite Lagrangian systems. *Math. Z.* **207** (1991) no. 2, 169–207.
The behavior of gravitational systems. *J. Math. Mech.* **17** (1967), 601–611.
Expanding gravitational systems. *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **156** (1971), 219–240.
The analytical foundations of Celestial Mechanics. *Princeton Mathematical Series, Vol. 5*. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1941.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We compute the evolution of interstellar dust in a hydrodynamic simulation of an isolated disc galaxy. We newly implement the evolution of full grain size distribution by sampling 32 grid points on the axis of the grain radius. We solve it consistently with the chemical enrichment and hydrodynamic evolution of the galaxy. This enables us to theoretically investigate spatially resolved evolution of grain size distribution in a galaxy. The grain size distribution evolves from a large-grain-dominated ($\gtrsim 0.1~\micron$) phase to a small-grain production phase, eventually converging to a power-law-like grain size distribution similar to the so-called MRN distribution. We find that the small-grain abundance is higher in the dense ISM in the early epoch ($t\lesssim 1$ Gyr) because of efficient dust growth by accretion, while coagulation makes the small-grain abundance less enhanced in the dense ISM later. This leads to steeper extinction curves in the dense ISM than in the diffuse ISM in the early phase, while they show the opposite trend later. The radial trend [of extinction curves]{} is described by faster evolution in the inner part. We also confirm that the simulation reproduces the observed relation between dust-to-gas ratio and metallicity, and the radial gradients of dust-to-gas ratio and dust-to-metal ratio [in nearby galaxies]{}. Since the above change in the grain size distribution occurs in $t\sim 1$ Gyr, the age and density dependence of grain size distribution has a significant impact on the extinction curves even at high redshift.'
author:
- |
Shohei Aoyama,$^{1}$[^1] Hiroyuki Hirashita,$^{1}$ and Kentaro Nagamine$^{2,3,4}$\
$^{1}$ Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Academia Sinica, Astronomy-Mathematics Building, AS/NTU, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei 10617, Taiwan\
$^{2}$ Theoretical Astrophysics, Department of Earth & Space Science, Osaka University, 1-1 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan\
$^{3}$ Kavli IPMU (WPI), The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 277-8583, Japan\
$^{4}$ Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy, Las Vegas, NV 89154-4002, USA
bibliography:
- 'ken.bib'
date: 'Last updated \*\*\*'
title: Galaxy simulation with the evolution of grain size distribution
---
\[firstpage\]
methods: numerical – dust, extinction – galaxies: evolution – galaxies: ISM – galaxies: spiral.
Introduction
============
Dust grains contained in the interstellar medium (ISM) evolve together with galaxies. Dust plays an important role at various stages of galaxy evolution in the following aspects. Molecular hydrogen, which is the main constituent of molecular clouds, forms on dust surfaces. Thus, dust enrichment induces an environment rich in molecular clouds that eventually host star formation [@2002MNRAS.337..921H; @2004ApJ...604..222C; @2011ApJ...735...44Y]. In addition, dust also acts as a coolant in the late stages of star formation, inducing the fragmentation of gas clouds [@2005ApJ...626..627O] [. This]{} determines the typical mass of stars [@2006MNRAS.369.1437S] and the shape stellar initial mass function (IMF) [e.g. @2012MNRAS.419.1642C]. All the above processes occur on grain surfaces. The total grain surface area is governed not only by the grain abundance but also by the distribution function of grain size (grain size distribution); therefore, the evolution of these two aspects of dust grains is fundamentally important for the thorough understanding of galaxy evolution.
Dust is also important in radiative processes. Dust grains absorb ultraviolet (UV)–optical stellar light and reemit infrared (IR) photons. Thus, the spectral energy distribution (SED) is dramatically changed by dust grains . This means that a part of star formation activities in galaxies are obscured by dust. This obscured fraction is only recovered by the observations of IR dust emission; thus, tracing the dust emission is crucial in estimating the total star formation rate (SFR) . Because the absorption efficiency of UV photons depends strongly on the grain size distribution through the extinction curve as well as on the total dust abundance [e.g. @2001PASP..113.1449C], the two aspects of dust (namely, the total dust abundance and the grain size distribution) are important in understanding galaxy evolution.
A comprehensive model that computes the evolution of grain size distribution has been developed by [@2013MNRAS.432..637A], who took into account all major processes that drive the change of grain size distribution in a one-zone model of a galaxy. Dust condenses from the metals ejected from supernovae (SNe) [e.g. @1989ApJ...344..325K; @2001MNRAS.325..726T; @2003ApJ...598..785N; @2007MNRAS.378..973B; @2007ApJ...666..955N] and asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars . This dust production by stellar sources is the starting point of dust evolution. Calculations of dust condensation and processing in stellar ejecta indicate that grains are biased to large sizes ($a\gtrsim 0.1~\micron$, where $a$ is the grain radius) [@2007ApJ...666..955N; @2012ApJ...745..159Y; @2017MNRAS.467.4431D]. Subsequently, dust grains are processed in the ISM as described by [@2013MNRAS.432..637A] and @2019MNRAS.482.2555H [hereafter HA19]. The interstellar processing starts with shattering, which gradually converts large grains into small ones. As the system is enriched with metals, the accretion of gas-phase metals onto dust grains becomes efficient in the dense ISM. This causes a drastic increase of [ the grain abundance at $a\lesssim 0.03~\micron$]{} because small grains have larger surface-to-volume ratios (recall that the accretion rate is proportional to the grain surface area). Accretion is saturated when a significant fraction of gas-phase metals are used up; and subsequently, coagulation converts small grains into large grains, smoothing the grain size distribution towards a power-law shape similar to the @1977ApJ...217..425M [hereafter MRN] grain size distribution.
In reality, the evolution of dust is strongly affected by the ambient physical condition such as gas metallicity, temperature, and density. Although [@2013MNRAS.432..637A] succeeded in calculating the evolution of grain size distribution, their one-zone model is not capable of treating the spatial variation of dust evolution that depends on the ISM conditions. The evolution of ISM is governed by hydrodynamical processes. Thus, hydrodynamic simulations have been used to study the evolution of ISM in galaxies [e.g. @2007ApJ...660..276W; @2008PASJ...60..667S; @2014MNRAS.442.3745M; @2014ApJS..210...14K; @2016ApJ...833..202K; @2019arXiv190508806M; @2019MNRAS.490.1425L; @2019arXiv190907388G]. For the purpose of considering the effects of ISM evolution on dust properties, it would be ideal to treat dust evolution in a manner consistent with the hydrodynamical development of the ISM. However, it is in general computationally expensive to implement the evolution of grain size distribution in already heavy hydrodynamic simulations.
In the past, most hydrodynamic simulations with dust evolution calculated only the total dust abundance without grain size distribution. [@2010MNRAS.403..620D] post-processed a cosmological hydrodynamic simulation with a dust evolution model which includes stellar dust production and SN destruction, and calculated the expected submillimetre fluxes for high-redshift star-forming galaxies. [@2015MNRAS.451..418Y], using a cosmological zoom-in simulation, calculated the dust distribution in high-redshift galaxies by simply assuming a constant dust-to-metal ratio. [@2015MNRAS.449.1625B] treated dust as a new particle species in addition to the gas, dark matter and star particles in their hydrodynamic simulations. In order to calculate the evolution of dust in galaxies, they included not only the formation and destruction of dust, but also the effect of dust on star formation and stellar feedback. [@2016MNRAS.457.3775M] performed cosmological zoom-in simulations by modelling dust as a component coupled with the gas. They included the processes relevant for the formation and evolution of dust, and revealed the importance of dust growth by the accretion of gas-phase metals. In addition, [@2017MNRAS.468.1505M] ran cosmological simulations to calculate the statistical properties of dust in galaxies. They broadly reproduced the dust abundances in the present-day galaxies, although they tended to underestimate those in high-redshift dusty galaxies. [@2016ApJ...831..147Z] analysed the dust evolution in an isolated Milky-Way-like galaxy by post-processing a hydrodynamic simulation. They put particular focus on the effect of gas-temperature-dependent sticking coefficient on dust growth by accretion, in order to reproduce the relation between silicon depletion and gas density. [@2019MNRAS.487.3252H] simulated the dust evolution in the ISM, focusing on dust destruction by sputtering. Although they did not trace the entire galaxy, their focus on a small region in the ISM enabled them to resolve the structures associated with SN shocks. We also note that there are some non-hydrodynamic approaches using semi-analytic models that predicted the evolution of dust mass in galaxies [@2017MNRAS.471.3152P; @2014MNRAS.445.3039D; @2018MNRAS.473.4538G; @2019MNRAS.489.4072V].
@2017MNRAS.466..105A [hereafter A17] implemented a two-size grain model in the cosmological smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gadget3-osaka</span> (A17; @2019MNRAS.484.2632S), which is a modified version of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gadget-3</span> [originally described in @2005MNRAS.364.1105S as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gadget-2</span>]. Their treatment of dust is based on the *two-size approximation* [@2015MNRAS.447.2937H], in which the entire grain radius range is divided into ‘large’ and ‘small’ grains. The two-size approximation reduces the computational cost in calculating the evolution of grain size distribution, so that it is easily implemented in hydrodynamic simulations. A17 performed simulations of a Milky-Way-like isolated galaxy, and explained the radial distribution of the total dust abundance of nearby galaxies in [@2012MNRAS.423...38M]. A17 also predicted a variation of grain size distribution along the galactic radius. [@2017MNRAS.469..870H] took advantage of the grain size information in A17 and investigated the temporal and spatial variation of extinction curves. They also examined the dependence of extinction curves on metallicity. They found that extinction curves become steeper at the intermediate age and metallicity when the dust abundance is strongly modified by the accretion of gas-phase metals, and at low densities where shattering is more efficient than coagulation. Using the same simulation, [@2018MNRAS.474.1545C] calculated the abundance of H$_2$ and CO in a consistent manner with the dust abundance and grain size distribution, which govern the grain-surface reaction rates and UV shielding. They found that H$_2$ is not a good tracer of SFR at low metallicity because H$_2$-rich regions are limited to dense compact regions.
The above framework with the two-size approximation has also been applied to cosmological simulations [@2018MNRAS.478.4905A; @2018MNRAS.479.2588G; @2019MNRAS.484.1852A; @2019MNRAS.485.1727H]. For example, [@2018MNRAS.478.4905A] explained the observed relation between dust-to-gas ratio and metallicity, the evolution of the comoving dust mass density in the Universe, and the radial profile of dust surface density around massive galaxies. [@2019MNRAS.485.1727H], using the same simulation setup but including a simple treatment for active galactic nucleus feedback, focused on the relations between dust-related quantities and galaxy characteristics. They broadly reproduced the statistical properties such as the dust mass function and the relation between dust-to-gas ratio and metallicity in the nearby Universe. They also investigated extinction curves. However, because these results are based on the two-size approximation, the accuracy of extinction curve is limited. [There is another approach for the evolution of grain size distribution based on the method of moments formulated by [@MATTSSON2016107]. This method is powerful in calculating the processes related to the moments of grain size distribution such as the total grain surface area. However, it is still difficult to calculate the extinction curves. An explicit solution for the full grain size distribution enables us to directly calculate the extinction curves as well as other quantities (e.g. the surface area) that require grain size information. ]{}
Recently, there have been some efforts to directly solve the evolution of full grain size distribution in galaxy-scale hydrodynamic simulations. [@2018MNRAS.478.2851M] developed a computational code that solves the evolution of full grain size distribution in an adaptive mesh hydrodynamic simulation code, [AREPO]{} [@2010MNRAS.401..791S]. They showed some test calculations of an isolated galaxy, but realistic calculations to be compared with observations need further implementation of, for example, stellar feedback. @2019MNRAS.482.2555H [hereafter HA19] took another approach to solve the evolution of full grain size distribution. They post-processed an isolated-galaxy simulation: they chose some SPH gas particles and derived the evolution of grain size distribution on each particle based on its history of physical conditions (mainly gas density, temperature, and metallicity). They successfully derived the grain size distribution similar to the MRN distribution at ages comparable to the Milky Way ($\gtrsim 3$ Gyr). However, because their calculation was based on post-processing, the results may depend on the frequency of snapshots; that is, we cannot capture the change of physical conditions shorter than the output snapshot interval ($10^{7}$ yr in the above post-processing). Indeed, the processes occurring in dense environments such as coagulation and accretion could have a shorter characteristic time-scales in metal-rich regions (A17). To obtain robust results against such potentially quick processes, we need to solve the evolution of grain size distribution and that of hydrodynamical structures simultaneously.
The goal of this paper is to implement the evolution of full grain size distribution directly in a hydrodynamic simulation to obtain a self-consistent view of grain size distribution with ISM evolution. We use an isolated-galaxy simulation, which could achieve a higher spatial resolution of the ISM compared with cosmological simulations. Two improvements with respect to previous studies are expected: one is direct knowledge of full grain size distribution without relying on the two-size approximation. This leads to a better understanding of the quantities for which the grain size distribution is essential (such as extinction curves). The other is a better capability of treating the dust growth processes (accretion and coagulation), which could occur quickly. Such quick processes cannot be captured robustly by post-processing so that a simultaneous calculation of grain size distribution and hydrodynamics is essential.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:model\], we introduce the calculation method for the grain size distribution and the scheme of the simulation. In Section \[sec:result\], we show the results and comparison with observations. In Section \[sec:discussion\], we provide additional discussions. Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes this paper. Throughout this paper, we adopt the solar metallicity $Z_{\sun}=0.02$ for the convenience of direct comparison with our previous simulations. We also use the terms ‘small’ and ‘large’ grain radius to roughly indicate the grain radius smaller and larger than $\sim 0.03~\micron$.
Model {#sec:model}
=====
Hydrodynamic simulation
-----------------------
We perform a hydrodynamic simulation of an isolated galaxy using the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gadget3-osaka</span> [A17; @2019MNRAS.484.2632S], which is based on the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gadget-3</span> code [originally described in @2005MNRAS.364.1105S]. In our simulation, the star formation and metal/dust production are treated consistently with gravitational/hydrodynamic evolution of a Milky-Way-like isolated galaxy. Dust grains are assumed to be coupled with gas particles (Section \[subsec:size\_distribution\]).
Our present run corresponds to the M12 run in @2019MNRAS.484.2632S, and the total mass of isolated galaxy is $\sim 10^{12}~{\rm M}_{\sun}$. We employ $10^5$ dark matter particles, $10^5$ gas (SPH) particles, $10^5$ and $1.25\times 10^4$ collisionless particles that represent stars in the disc and the bulge, respectively. We adopt a fixed gravitational softening length of $\epsilon_{\rm grav} = 80$pc, but allow the minimum gas smoothing length to reach 10 percent of $\epsilon_{\rm grav}$. The final gas smoothing length reaches $\sim 30$pc as the gas becomes denser owing to radiative cooling.
The difference between this paper and A17 is as follows. We additionally include the metal/dust supply and the feedback from AGB stars. We use the [CELib]{} package [@2017AJ....153...85S] for metal generation and follow 13 chemical abundances (H, He, C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, Ca, Fe, Ni, and Eu). The ejection of metals and energy from stars are treated separately for SNe Ia, II, and AGB stars as a function of time after the onset of star formation. The delay-time distribution function of SN Ia rate is modeled with a power-law of $t^{-1}$ [@2008PASJ...60.1327T; @2012PASA...29..447M]. In comparison, in A17, the metal and dust were injected instantaneously after 4Myr from the onset of star formation, whose masses were simply proportional to the stellar mass. For more details of the stellar feedback with CELib in our simulations, we refer the interested reader to @2019MNRAS.484.2632S. We further describe the dust enrichment by stellar sources in the next subsection.
Evolution of grain size distribution {#subsec:size_distribution}
------------------------------------
We use the same model as in HA19 for the evolution of grain size distribution. The model is based on [@2013MNRAS.432..637A], but with simplifications that do not lose the physical essence of the relevant processes. These simplifications are useful for the implementation in hydrodynamic simulations. For the dust evolution processes, we consider stellar dust production, dust destruction by SN shocks in the ISM, dust growth by accretion and coagulation in the dense ISM, and dust disruption by shattering in the diffuse ISM. We assume that the dust grains are dynamically coupled with the gas, which is usually valid on the spatial scales of interest in this paper [@2018MNRAS.478.2851M]. In what follows, we only describe the outline of the model to be implemented for individual SPH gas particles (hereafter, referred to simply as gas particles). We refer the interested reader to HA19 for the complete set of equations and the details.
The grain size distribution at time $t$ is expressed by the grain mass distribution $\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)$, which is defined such that $\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)\,\mathrm{d}m$ ($m$ is the grain mass and $t$ is the time) is the mass density of dust grains whose mass is between $m$ and $m+\mathrm{d}m$. We assume grains to be spherical and compact, so that $m=(4\upi /3)a^3s$, where $a$ is the grain radius and $s$ is the material density of dust. We adopt $s=3.5$ g cm$^{-3}$ based on silicate in [@2001ApJ...548..296W]. The grain mass distribution is related to the grain size distribution, $n(a,\, t)$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)\,\mathrm{d}m=\frac{4}{3}\upi a^3sn(a)\,\mathrm{d}a.
\label{eq:rho_n}\end{aligned}$$ The total dust mass density $\rho_\mathrm{d,tot}(t)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_\mathrm{d,tot}(t)=\int_0^\infty\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)\,\mathrm{d}m.\end{aligned}$$ The gas density, $\rho_{\rm gas}$, is given by the number density of hydrogen nuclei, $n_\mathrm{H}$ as $\rho_\mathrm{gas}=\mu m_\mathrm{H}n_\mathrm{H}$ ($\mu =1.4$ is the gas mass per hydrogen, and $m_\mathrm{H}$ is the mass of hydrogen atom). The dust-to-gas ratio, $\mathcal{D}(t)$, is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{tot}(t)\equiv\frac{\rho_\mathrm{d,tot}(t)}{\rho_\mathrm{gas}(t)}.\label{eq:dg}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the evolution of $\rho_\mathrm{gas}$ is calculated by the hydrodynamic simulation for each gas particle.
The time-evolution of $\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)$ is described by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\upartial\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)}{\upartial t} &=
\left[\frac{\upartial\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)}{\upartial t}\right]_\mathrm{star}+
\left[\frac{\upartial\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)}{\upartial t}\right]_\mathrm{sput}
\nonumber\\
&+
\left[\frac{\upartial\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)}{\upartial t}\right]_\mathrm{acc}+
\left[\frac{\upartial\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)}{\upartial t}\right]_\mathrm{shat}
\nonumber\\
&+
\left[\frac{\upartial\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)}{\upartial t}\right]_\mathrm{coag}
+\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)\frac{\mathrm{d}\ln\rho_\mathrm{gas}}{\mathrm{d}t},
\label{eq:basic}\end{aligned}$$ where the terms with subscripts ‘star’, ‘sput’, ‘acc’, ‘shat’ and ‘coag’ indicate the changing rates of grain mass distribution by stellar dust production, sputtering, accretion, shattering, and coagulation, respectively, and the last term is caused by the change of background gas density. Below we briefly describe each term. We actually solve discrete forms and adopt 32 grid points for the discrete grain size distribution in the range of $3\times 10^{-4} -10\,\micron$.
### Stellar dust production {#subsec:stellar}
We estimate the increase of dust mass by stellar dust production, assuming a constant dust condensation efficiency, $f_\mathrm{in}=0.1$, of the ejected metals . [Using the metal production rate per volume, $\dot{\rho}_{\rm Z}$, calculated in the simulations,]{} we write the change of the grain size distribution by stellar dust production as $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\frac{\upartial\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)}{\upartial t}\right]_\mathrm{star}=
f_\mathrm{in}\dot{\rho}_Z\, m\tilde{\varphi} (m),\label{eq:stellar}\end{aligned}$$ where $m\tilde{\varphi} (m)$ is the mass distribution function of the dust grains produced by stars, and it is normalized so that the integration for the whole grain mass range is unity. The grain size distribution of the dust grains produced by stars \[which is related to the above mass distribution as $\varphi (a)\,\mathrm{d}a\equiv\tilde{\varphi}(m)\,\mathrm{d}m$\] is written as $$\begin{aligned}
{\varphi}(a)=\frac{C_\varphi}{a}\exp\left\{
-\frac{[\ln (a/a_0)]^2}{2\sigma^2}\right\} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_\varphi$ is the normalization factor, $\sigma$ is the standard deviation, and $a_0$ is the central grain radius. We adopt $\sigma =0.47$ and $a_0=0.1\,\micron$ following [@2013MNRAS.432..637A].
### Dust destruction and growth {#subsubsec:destruction}
As shown by HA19, dust destruction by sputtering in SN shocks and dust growth by accretion are both described by the following same form of equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\frac{\upartial\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)}{\upartial t}\right]_\mathrm{sput/acc}
=-\frac{\upartial}{\upartial m}[\dot{m}\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)]+
\frac{\dot{m}}{m}\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t).\label{eq:sputtering}\end{aligned}$$ where $\dot{m}\equiv\mathrm{d}m/\mathrm{d}t$. We estimate that $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{m}=\xi (t)m/\tau_\mathrm{dest/acc}(m),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_\mathrm{dest/acc}(m)$ is the grain-mass-dependent time-scale of destruction or accretion. In the actual computations, we solve the effects of destruction and accretion, separately. For destruction, we formally choose $\xi (t)=-1$. For accretion, $\xi (t)$ is the fraction of metals in the gas-phase \[i.e. the fraction $(1-\xi )$ is condensed into the dust phase\]. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\xi (t) \equiv
\begin{cases}
1-\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}\slash Z\,\,&{(\rm accretion)},\\
-1\,\, &{(\rm destruction)},
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $Z$ is the metallicity.
The destruction time-scale $\tau_\mathrm{dest}(m)$ is estimated based on the sweeping time-scale divided by the grain-mass-dependent destruction efficiency as [e.g. @1989IAUS..135..431M] $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_\mathrm{dest}(m)=
\frac{M_\mathrm{gas}}{\epsilon_\mathrm{dest}(m)M_\mathrm{s}\gamma},
\label{eq:tau_dest}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_\mathrm{gas}$ is the mass of the gas particle of interest, $M_\mathrm{s}=6800$ M$_{\sun}$ is the gas mass swept by a single SN blast, $\gamma$ is the rate of SNe sweeping the gas, $\epsilon_{\rm dest} (m)$ is the dust destruction efficiency as a function of grain mass. We adopt the following empirical expression for the destruction efficiency (described as a function of $a$ instead of $m$):[^2] $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{\rm dest}(a)=1-\exp\left[-0.1\left(\frac{a}{0.1\,\micron}\right)^{-1}\right] .
\label{eq:eps}\end{aligned}$$
For accretion, the growth time-scale is estimated as (we fixed the sticking efficiency $S=0.3$ in HA19) $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_\mathrm{acc}(m) &= \frac{1}{3} \tau^\prime_\mathrm{0,acc}\left(\frac{a}{0.1~\micron}
\right)\left(\frac{Z}{\mathrm{Z}_{\sun}}\right)^{-1}
\left(\frac{n_\mathrm{H}}{10^3\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}
\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{T_\mathrm{gas}}{10\,\mathrm{K}}
\right)^{-1/2},
\label{eq:tau_acc}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau^\prime_\mathrm{0,acc}$ is a constant [we adopt $\tau^\prime_\mathrm{0,acc}=1.61\times 10^8$yr appropriate for silicate, but the value for graphite has little difference; @2012MNRAS.422.1263H], and $T_\mathrm{gas}$ is the gas temperature.
### Shattering and coagulation {#subsubsec:shattering}
Shattering and coagulation are described by grain–grain collisions followed by the redistribution of fragments or coagulated grains [@1994ApJ...433..797J; @1996ApJ...469..740J; @2009MNRAS.394.1061H]. Shattering is assumed to occur only in the diffuse medium ($n_\mathrm{H}<1$cm$^{-3}$) where the grain velocities are high enough. For coagulation, since we cannot spatially resolve the dense and cold medium where it occurs, we adopt a sub-grid model. We assume that coagulation occurs in gas particles which satisfy $n_\mathrm{H}>10$cm$^{-3}$ and $T_\mathrm{gas}<1000$K, and that a mass fraction of $f_\mathrm{dense}=0.5$ of such a dense particle is condensed into dense clouds, hosting coagulation, with $n_\mathrm{H}=10^3$cm$^{-3}$ and $T_\mathrm{gas}=50$K on subgrid scales.
The time evolution of grain size distribution by shattering or coagulation is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\frac{\partial\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)}{\partial t}\right]_\mathrm{shat/coag}
= -m\rho_\mathrm{d}(m,\, t)\int_0^\infty\alpha (m_1,\, m)\rho_\mathrm{d}(m_1,\, t)
\mathrm{d}m_1\nonumber\\
+ \int_0^\infty\int_0^\infty\alpha (m_1,\, m_2)\rho_\mathrm{d}(m_1,\, t)\rho_\mathrm{d}(m_2,\, t)
\mu_\mathrm{shat/coag}(m;\, m_1,\, m_2)\mathrm{d}m_1
\mathrm{d}m_2,\label{eq:shat}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_\mathrm{shat/coag}$ describes the grain mass distribution function of newly formed shattered fragments or coagulated grains, and $\alpha$ is expressed in collisions between grains with masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ (radii $a_1$ and $a_2$, respectively) as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha (m_1,\, m_2)\equiv\frac{\sigma_{1,2}v_{1,2}}{m_1m_2},\label{eq:alpha}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_{1,2}=\upi (a_1+a_2)^2$ and $v_{1,2}$ are the collisional cross-section and the relative velocity between the two grains (we explain how to evaluate $v_{1,2}$ later).
We adopt the following formula for the grain velocity in a turbulent medium: $$\begin{aligned}
v_\mathrm{gr}(a) &= 1.1\mathcal{M}^{3/2}\left(
\frac{a}{0.1~\micron}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{T_\mathrm{gas}}{10^4~\mathrm{K}}\right)^{1/4}
\left(\frac{n_\mathrm{H}}{1~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}
\right)^{-1/4}\nonumber\\
&\times \left(\frac{s}{3.5~\mathrm{g~cm}^{-3}}\right)^{1/2}~\mathrm{km~s}^{-1},
\label{eq:vel}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{M}$ is the Mach number of the largest-eddy velocity. We adopt $\mathcal{M}=3$ for shattering and $\mathcal{M}=1$ for coagulation to effectively achieve the grain velocity levels suggested by [@2004ApJ...616..895Y]. In considering the collision rate between two grains with $v_\mathrm{gr}=v_1$ and $v_2$, we estimate the relative velocity $v_{1,2}$ by $v_{1,2}=(v_1^2+v_2^2-2v_1v_2\mu_{1,2})^{1/2}$, where $\mu =\cos\theta$ ($\theta$ is an angle between the two grain velocities) is randomly chosen between $-1$ and 1 in every calculation of $\alpha$. The above expression for the velocity (with $\mathcal{M}=1$) was originally derived by who assumed the maximum eddy size to be the Jeans length and the maximum velocity dispersion to be the sound velocity. We simply use their functional form for the purpose of avoiding grain velocity calculations in every time-step, but modify it to scale the maximum velocity (with the Mach number) to match with the velocity scale adopted for our previously adopted models based on [@2004ApJ...616..895Y]. As shown by , detailed dependence of grain velocities on the grain radius is not essential, but the overall velocity level is more important. [ In particular, it is essential that large ($a\gtrsim 0.1~\micron$) grains attain velocities higher than a few km s$^{-1}$ in the diffuse ISM, since shattering, which plays an important role in the first production of small grains, does not occur otherwise. We will surely need to combine our simulation with direct dust motion calculations [e.g. @2016MNRAS.456.4174H; @2018MNRAS.478.2851M] to check if the velocity levels assumed here are actually achieved. Because of the huge computational cost required, we leave this for a future work.]{}
For shattering, the total mass of the fragments is estimated following [@2010Icar..206..735K]. We consider a collision of two dust grains with masses $m_1$ and $m_2$. The total mass of the fragments ejected from $m_1$ is estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
m_\mathrm{ej}=\frac{\phi}{1+\phi}m_1,\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi\equiv{E_\mathrm{imp}}/(m_1Q_\mathrm{D}^\star)$ \[$E_\mathrm{imp}=\frac{1}{2}{m_1m_2}v_\mathrm{1,2}^2/(m_1+m_2)$ is the impact energy and $Q_\mathrm{D}^\star$ is the specific impact energy that causes the catastrophic disruption (i.e. the disrupted mass is $m_1/2$)\]. We adopt $Q_\mathrm{D}^\star =4.3\times 10^{10}$ cm$^2$ s$^{-2}$ (valid for silicate).[^3] Now we set the grain size distribution of shattered fragments. The maximum and minimum grain masses of the fragments are assumed to be $m_\mathrm{f,max}=0.02m_\mathrm{ej}$ and $m_\mathrm{f,min}=10^{-6}m_\mathrm{f,max}$, respectively . We adopt the following fragment mass distribution including the remnant of mass $m_1-m_\mathrm{ej}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_\mathrm{shat}(m,\, m_1,\, m_2) &=
\frac{(4-\alpha_\mathrm{f})m_\mathrm{ej}m^{(-\alpha_\mathrm{f}+1)/3}}{3\left[
m_\mathrm{f,max}^\frac{4-\alpha_\mathrm{f}}{3}-
m_\mathrm{f,min}^\frac{4-\alpha_\mathrm{f}}{3}\right]}\,
\Phi (m;\, m_\mathrm{f,min},\, m_\mathrm{f,mmax})\nonumber\\
&+ (m_1-m_\mathrm{ej})\delta (m-m_1+m_\mathrm{ej}),\label{eq:frag}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi (m;\, m_\mathrm{f,min},\, m_\mathrm{f,mmax})=1$ if $m_\mathrm{f,min}<m<m_\mathrm{f,mmax}$, and 0 otherwise, $\delta $ is Dirac’s delta function, and $\alpha_{\rm f}$ is the power-law index of the fragment size distribution ($\alpha_{\rm f} = 3.3$; @1996ApJ...469..740J). Grains whose radii are smaller than the minimum grain radius ($3\times 10^{-4}~\micron$) are removed.
For coagulation, we adopt $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_\mathrm{coag}=m_1\delta (m-m_1-m_2)\end{aligned}$$ in equation (\[eq:shat\]).
Calculation of extinction curves {#subsec:ext}
--------------------------------
Extinction curves describe the wavelength dependence of the optical depth of dust. Extinction curves have been useful in constraining the grain size distribution [e.g. @2001ApJ...548..296W]. Here, we calculate extinction curves based on the grain size distributions, $n_{i}(a)$, where $i$ indicates the composition of the dust grains (we consider multiple compositions as we explain below). The extinction at wavelength $\lambda $ in units of magnitude is written as $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\lambda}=(2.5 \log_{10}\mathrm{e})L\displaystyle\sum_{i}\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\infty}
n_{i}(a)\,\upi a^{2}Q_{\rm ext}(a, \lambda),\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is the path length, $Q_{\rm ext}(a, \lambda)$ is the extinction efficiency factor, which is evaluated by using the Mie theory [@1983asls.book.....B] with the same optical constants for silicate and carbonaceous dust (graphite) as in [@2001ApJ...548..296W]. In this paper, the mass fractions of silicate and carbonaceous dust are fixed to 0.54 and 0.46, respectively (number ratio 0.43:0.57) with both grain species having the same grain size distribution [@2009MNRAS.394.1061H]. Because this fraction is valid only for the Milky Way, we concentrate on the comparison with the Milky Way extinction curve below. For more comprehensive comparison, we need a more sophisticated model of the evolution of grain compositions [@2016PASJ...68...94H], which is left for a future work. To concentrate on the extinction curve shape, the extinction is normalized to the value in the $V$ band ($\lambda ^{-1}=1.8\,\mu {\rm m}^{-1}$); that is, we output $A_\lambda /A_V$ (so that $L$ is cancelled out).
Results {#sec:result}
=======
Evolution of grain size distribution {#evolution-of-grain-size-distribution}
------------------------------------
### Dense and diffuse ISM {#subsubsec:dense_diffuse}
We show the general features in the evolution of grain size distribution. This also serves as a test against the post-processing results in HA19. We choose the gas particles contained in $0<R<7\,{\rm kpc}$ and $|z|<0.3\,{\rm kpc}$, where we adopt a cylindrical coordinate with $R$ and $z$ being the radial and vertical coordinates, respectively ($z=0$ is the disc plane). In order to investigate the dependence on the local physical condition, we divide the gas particles into two categories: the dense (cold) and diffuse (warm) gas. The dense (cold) gas particles are chosen by $T_\mathrm{gas}< 10^{3}$K and $n_\mathrm{H}> 10\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$, while the diffuse (warm) ones by $0.1<n_\mathrm{H}<1$cm$^{-3}$ and $10^3 <T_\mathrm{gas} <10^4$K. These criteria are the same as those adopted by HA19, but HA19 defined these by the physical condition at $t=10$Gyr. We use the physical condition at each snapshot so that our definition in this paper really traces the current dense and diffuse phases. We choose the ages $t=0.3$, 1, and 3Gyr. These ages are basically chosen for comparison with A17. Although A17 also examined $t=10$Gyr snapshot, the snapshot at $t=3$Gyr represents the dust evolution at the oldest stage with a metallicity comparable to the present Milky Way; thus, discussions in this paper do not change even if we choose $t>3$Gyr instead of $t=3$Gyr.
In Fig. \[fig:size\], we show the grain size distributions at each age for the dense and diffuse gas particles separately with the median and 25th and 75th percentiles at each grain radius bin. The dust is dominated by the large grains at young ages ($t\lesssim 0.3$ Gyr) because stellar dust production is the major source of dust. Since star formation tends to be associated with dense regions in the galaxy, the peak in the grain size distribution is higher in the dense medium than in the diffuse medium. This leads to more efficient small-grain production by shattering in the dense gas particles because of higher rates of grain–grain collisions. In the dense ISM, [ the small grains produced by shattering are further processed by accretion, which forms a bump (second peak) at $a\sim 0.01~\micron$. The bump is formed at smaller radii than the main peak because the large surface-to-volume ratios of small grains lead to efficient accretion [@2012MNRAS.424L..34K].]{}
As shown in the middle panel of Fig. \[fig:size\] at $t=1$ Gyr, the grain abundance becomes larger at all grain radii than at $t=0.3$ Gyr, because of further dust enrichment. The increase at small grain radii is more significant than that at large radii because of further dust processing by shattering and accretion. In particular, dust and metal abundances are large enough for efficient accretion at this stage. Therefore, the bump created by accretion around $a\sim 0.01~\micron$ is commonly observed in the grain size distributions. The dense gas particles have more large grains than the diffuse ones for two reasons: one is the same as above (we find more dense gas particles in actively star-forming regions), and the other is more efficient coagulation in the dense ISM. Indeed, we observe that coagulation depletes the smallest grains in the dense ISM.
In the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:size\], we show that at $t=3$ Gyr, the evolutionary trend seen at $t=1$ Gyr is more pronounced. Coagulation further proceeds especially in the dense medium, producing a smooth power-law-like grain size distribution similar to the MRN grain size distribution \[$n(a)\propto a^{-3.5}$\]. The effect of dust growth by accretion is also imprinted in the grain size distribution in the diffuse ISM as seen in the bump around $a\sim 0.01~\micron$. This imprinted bump is caused when these particles were previously included in the dense ISM, [where accretion could take place efficiently if the metallicity is high enough.]{} Because of the variety in the past history, the diffuse gas particles have larger variation in the grain size distribution especially at small grain radii than the dense ones. In some regions as shown in the lower 25th percentile, there is no bump at small grain radii, indicating that accretion has not yet been efficient. Thus, we predict that there is a large variety in the dust abundance in the diffuse ISM.
![Evolution of grain size distribution for the entire galactic disc at $t=0.3$, 1, and 3 Gyr from top to bottom. The blue and red lines show the median grain size distribution in the dense and diffuse gas particles, respectively. The shaded regions show the areas between 25th and 75th percentiles. For the vertical axis, we present the grain size distribution per hydrogen (H) multiplied by $a^{4}$: the resulting quantity is proportional to the grain mass distribution per $\log_{10} a$. The linear (green) solid line marked with ‘MRN’ in the bottom panel shows the power-law slope of the MRN grain size distribution \[$n(a)\propto a^{-3.5}$\]. []{data-label="fig:size"}](fig1){width="\columnwidth"}
### Radial dependence {#subsubsec:radial}
![Grain size distribution at three different galactic radius ranges for the snapshots at $t=0.3, 1.0,$ and 3.0Gyr from top to bottom. The blue (solid), green (dashed) and red (dot-dashed) lines correspond to the radial ranges of $R=1$–3, 3–5, and 5–7kpc, respectively. In order to avoid the overlap of the shades, only median lines are displayed, but the dispersions are similar to those shown in Fig. \[fig:size\]. []{data-label="fig:sizeR"}](fig2){width="\columnwidth"}
We analyze the spatial variation of grain size distribution. In order to concentrate on the dust in the galactic disc, we select the gas particles in $|z|<0.3\,{\rm kpc}$. In Fig. \[fig:sizeR\], we show the radial dependence of the grain size distribution in each snapshot by presenting the median at $R=1$–3, 3–5, and 5–7 kpc. To make the presentation simple, we only plot the median, but we expect similar dispersions to those shown in Fig. \[fig:size\]. At $t=0.3$ Gyr, the grain size distributions in all regions are similar, dominated by large grains produced by stars. The dust abundance is the highest in the centre, which is due to more active star formation and resulting metal enrichment at smaller galactic radii. Small-grain production by shattering is slightly seen only in the inner region, but interstellar processing is not efficient at all radii.
As shown in the middle panel of Fig. \[fig:sizeR\], at $t=1.0$ Gyr, the grain size distributions are significantly modified by interstellar processing. At the outer radii ($R=5$–7 kpc), the grain abundance is still dominated by large grains. At the intermediate radii ($R=3$–5 kpc), accretion enhances the abundance of small grains because accretion time-scale of smaller grains is shorter than that of large ones (Section \[subsubsec:dense\_diffuse\]). The increased small grains also shatters large grains, causing a sharp drop of grain size distribution at $a\gtrsim 0.3~\micron$. At the inner radii ($R=1$–3 kpc), in addition to the two processes above, coagulation is also efficient because the grain abundance and gas density are the highest among the three $R$ ranges. The effect of coagulation is clear in the depletion of the smallest grains and the enhancement of the large grain abundance at $a\gtrsim 0.1~\micron$. We note that the grain size distribution does not change monotonically along the galactic radius: the strongest enhancement of small grains relative to large grains is seen at intermediate radii.
The bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:sizeR\] shows the grain size distributions at $t=3$ Gyr. At this age, the small-grain abundance is enhanced to a similar level at all radii. In this phase, the initially observed log-normal shape is erased by interstellar processing. The inner region has a higher large-grain abundance because of more efficient coagulation. Since the inner region also hosts more efficient accretion, the dust abundance is the highest.
Evolution of dust abundance {#subsec:total}
---------------------------
### Dust-to-gas ratio and metallicity
{width="95.00000%"}
We examine whether the evolution of the total dust abundance is reasonably calculated by our model. The relation between dust-to-gas ratio ($\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{tot}$; equation \[eq:dg\]) and metallicity ($Z$) is often used to test if the dust evolution is correctly treated in a chemical evolution framework [e.g. @1998ApJ...496..145L]. We plot the relation between $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{tot}$ and $Z$ for all gas particles in Fig. \[fig:DZ\]. We also show a simple constant dust-to-metal ratios expected from pure stellar dust production, $\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}= f_{\rm in}Z$ (yellow dashed line), and the saturation limit, $\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}= Z$ (red dot-dashed line).
We observe in Fig. \[fig:DZ\] that a fixed dust-to-metal ratio is a good approximation in the early phase ($t\la 0.1$ Gyr), since the dust evolution is driven by stellar sources. Dust growth by accretion, whose efficiency (or time-scale) has a metallicity dependence (equation \[eq:tau\_acc\]), causes a nonlinear increase of $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{tot}$ at $Z\gtrsim 0.1$ Z$_{\sun}$ as seen after $t=0.3$ Gyr. Because of this nonlinearity, the dust-to-metal ratio is not constant . For example, @2003PASJ...55..901I argued that the $\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}$ increases rapidly by accretion when the galactic age is $\sim 0.3$Gyr. Our simulation results are consistent with their results. As the system is enriched with metals, the $\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}$–$Z$ relation extends towards higher metallicities and higher $\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}$. Because dust growth by accretion is limited by the available gas-phase metals (Section \[subsubsec:destruction\]), the increase of $\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}$ as a function of $Z$ becomes moderate at the highest metallicities. Naturally, $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{tot}$ does not exceed $Z$ (i.e. the simulation data are always located below the line of $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{tot}=Z$).
We also plot the observed $\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}$–$Z$ relation for nearby galaxies with each point corresponding to individual galaxy (not spatially resolved) . Note that our plots show each gas particle within a single galaxy. Thus, we use their observational data only as a first reference to judge if our dust evolution model correctly reproduces the observationally expected relation. Our model roughly reproduces the observation, indicating that our implementation of various dust formation and processing mechanisms is successful in catching the trend of dust evolution as a function of metallicity.
A17 also performed a similar hydrodynamic simulation of an isolated galaxy with dust enrichment but using a simplified model for the grain size distribution (two-size approximation). The $\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}$–$Z$ relation in A17 (see their Fig. 7) is similar to that obtained in this paper. Indeed, at $t\lesssim 0.3$ Gyr, the $\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}$–$Z$ relation follows the one expected from the stellar dust production ($\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}= f_{\rm in}Z$). At $t\gtrsim 1$ Gyr, the non-linearity in the $\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}$–$Z$ relation appears owing to dust growth by accretion, asymptotically approaching to $\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}=Z$. However, there are some differences between our results and A17’s. A17 showed a larger dispersion in the $\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}$–$Z$ relation even at $Z<0.1$ Z$_{\sun}$. Since the increase of dust-to-gas ratio in this regime is driven by accretion (dust growth), A17 shows a clear dust mass increase by accretion at $Z<0.1$ Z$_{\sun}$, while our current simulation indicates that occurs accretion at $Z>0.1$ Z$_{\sun}$. In other words, A17 has more efficient accretion. Indeed, A17’s fig. 8 shows that the increase of small grains happens at $Z<0.1$ Z$_{\sun}$ at $t=0.3$ Gyr, while our current simulation does not show any enhancement of small-grain abundance at $t=0.3$Gyr (Fig. \[fig:size\]). In the two-size approximation, all small grains are assumed to have a single radius of $5\times 10^{-3}~\micron$, while in our case shattering supplies a continuous spectrum of grain radii. Therefore, the accretion rate increases drastically once small grains are produced in the two-size approximation, while accretion is enhanced more gradually in our simulation. The difference indicates that there is a risk of overestimating dust growth by accretion at low metallicity in the two-size approximation.
### Radial dependence {#radial}
In Fig. \[fig:D\_sequence\], we compare the radial dependence of the dust-to-gas mass ratio \[here we express it as a function of $R$, $\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}(R)$\]. We adopt a mass-weight average for the dust-to-gas ratio as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}(R) \equiv \dfrac{\displaystyle\sum_{R-\Delta R/2 <R_i<R+\Delta R/2}
m^{\rm gas}_{i}\mathcal{D}^{\rm tot}_{i}}{\displaystyle\sum_{R-\Delta R/2 <R_i<R+\Delta R/2}m^\mathrm{gas}_i},
\label{eq:D_R}\end{aligned}$$ where $R_i$ and $m^\mathrm{gas}_i$ are the radial coordinate and the mass of the $i$th gas particle, respectively, and the summation is taken for all the gas particles in each radial bin of width $\Delta R$. Here we choose gas particles in the disc ($|z|<0.3$kpc). We use 40 bins on the linear scale in $0 \leq R \leq 10$ kpc.
We adopt the same observational data as in A17. [The data are compiled by @2012MNRAS.423...38M, who originally adopted the sample from [@2009ApJ...703.1569M] (chosen from the *Spitzer* Infrared Nearby Galaxies Survey sample; @2003PASP..115..928K).]{} We adopt these data because of the completeness and uniformity of the quantities that are directly compared with the outputs of our simulation, with a note that there are some new data of spatially resolved dust emission . [@2012MNRAS.423...38M] investigated the radial profile of dust-to-gas ratio and dust-to-metal ratio in nearby star-forming galaxies (mainly spirals). They used the metallicity calibration method of @2010ApJS..190..233M. We categorize the observational sample by typical ages using the specific star formation rate (sSFR), following the same criterion as in A17.[^4] We choose four ranges: sSFR $> 10\,{\rm Gyr}^{-1}$, $1\,{\rm Gyr}^{-1}<{\rm sSFR}< 10\,{\rm Gyr}^{-1}$ and sSFR $<1\,{\rm Gyr}^{-1}$, which are referred to as Category I, II, and III, respectively. They are compared with the snapshots at $t=0.3, 1$, and 3Gyr. To cancel the galaxy size effect, we normalise the radius by $R_{25}$ (the radius at which surface brightness falls to 25 mag arcsec$^{-2}$) for the observational sample, following [@2012MNRAS.423...38M]. We also evaluate $R_{25}$ for the simulated galaxies by using the relation $R_{25}\simeq 4 R_{\rm d}$, where $R_{\rm d}$ is the scale length of stellar disk [@1998ggs..book.....E]. In order to obtain $R_{\rm d}$, we performed fitting for the stellar surface density profile of simulated galaxy at each epoch. The value of $R_{25}$ changes as time passes, because the distribution of stellar component changes: $R_{25} = 6.9$, 7.0, and 7.2kpc at $t = 0.3$, 1, and 3Gyr, respectively.
We plot the radial profile of $\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}$ of each category in Fig. \[fig:D\_sequence\]. The dust-to-gas ratio in the ‘youngest’ phase represented by Category I (Holmberg II) is broadly reproduced in terms of not only the slope but also the absolute value (Fig. \[fig:D\_sequence\]a). In this phase, since the dust enrichment is dominated by stellar dust production, the dust-to-gas ratio is proportional to the metallicity; thus, the variation of $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{tot}$ along the galactic radius directly traces the metallicity gradient.
In Fig. \[fig:D\_sequence\]b, we compare the galaxies in Category II with the simulation result at $t=1$Gyr. We observe that the level and slope of the radial profile are both reproduced well. Compared with the result at $t=0.3$ Gyr, the dust-to-gas ratios are larger at all galactic radii, and the slope is steeper. In the central part, accretion has drastically increased the dust abundance, while stellar dust production is still dominant at the outer radii. Therefore, the contrast of dust-to-gas ratio between the central and outer parts is the largest in this epoch. Accordingly, the radial slope of $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{tot}$ is the steepest.
We further compare the galaxies in Category III with the simulation result at $t=3$Gyr in Fig. \[fig:D\_sequence\]c. Although the observed data points have a large dispersion, the simulation overall reproduces both the value and slope of $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{tot}$. In other words, the simulation result lies in the middle of the observational data. Compared with the radial distribution at $t=1$Gyr, the dust-to-gas ratio is larger at all radii, especially in the outer part, because dust growth by accretion has been prevalent also there. The slope is shallower at $t=3$Gyr than at 1Gyr.
![Comparison of the radial profiles of dust-to-gas ratio at $t=0.3$, 1, and 3Gyr \[panels (*a*), (*b*), and (*c*), respectively\] with the observational data [compiled by]{} @2012MNRAS.423...38M. The solid line is the radial profile of dust-to-gas ratio for each snapshot of the simulation. We scaled the radius with $R_{25}$ [(see text)]{}. In panel ([*a*]{}), the filled circles with error bars represent the observational radial profile of Holmberg II. In panel ([*b*]{}), the circle and triangle points show NGC 3621 and NGC 925, respectively. In panel ([*c*]{}), the circle, $\bigtriangledown $, $\bigtriangleup$, $\lhd $, $\rhd $, and square symbols correspond to NGC 2403, NGC 4736, NGC5055, NGC 5194, NGC628 and NGC 7793, respectively. []{data-label="fig:D_sequence"}](fig4){width="\columnwidth"}
The dust-to-metal ratio traces the fraction of metals condensed into the solid phase. Different processes affect the dust-to-metal ratio differently. [Indeed, [@2012MNRAS.423...26M] showed by analytic arguments that the radial profile of dust-to-metal ratio could be used to identify the dominant dust enrichment process.]{} The dust-to-metal ratio in each radial bin is estimated by dividing the mass-weighted dust-to-gas ratio by the mass-weighted metallicity as $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{\mathcal{D}_{\rm tot}}{Z}(R)=
\dfrac{\displaystyle\sum_{R-\Delta R/2 <R_i<R+\Delta R/2}m^{\rm gas}_{i}D_{{\rm tot},i}}{\displaystyle\sum_{R-\Delta R/2 <R_i<R+\Delta R/2}m^{\rm gas}_{i}Z^{\rm gas}_{i}}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the summation is taken in each radial bin in the same way as in equation (\[eq:D\_R\]) with a constraint of $|z|<0.3$[kpc]{}.
![ Same as Fig. \[fig:D\_sequence\] but presenting the radial profile of dust-to-metal ratio. []{data-label="fig:DZ_sequence"}](fig5){width="\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:DZ\_sequence\], we find that the dust-to-metal ratio is almost constant in the early phase at $t=0.3$Gyr and that the flat trend is broadly consistent with the data of Holmberg II (Category I) considering the large errors. At this stage, the level of dust-to-metal ratio is broadly determined by the condensation efficiency in stellar ejecta. Thus, the dust-to-metal ratio is almost constant ($\simeq f_{\rm in} = 0.1$), and its radial profile is flat.
For the galaxies in Category II, which we compare with the simulation at $t=1$Gyr in Fig. \[fig:DZ\_sequence\]b, we find that the profile of dust-to-metal ratio is broadly consistent with the observational data, considering the large error bars. The decreasing trend of dust-to-metal ratio with increasing radius is caused by more efficient accretion in the centre than in the outer regions, since accretion favours metal-rich environments [see also @2012MNRAS.423...26M; @2012MNRAS.423...38M]. Accordingly, the slope of the dust-to-metal ratio profile is the steepest around this epoch. We emphasize that, since the dust-to-metal ratio is not constant, we should at least take non-constant dust-to-metal ratios (both temporally and spatially) into account in modeling the dust evolution in galaxies.
The galaxies in Category III are compared with the snapshot at $t=3$Gyr in Fig. \[fig:DZ\_sequence\]c. The simulation somewhat overproduces the dust-to-metal ratios at large radii, although some galaxies are consistent with our result even at the outer radii. The radial gradient of dust-to-metal ratio is shallower at $t=3$Gyr than at $t=1$Gyr, because the effect of accretion becomes more prevalent up to larger radii at later times. NGC 2403 shows a steep decline of dust-to-metal ratio at the outer radii, which cannot be explained by our models. The radial profiles of dust-to-gas ratio and dust-to-metal ratio are similar to the previous simulation that used the two-size approximation (A17). This means that the two-size approximation adopted in A17 is good enough if we only calculate the total dust abundance. We point out that the tendency of overestimating the dust-to-metal ratio at $t=3$Gyr (Fig. \[fig:DZ\_sequence\]c) is also observed in A17. This could be due to an overestimate of dust growth by accretion. We discuss this issue in Section \[sec:discussion\].
Extinction curves
-----------------
### Dependence on the ISM phases
{width="90.00000%"}
As representative observable dust properties that reflect the grain size distribution, we calculate the extinction curves by the method described in Section \[subsec:ext\]. In Fig. \[fig:Ex\], we show the extinction curves for the dense and diffuse gas particles. We sorted the extinction curves ($A_\lambda /A_{\rm V}$) and obtained the median and 25th and 75th percentile for each of the dense and diffuse particles. We only show the extinction curves at $t = 1$ and 3Gyr. At $t<1$Gyr, the extinction curves are similar to the ones in the diffuse gas at $t=1$Gyr, because they are determined by the log-normal grain size distribution of stellar dust. Thus, we only focus on $t\ge 1$Gyr. At $t = 1$Gyr, the extinction curves in the diffuse medium are flat as mentioned above. In the dense regions, in contrast, the extinction curves have more variety, reflecting more efficient small grain production as shown in Fig. \[fig:size\]. As explained in Section \[subsubsec:dense\_diffuse\], the dust-to-gas ratio in the dense gas particles tends to be higher since the dense regions are more metal-enriched. Thus, shattering and accretion affect the grain size distributions more in the dense medium than in the diffuse medium. Consequently, steeper extinction curves appear in the dense ISM at $t=1$Gyr.
At $t=3$Gyr, the extinction curve shape has a large variety at UV wavelengths, especially in the diffuse ISM. As we observe in Fig. \[fig:size\], the variety in the grain size distribution is large at grain radii $a\lesssim 0.03\,\micron$ at $t = 3$Gyr, which affects the extinction at $\lambda \sim 2 \pi a \sim 0.2~\micron$. Since the diffuse gas particles have a larger variety in the grain size distribution around $a\sim 0.03\,\micron$ than the dense ones, the variety in the extinction curves is greater in the diffuse ISM. The median extinction curve is slightly steeper in the diffuse ISM at $t=3$Gyr, contrary to the results at $t=1$Gyr.
In Fig. \[fig:Ex\], we also plot the observed Milky Way extinction curve as a reference. The observational data is taken from [@1992ApJ...395..130P] and the dispersion adopted from @2007ApJ...663..320F and @2013ApJ...770...27N is also shown at some wavelengths. Since our extinction curve model adopts the often used dust properties well calibrated by the Milky Way condition, we only compare our extinction curves with the Milky Way curve. [Also, our simulation targets a Milky-Way-like (spiral) galaxy, so it would make sense to focus on the Milky Way extinction curve. Including the variation of dust composition needs a more sophisticated evolution model for the grain size distribution. The extinction curves of the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds could also be reproduced by changing the ratio of silicate and graphite with the same grain size distribution [@1992ApJ...395..130P]. More comprehensive modelling of extinction curves is left for a future work.]{}
We observe that the median in the diffuse medium at $t=3$Gyr broadly explains the Milky Way extinction curve. The dispersion in the diffuse ISM at $t=3$Gyr is much larger than the observed one. Note that the dispersion among the individual gas particles is calculated in our model, while an observed extinction curve [is an integrated quantity]{} along a line of sight. Therefore, it may be natural that the actually observed extinction curves show a much smaller dispersion than our particle-based statistics. We also find that the extinction curves in the dense ISM at $t=3$Gyr is flatter than the Milky Way extinction curve. This is due to coagulation. On the other hand, the extinction curves at $t=1$Gyr in the dense ISM is steeper than those at $t=3$Gyr, and the dispersion covers the observed Milky Way extinction curve. This steepness of extinction curve is due to efficient dust growth by accretion. Thus, our model is capable of reproducing the Milky Way extinction curve at $t\gtrsim 1$Gyr.
The difference in the extinction curves between the diffuse and dense ISM is prominent at each age, which indicates the importance of hydrodynamical evolution on the grain properties. Also, it is interesting that the trend is reversed between $t=1$ and 3Gyr: the extinction curves are steeper in the dense ISM at an early age, while they are flatter in the dense ISM at a later stage. This trend is consistent with our previous calculation based on the two-size approximation [@2017MNRAS.469..870H]. [@2014MNRAS.437.1636H] also reproduced the correlation between the bump strength and steepness of extinction curves in the Milky Way by coagulation in the dense ISM. In this scenario, extinction curves are flatter in the dense ISM, which is consistent with our results in the later age.
### Radial dependence {#radial-dependence}
{width="90.00000%"}
We investigate the dependence of extinction curves on the galactic radius in a way similar to [@2017MNRAS.469..870H], who performed the analyses based on our previous simulation with the two-size approximation. Following their paper, we adopt a galactic-radius bin width of 2kpc and take the mass-weighted average for all gas particles in each radius bin. In order to focus on the extinction curves in the disk region, we exclude the central 1kpc region. Indeed, the metallicity in the central 1kpc region is relatively high $Z\gtrsim 3$ Z$_{\sun}$ [see in fig. 6 of @2019MNRAS.484.2632S] and HA19 also excluded the very central region ($R<0.1$kpc) for estimating the extinction curves. We analyse the extinction curves up to $R = 7$kpc. Fig. \[Fig:extinction\_radii\] shows the extinction curves in the three radial bins at $t=1$ and 3 Gyr.
We observe in Fig. \[Fig:extinction\_radii\] that the features of extinction curves (the 2175 Å bump and the UV slope) become more prominent with age, which is caused by the increase of small grains relative to large grains. Small grains are more efficiently produced by shattering and accretion at small $R$ in the early epoch as mentioned in Section \[radial\]. As the dust-rich regions extends to the outer radii with age, shattering and accretion become efficient there; thus, the outer regions also have steep extinction curves at $t=3$Gyr. We give more detailed descriptions in what follows.
At $t=1$Gyr, the extinction curves at $R<3\,{\rm kpc}$ show a prominent 2175 Å bump and UV rise. The extinction curves at $R > 3$kpc are still flat because the dust abundance is dominated by large grains produced by stars. The radial variation of extinction curves at 3Gyr shows the opposite trend to that at 1Gyr, with the outer regions ($R>3$ kpc) having steeper extinction curves compared with the inner regions ($R<$ 3 kpc). In this epoch, accretion dominates the dust evolution in the entire galaxy regions as mentioned above. Therefore, extinction curves have steep slopes in the UV. As discussed in Section \[subsubsec:radial\], coagulation becomes efficient in the central part, so that the extinction curves are flattened at $R<3$kpc. The extinction curves are the steepest in the intermediate radii ($R\sim 3$–5kpc) since accretion is efficient but coagulation is not yet active there. At larger radii ($R>5$kpc), the extinction curves are flatter because of less efficient accretion.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Total dust abundance
--------------------
Although the main focus of this paper is the grain size distribution, the model should reproduce the evolution of the total dust abundance. In Section \[subsec:total\], we have shown that our simulation reproduces the total dust abundance (dust-to-gas ratio) in nearby galaxies. The relation between dust-to-gas ratio and metallicity and the radial profiles of dust-to-gas ratio and dust-to-metal ratio are broadly consistent with the observational data of nearby galaxies.
However, there are some improvements necessary for better agreement with the observational data. In Section \[radial\], we find that the radial profile of dust-to-metal ratio tends to be above the observational data points, although it is not completely discrepant from the observational data. This raises the following discussions in the early and late epochs. In the early epoch at $t=0.3$Gyr, the possible discrepancy is due to the overestimate of dust condensation efficiency in stellar ejecta, for which we adopted $f_\mathrm{in}=0.1$. In fact, the condensation efficiency is still uncertain: for SNe, the dust mass injected to the ISM is strongly affected by the reverse shock destruction, which is sensitive to the density of the ambient medium [@2007MNRAS.378..973B; @2007ApJ...666..955N]. For the dust yield in AGB stars, there are still some variety among different condensation calculations as compiled by and @2013MNRAS.436.1238K. Considering such uncertainties, the agreement within a factor of 2 is good enough. Moreover, the almost flat slope is consistent with the observational data, which suggests that the stellar dust production is dominant at all galactic radii.
At $t\gtrsim 1$Gyr, the radial profile of dust-to-metal ratio has a negative gradient, because dust growth by accretion starts to play a role from the central part. The existence of such a negative gradient is consistent with the observational data. However, the calculated radial profiles may be too flat compared with the observational data (see Fig. \[fig:DZ\_sequence\]). The flat radial profile is due to efficient dust growth by accretion up to the large galactic radii; thus, accretion is probably too efficient in our calculation. There are some possible improvements for the treatment of accretion. We equally treated all metal elements but dust has some specific composition. Ideally, we should model accretion so that it reproduces the actual dust composition (such as silicate). [@2017MNRAS.469..870H] treated two grain species (silicate and carbonaceous dust) separately by neglecting a formation of compound species. This is also a simplification, and it may underestimate the accretion efficiency because each grain species accretes only specific elements. Separating the grain species is also important for the prediction of extinction curves. In the future, we will work on a framework that separates the grain species.
Robustness and uncertainty in the grain size distribution
---------------------------------------------------------
The shape of grain size distribution is determined by the stellar dust production in the early (or low-metallicity) phase of galaxy evolution. Thus, as long as stars predominantly produce large ($a\gtrsim 0.1\,\micron$) grains, the resulting grain size distribution and extinction curve are robust. As mentioned in the Introduction, most theoretical calculations of dust condensation in stellar ejecta indicate that such large grains are favourably produced.
The grain size distribution in later epochs, on the other hand, is determined by interstellar processing. [ In our model, shattering plays an important role in the initial production of small grains. As mentioned in Section \[subsubsec:shattering\], it is essential that the largest grains have velocities [ high]{} enough for shattering ($\gtrsim$ a few km s$^{-1}$) in the diffuse ISM. Otherwise, the [ initial]{} production of small grains does not occur efficiently. Subsequently,]{} accretion and coagulation are important in increasing small and large grains, respectively. The final shape of the grain size distribution approaches the one similar to the MRN grain size distribution. Collisional processes such as coagulation are shown to robustly lead to a grain size distribution like MRN [e.g. @1969JGR....74.2531D; @1994Icar..107..117W; @1996Icar..123..450T; @2010Icar..206..735K]. The upper limit of the grain radii is rather sensitive to the subgrid model of coagulation as shown in HA19. If the maximum grain radius becomes as large as $\sim 1\,\micron$, the extinction curve becomes too flat to explain the Milky Way curve. Although $\micron$-sized grains should exist in some dense molecular cloud cores , such large grains should not be the majority of the ISM [see also @2009SSRv..143..333D]. To determine the maximum grain size without any subgrid model, it is necessary to spatially resolve dense molecular cloud cores. This is challenging at this moment, because the simulation box should be wide enough to cover a representative region of a galaxy (i.e. $\sim$kpc scale) but it should still resolve the sub-pc scales. Nevertheless, we could argue that our subgrid model is successful because the maximum grain radius is consistent with MRN ($\sim 0.25~\micron$) at $t=3$ Gyr (Fig. \[fig:size\]).
Importance of implementing dust evolution in hydrodynamic simulations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, direct implementation of dust evolution calculations in hydrodynamic simulations is important since some grain evolution processes occur on short time-scales. According to equation (\[eq:tau\_acc\]), accretion occurs on a time-scale shorter than $10^{7}$ yr for small grains in solar-metallicity environments. The post-processing analysis by HA19 was based on snapshots with intervals of $\sim 10^7$ yr, which is too long to capture the change of physical conditions (density and temperature) for accretion. Coagulation also occurs on a comparable time-scale in a solar-metallicity environment. Thus, it is essential to solve the dust evolution and hydrodynamics simultaneously and consistently.
In our simulation, individual SNe cannot be resolved; thus, the rate of SNe affecting a certain gas particle ($\gamma$ in equation \[eq:tau\_dest\]) is used to estimate the dust destruction rate at each time step. Since SN destruction counteracts the increase of dust mass by accretion which could also have a short time-scale, post-processing does not give precise results. Moreover, the physical condition of the ISM changes rapidly when the SN energy is deposited, and the lifetime of superbubbles is as short as $\sim 10^6$yr [e.g. @2011piim.book.....D]. To correctly trace the dust processing induced by the energy input from SNe, we need to solve the grain evolution and hydrodynamics simultaneously.
Dependence on the subgrid treatment
-----------------------------------
{width="90.00000%"}
[ In our simulations, the dust processing in dense clouds (accretion and coagulation) is treated by subgrid modelling, because]{} the typical size of dense clouds (or molecular clouds) is much smaller than the typical softening length of gas particles ($\sim$80 pc). Therefore, it is worth examining the robustness of the results by performing additional simulations. We first examine the dependence on $f_\mathrm{dense}$ by lowering it to 0.1 (the fiducial value is 0.5). We also test the effect of molecular cloud lifetime, which is determined by the gas dynamical evolution on subgrid scales. We only show the results at $t=3$Gyr, when the effects of accretion and coagulation appear most significantly among the ages chosen above.
First, we show the results with $f_\mathrm{dense}=0.1$ in Fig. \[Fig:MC\]. We only show the medians. We observe that, compared with the fiducial case with $f_\mathrm{dense}=0.5$, the small-grain abundance is enhanced while the large-grain abundance is suppressed in the dense regions. The grain size distribution stays bimodal because coagulation is too weak to create a smooth grain size distribution. Accordingly, the extinction curves become steeper in the dense medium. [ In the diffuse medium, on the other hand, the abundance of grains with $a\sim 0.01~\micron$ is less for the case of smaller $f_\mathrm{dense}$.]{} Accordingly, the extinction curves are flat in the diffuse ISM. Recalling that accretion and coagulation dominate the shaping of grain size distribution at a later stage, low $f_\mathrm{dense}$ indicates that the evolution of grain size distribution occurs slowly. This explains the difference between $f_\mathrm{dense}=0.5$ and 0.1.
Next, we examine the effect of molecular cloud lifetime. We implicitly assumed that the mass exchange between molecular clouds and other gas is frequent enough so that the uniform grain size distribution is achieved on the subgrid scale. However, if such an exchange does not occur, dust growth by accretion could be saturated in each molecular cloud. In this case, accretion is regulated by the lifetime of molecular clouds rather than the actual accretion time-scale [@2000PASJ...52..585H]. To examine this effect, we set $\tau_\mathrm{acc}=\tau_\mathrm{MC}$ *if* $\tau_\mathrm{acc}$ (equation \[eq:tau\_acc\]) is shorter than $\tau_\mathrm{MC}$ (molecular cloud lifetime). The lifetime of molecular clouds are uncertain, but it is likely to be on the order of $10^{7}$ yr . [@2009ApJ...700L.132K] suggested longer lifetimes ($\sim 10^8$ yr) based on the observed stability of dense structures. Thus, we examine $\tau_\mathrm{MC}=10^7$ yr and $10^8$ yr. [ Since $\tau_\mathrm{acc}$ estimated by equation (\[eq:tau\_acc\]) is inversely proportional to the metallicity, $\tau_\mathrm{acc}=\tau_\mathrm{MC}$ is adopted only if the metallicity is high enough.]{} Coagulation has no saturation; therefore we only change the prescription for accretion here.
The result for $\tau_\mathrm{MC}=10^7$ yr is shown in Fig.\[Fig:MC\]. We observe that, if $\tau_\mathrm{MC}=10^7$ yr, the results do not change much for the grain size distribution and extinction curves. This means that the accretion time-scale is mostly longer than $10^7$yr [ (i.e. $\tau_\mathrm{acc}>\tau_\mathrm{MC}$ in most of the cases so that $\tau_\mathrm{acc}=\tau_\mathrm{MC}$ is rarely adopted)]{}. In contrast, if $\tau_\mathrm{MC}=10^8$yr, the abundance of grains at $a\lesssim 10^{-1.5} \,\mu {\rm m}$ is significantly suppressed. [ This is because of less efficient accretion. If $\tau_\mathrm{MC}$ is as long as $10^8$ yr, $\tau_\mathrm{acc}$ estimated by equation (\[eq:tau\_acc\]) more often becomes shorter than $\tau_\mathrm{MC}$ (i.e. $\tau_\mathrm{acc}=\tau_\mathrm{MC}$ is more often adopted).]{} We also observe that the abundance of the biggest grains is higher for this case because large grains are shattered less by small grains. Because of the dominance of large grains, extinction curves are very flat in both dense and diffuse media.
In summary, the subgrid treatment of accretion and coagulation affects the results. [ The fraction of dense gas (or the structure of gas density below a few ${}\times 10$ pc) and the molecular cloud lifetime are particularly important. It is desirable to determine or constrain these quantities by higher-resolution simulations and/or observations. ]{}
Future prospect
---------------
In this paper, we only simulated an isolated disc galaxy. Although we expect that this work gives a representative case for dust evolution, there are clearly other types of galaxies with various star formation time-scales and mass scales. To calculate the evolution of various types of galaxies, cosmological simulations would be ideal. Therefore, a natural extension of this work is to implement the evolution of full grain size distribution in cosmological hydrodynamic simulations. Since cosmological calculations have worse spatial resolution, the calculation results in this paper will give a useful calibration for similar galaxies produced in a cosmological box.
Cosmological zoom-in simulations that focus on some specific halos are also useful to achieve a high spatial resolution. There are some examples of such simulations using zoom-in methods [@2015MNRAS.451..418Y; @2016MNRAS.457.3775M] which revealed the dust distribution in galaxies. In particular, high spatial resolution is important to predict detailed radiative properties since the wavelength dependence of dust absorption at UV and optical wavelengths in the entire galaxy (i.e. the attenuation curve) depends not only on the extinction curve but also on the spatial distribution of dust and stars [e.g. @2001PASP..113.1449C; @2005MNRAS.359..171I; @2018ApJ...869...70N]. However, we would also like to predict the statistical properties of galaxies at different redshifts, and for this, a full cosmological simulation with a large box size is more desired, in addition to the limited galaxy sample in zoom-in simulations.
Recently, @2019MNRAS.484.1852A calculated the dust emission properties by post-processing their cosmological simulation. Because of low spatial resolution, they applied a one-zone calculation for the radiative properties. They succeeded in predicting the statistical properties of dust emission such as the IR luminosity function, IRX–$\beta$ (IR-to-UV luminosity ratio vs.UV spectral slope) relation, etc. Indeed, for the IRX–$\beta$ relation, the extinction curve (more precisely, attenuation curve; @2018MNRAS.474.1718N) is important. Since @2019MNRAS.484.1852A adopted the two-size approximation, their extinction curves only had two degrees of freedom, so that their predictive power of extinction curves was limited. By calculating the full grain-size distribution in the future, we will obtain a better prediction for extinction curves also in cosmological simulations.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We performed a hydrodynamic simulation of an isolated disc galaxy with the evolution of full grain size distribution. We solved the time evolution of grain size distribution caused by stellar dust production, SN destruction, shattering, accretion, and coagulation on each gas (SPH) particle in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gadget3-osaka</span> hydrodynamic simulation. Each of the dust evolution processes above is treated in a consistent manner with the local physical conditions (gas density, temperature, metallicity, etc.) of the gas particle. As a consequence, we obtain the spatially resolved information on the grain size distribution at each stage of galaxy evolution.
For the total dust abundance, our simulation reproduces the relation between dust-to-gas ratio and metallicity, as well as the radial profiles of dust-to-gas ratio and dust-to-metal ratio in nearby galaxies. We also confirm that the obtained results for the total dust amount is consistent with our previous simulation (A17) which adopted the two-size approximation. Therefore, we conclude that our models give reasonable results as far as the total dust abundance is concerned.
For the evolution of grain size distribution, we obtain the following results, taking advantage of the spatially resolved information. The grain size distribution is dominated by large grains in the earliest phase ($t\lesssim 0.3$Gyr) in the entire disc. In the intermediate stage ($t\sim 1$Gyr), small grains are more abundant in the dense, metal-enriched ISM, where shattering and accretion can efficiently [ form a bump (second peak) at $a\sim 0.01\,\mu$m]{}. Therefore, the extinction curves are steeper in the dense ISM than in the diffuse ISM. At a later stage ($t\gtrsim 3$Gyr), the relative abundance of small grains to large grains is higher in the diffuse ISM than in the dense ISM. This is because higher dust abundances in the dense ISM are favourable for coagulation, which creates large grains by depleting small grains. Accordingly, the extinction curve becomes flatter in the dense ISM at later times. The grain size distribution approaches to the MRN distribution at $t\gtrsim 3$Gyr, and the Milky Way extinction curve is reproduced well.
The grain size distribution depends also on the position in the galaxy. At young ages ($t\lesssim 1$Gyr), the small-grain abundance is most enhanced in the central region (at small galactic radii $R$). This is because the highest dust abundance in the central part leads to the most active shattering and accretion. In contrast, the small-grain abundance is the lowest at small $R$ at a later stage ($t\gtrsim 3$Gyr) because of coagulation. Accordingly, extinction curves are the steepest at small $R$ at young ($t\lesssim 1$Gyr) ages, while they are the flattest at small $R$ at old ($t\gtrsim 3$Gyr) ages. Since the above change in the grain size distribution occurs [ at]{} $t\sim 1$ Gyr, the age and density dependence of grain size distribution has a significant impact on the extinction curves even at high redshift.
We emphasize that all the above results are consistent with the results obtained by our simpler grain evolution model using the two-size approximation [e.g. @2018MNRAS.478.4905A; @2019MNRAS.485.1727H; @2019MNRAS.484.1852A]. This not only indicates the robustness of the results in this paper but also supports our previous results. We should, however, emphasize that the full grain size distribution is essential in predicting observable quantities such as extinction curves and dust emission properties (radiation transfer effects).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
[We thank the anonymous referee for useful comments.]{} We are grateful to Ikkoh Shimizu for useful discussions and comments regarding technical issues in the simulations. We acknowledge Volker Springel for providing us with the original version of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gadget-3</span> code. Numerical computations were carried out on Cray XC50 at the Center for Computational Astrophysics (CfCA), National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Cray XC40 at the Yukawa Institute Computer Facility in Kyoto University, and XL at the Theoretical Institute for Advanced Research in Astrophysics (TIARA) in Academia Sinica. HH thanks the Ministry of Science and Technology for support through grant MOST 105-2112-M-001-027-MY3, MOST 107-2923-M-001-003-MY3 (RFBR 18-52-52-006), and MOST 108-2112-M-001-007-MY3. KN acknowledges the support from the JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP17H01111, as well as the travel support from the Kavli IPMU, World Premier Research Center Initiative (WPI), where part of this work was conducted.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: Contact e-mail: <[email protected]>
[^2]: [We corrected a typo in HA19 for this equation. ]{}
[^3]: For graphite, $Q_\mathrm{D}^\star =8.9\times 10^{9}$ cm$^2$ s$^{-2}$.
[^4]: In this paper, we do not consider NGC 2841, NGC 3031, NGC 3198, NGC 3351, NGC 3521, and NGC 7331, which are compared with the $t=10$ Gyr snapshot in A17 due to their low sSFRs ($<10^{-0.8}\,{\rm Gyr}^{-1}$). However, these galaxies have similar radial profiles as those used for the current comparison at $t=3$ Gyr. Thus, even if we include the above galaxies into the comparison, our current discussions do not change.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Historically, multiple populations in Globular Clusters (GCs) have been mostly studied from ultraviolet and optical filters down to stars that are more massive than $\sim$0.6$\mathcal{M}_{\odot}$. Here we exploit deep near-infrared (NIR) photometry from the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} to investigate multiple populations among M-dwarfs in the GC NGC6752. We discovered that the three main populations (A, B and C), previously observed in the brightest part of the color-magnitude diagram, define three distinct sequences that run from the main-sequence (MS) knee towards the bottom of the MS ($\sim$0.15 ${\mathcal M}_{\odot}$). These results, together with similar findings on NGC2808, M4, and $\omega$Centauri, demonstrate that multiple sequences of M-dwarfs are common features of the color-magnitude diagrams of GCs. The three sequences of low-mass stars in NGC6752 are consistent with stellar populations with different oxygen abundances. The range of \[O/Fe\] needed to reproduce the NIR CMD of NGC6752 is similar to the oxygen spread inferred from high-resolution spectroscopy of red-giant branch (RGB) stars. The relative numbers of stars in the three populations of M-dwarfs are similar to those derived among RGB and MS stars more massive than $\sim$0.6$\mathcal{M}_{\odot}$. As a consequence, the evidence that the properties of multiple populations do not depend on stellar mass is a constraint for the formation scenarios.'
date: 'Accepted 2019 January 21. Received 2019 January 21; in original form 2018 December 13'
title: 'The [*HST*]{} Large Programme on NGC6752. II. Multiple populations at the bottom of the main sequence probed in NIR [^1] '
---
\[firstpage\]
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Near-infrared Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3/NIR) observations have proved very effective in separating and characterizing multiple populations of faint M-dwarfs in NGC2808, NGC6121 (M4) and $\omega$Centauri (Milone et al.2012a, 2014, 2017a).
This work is based on deep [*HST*]{} images of the nearby globular cluster (GC) NGC6752 collected as part of the [*Hubble-Space-Telescope*]{} ([*HST*]{}) program GO-15096 (PI.L.R.Bedin). The main target of the project is the white-dwarf cooling sequence of NGC6752, which is the subject of separate work by Bedin et al.(in preparation, see also Bedin et al.2008, 2009, 2010, 2015). In this paper, we exploit parallel WFC3/NIR observations only to investigate, for the first time, the multiple populations of NGC6752 at the bottom of the main sequence (MS).
NGC6752 is one of the most-studied GCs in the context of multiple stellar populations. Optical and Ultraviolet observations, mostly from [*HST*]{}, revealed that its color-magnitude diagram (CMD) hosts three distinct red-giant branches (RGBs) and MSs, which comprise a population, A, of stars with primordial helium abundance (Y$\sim$0.246) and two stellar populations, B and C, enhanced in helium by $\Delta$Y$\sim$0.01 and 0.03, respectively (Milone et al.2010, 2013, 2018; Dotter et al.2015). Spectroscopy shows that population-C stars are enhanced in N, Al, Si, and Na and depleted in C, O, and Mg, with respect to the population A, while population-B stars have intermediate chemical composition (e.g.Grundahl et al.2002; Yong et al.2003, 2005, 2013, 2015; Carretta et al.2009, 2012, see Table 2 from Milone et al.2013 for the average chemical composition of the stars in the three stellar populations of NGC6752). Multi-band [*HST*]{} photometry suggests possible star-to-star helium variations among population-A stars (Milone et al.2017b, 2018).
While multiple populations of NGC6752 are widely studied along the RGB and the upper MS, the M-dwarf regime is almost unexplored. The only available information on stellar populations among low-mass stars is provided by Dotter et al.(2015), who show that the F110W$-$F160W color distribution of NGC6752 stars, estimated $\sim$1.5 F160W magnitudes below the MS knee, is much larger than that expected from a simple population.
The exquisite photometry from the [*HST*]{} large program on NGC6752 allowed us to identify and characterize, for the first time, the three distinct stellar populations of NGC6752 at the bottom of the MS. The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:data\] we describe the dataset, the data reduction and analysis. The NIR CMD of NGC6752 is presented in Section \[sec:cmd\], where we also derive the fraction of stars in the three sequences of M-dwarfs and constrain their chemical composition. Finally, Section \[sec:discussion\] provides the summary and the discussion of the results.
Data and data analysis {#sec:data}
======================
We used WFC3/NIR on board of [*HST*]{} to investigate stellar populations in a field located $\sim$4.8 arcmin north-east from the center of NGC6752. The images are collected between September 7$^{\rm th}$ and September 18$^{\rm th}$, 2018 as part of GO-15096 (PI.L.R.Bedin). All the observations are obtained during 35 orbits of [*HST*]{}, including 25 and 10 orbits for images in F110W and F160W, respectively. During each orbit we collected one short exposure of 143s in multiaccum mode (with instrument parameters NSAMP = 15, SAMP-SEQ = SPARS10)[^2] and two long exposures of 1303s each (with instrument parameters NSAMP = 14, SAMP-SEQ = SPARS100). All the images are properly dithered.
To derive photometry and astrometry we adapted to WFC3/NIR images the software presented by Anderson et al.(2008) for images collected with the Wide Field Channel of the Advanced Camera for Survey (WFC/ACS). In a nutshell, the software performs Point-Spread-Function fitting of all the sources in the field of view. It uses two different approaches that provide optimal results for bright and faint stars, respectively. The fluxes and positions of bright stars are measured in each image separately, and then averaged. Faint stars in a given patch of the sky are fitted simultaneously by using all the images, once transformed in a common reference frame. To do this, the software exploits library PSFs and the geometric-distortion solution by Jay Anderson[^3].
We calibrated our photometry to the Vega-magnitude system by following the procedure described by Bedin et al.(2005) and adopting the photometric zero points provided by STScI web page[^4] for WFC3/NIR. We used various diagnostics of the photometric and astrometric qualities to select a sample of relatively isolated stars that are well fitted by the PSF. These diagnostics comprise the position and magnitude rms, the fraction of flux in the aperture due to neighbours and the quality of the PSF fit. We plotted each parameter as a function of the stellar magnitude and verified that most stars follow a clear trend. Outliers include stars with poor astrometry and photometry and are excluded from our investigation of multiple populations. We refer to papers by Milone et al.(2009) and Bedin et al.(2009) for details.
To account for the spatial variations of the photometric zero point across the field that are due to small inaccuracies in the PSF model and in the background determination we used the procedure by Milone et al.(2012b, see their Section. 3.2). Briefly, we derived the MS fiducial line and examined the color residuals relative to this sequence. We corrected the color of each star by the median color residual of its 45 best-measured neighbors. These corrections are typically smaller than 0.007 mag, and never exceed 0.015 mag.
Artificial stars {#subsec:ASs}
----------------
Artificial stars (ASs) are used to estimate photometric errors and to derive the completeness level of our sample and are run by using the procedure by Anderson et al.(2008). Briefly, we generated a catalog including the coordinates and the F110W and F160W magnitudes of 100,000 stars randomly distributed along the field of view. The ASs have instrumental magnitudes, $-2.5$log$_{10}$(flux), ranging from $-10.0$ to 0.0 in the F160W band, while the corresponding F110W magnitudes are derived from the fiducial lines of the three sequences. The ASs are reduced by following the same procedure and by exploiting the same computer programs by Anderson and collaborators that we used for real stars. We calculated for ASs the same diagnostics of the photometric and astrometric quality derived for real stars and we selected a sample of well-measured ASs by using the same criteria described above for real stars.
To calculate the completeness that corresponds to the position and luminosity of each star we divided the field of view into five concentric annuli centred on the cluster center, and within each annulus we examined the AS results in five magnitude bins. We calculated the ratio of the well-measured recovered ASs to the input ASs in each of these 5$\times$5 grid points. The completeness associated to each star in the field of view is estimated by linearly interpolating among these grid points. We performed distinct completeness calculation for stars in each population.
The NIR CMD of NGC6752 {#sec:cmd}
======================
The $m_{\rm F160W}$ vs. $m_{\rm F110W}-m_{\rm F160W}$ CMD of all the stars in the WFC3/NIR field of view is plotted in Fig. \[fig:cmd\]. A visual inspection of this figure reveals that the MS is narrow and well defined in the magnitude interval between the MS turn off and the MS knee, where the $m_{\rm F110W}-m_{\rm F160W}$ color width is nearly consistent with the broadening expected from observational errors. In contrast, the color distribution of MS stars fainter than the MS knee is significantly wider than what we expect from photometric errors alone, and the MS width ranges from $\sim 0.04$ mag for $m_{\rm F160W} \sim 19$ to more than 0.15 mag around $m_{\rm F160W} = 23$. The Hess diagram plotted in the inset reveals three MSs of low mass stars that run from the MS knee towards the bottom of the MS.
![NIR CMD of NGC6752. The Hess diagram highlights the region of the CMD where the three sequences are more evident.[]{data-label="fig:cmd"}](f1.ps){width="9.0cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:ASs\] we compare the observed CMD of NGC6752 with the simulated CMD derived from ASs. As discussed in Sect. \[subsec:ASs\], the latter comprises three stellar populations that are distributed along the fiducials of the three MSs and are colored red in Fig. \[fig:ASs\]. The comparison between the observations and the measured ASs, which are represented with black points, corroborates the conclusion that NGC6752 host three main populations of M dwarfs. Finally, we plot in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:ASs\] the average stellar completeness against $m_{\rm F160W}$.
{width="13.5cm"}
Comparison with theory {#subsec:theory}
----------------------
To characterize the three MSs of NGC6752 we compared the observed CMD with isochrones from the Dartmouth database (Dotter et al.2008) as shown in Fig. \[fig:iso\]. We assumed \[Fe/H\]=$-1.61$ from Yong et al.(2005), \[$\alpha$/Fe\]=0.4 and adopted the age, t=12.5 Gyr, distance modulus, (m$-$M)$_{0}$=12.95, and reddening E(B$-$V)=0.07 that provide the best fit with the data. The reddening has been converted into absorption in the F110W and F160W bands by using the relations: A$_{\rm F110W}$=1.016$\cdot$E(B$-$V) and A$_{\rm F160W}$=0.629$\cdot$E(B$-$V) kindly provided by Aaron Dotter (private communication). The values of reddening and distance are in agreement with those listed in the Harris(1996, updated as in 2010) catalog, while the age is consistent with previous estimate by Dotter et al.(2010). We assumed different helium contents for the three populations of NGC6752 of Y=0.246, Y=0.256, and Y=0.288, which are the values inferred by Milone et al.(2013, 2018) from multiple MSs and RGBs.
The best-fit isochrones are overimposed on the observed CMD plotted in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:iso\] and provide a poor fit with the MS region below the knee. This fact is quite expected because the F110W$-$F160W color of M-dwarfs are significantly affected by the content of oxygen and we assumed the same value of \[O/Fe\] for the three populations, in contrast with what is inferred from spectroscopy (e.g.Grundahl et al.2002; Yong et al.2003, 2005, 2013; Carretta et al.2009).
To account for light-element abundance variations, we identified a series of fifteen points along the MS that span the magnitude interval between $m_{\rm F160W}=15.5$ and $m_{\rm F160W}=23.0$ in steps of 0.5 magnitudes and calculated for each of them four synthetic spectra. To calculate all the spectra we assumed \[Fe/H\]=$-1.61$, \[$\alpha$/Fe\]=0.4 and the values of effective temperature and gravity inferred by the best-fit isochrones and a microturbolent velocity of 2 km s$^{-1}$. Specifically for each population, we calculated a reference synthetic spectrum with solar carbon and nitrogen abundance and with \[O/Fe\]=0.4 and a comparison spectra with the corresponding average abundances of C, N and O derived from spectroscopy. Specifically, we used (\[C/Fe\], \[N/Fe\], \[O/Fe\])=($-$0.25, $-$0.11, 0.65), ($-$0.45, 0.92, 0.43) and ($-$0.70, 1.35, 0.03) for population A, B, and C, respectively (see Table 2 from Milone et al.2013 and Yong et al.2005, 2013, 2015).
Synthetic spectra are generated with SYNTHE (Kurucz & Avrett 1981) over the wavelength range between 8,500 and 19,000 $\AA$ and by using model atmospheres calculated by using the ATLAS12 code, which was developed by Robert Kurucz (e.g.Kurucz 1970, 1993, 2005; Castelli 2005) and ported to Linux by Sbordone et al.(2004, 2007). We included molecular line lists for CO, C$_{2}$, CN, OH, MgH, SiH, H$_{2}$O, TiO, VO, ZrO from Partridge & Schwenke(1997), Schwenke (1998). Each synthetic spectrum has been convolved with the transmission curves of the F110W and F160W WFC3/NIR filters to derive the corresponding fluxes. Finally, we calculated the difference between the F110W and F160W magnitudes derived from each comparison spectrum and the corresponding reference spectrum ($\delta$m). The blue, green and red isochrones plotted in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:iso\] have been derived by adding $\delta$m to the corresponding isochrones plotted in the left panel.
The isochrones that account for the abundances of He, C, N, O of the distinct populations qualitatively reproduce the observations and show that the blue, middle, and red MSs correspond to the populations A, B and C defined by Milone et al.(2013). As expected, the isochrones of populations A and C are qualitatively similar to those calculated by Dotter et al.(2015, see their Figures 9 and 12) who used ATLAS12 and similar chemical compositions for populations A and C.
The reason why these isochrones provide a better fit with the observed CMD is that the split MS is a natural consequence of the fact that population-A stars have higher oxygen abundance than population-C stars. Indeed, the F160W band is heavily affected by absorption from H$_{2}$O molecules, which is stronger in MS-A stars than in MS-C stars, while the F110W filter is almost unaffected by the oxygen abundance. As a consequence, MS-A stars have fainter F160W magnitudes and bluer F110W$-$F160W colors than MS-C stars with the same luminosity. MS-B stars have intermediate properties.
{height="7.5cm"} {height="7.5cm"}
The three stellar populations of NGC6752
----------------------------------------
{width="11.0cm"}
To derive the relative numbers of stars in each MS, we followed the procedure illustrated in Fig. \[fig:pratio\]. The left panel of Fig. \[fig:pratio\] is a zoom of Fig. \[fig:cmd\] around the region of the NIR CMD where the triple sequence is clearly distinguishable and the blue and red lines overimposed on the CMD are the fiducials of MS-A and MS-C, respectively. To derive the red (blue) fiducial we applied a procedure based on the naive estimator method (Silverman 1986). In a nutshell, we first defined a series of magnitude bins of width $\nu=0.25$ mag over a grid of $N$ points separated by steps of fixed magnitude ($s=\nu/5$). Then, we calculated the medians of the $m_{\rm F110W}-m_{\rm F160W}$ color distribution and of the F160W magnitude distribution of all the MS-A (MS-C) stars in each bin. Finally, we smoothed the median points by using the boxcar average smoothing, where each point has been replaced by the average of the three nearby points. The fiducial lines are used to derive the verticalized diagram plotted in the middle panel of Fig. \[fig:pratio\], where the abscissa is calculated as: $$\Delta_{\rm F110W,F160W}= [(X-X_{\rm red~fiducial})/(X_{\rm blue~fiducial}-X_{\rm red~fiducial})]-1$$ with $X=m_{\rm F110W}-m_{\rm F160W}$. To account for the contamination from foreground and background field stars, we used the population-synthesis code Trilegal (Girardi et al.2005) to simulate the $m_{\rm F160W}$ vs.$m_{\rm F110W}-m_{\rm F160W}$ CMD of Milky-Way stars in a square-degree field of view in the direction of NGC6752. The red crosses overimposed to the diagrams plotted in the left- and middle-panel diagrams of Fig. \[fig:pratio\] are the stars expected in a region with the same area of the analyzed WFC3/NIR field of view and are randomly extracted from the entire sample of simulated field stars. This figure immediately reveals that the contamination of field stars is negligible and that the triple sequence is not due field stars.
The $\Delta_{\rm F110W,F160W}$ histogram distribution of stars in five magnitude intervals is plotted in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:pratio\]. To derive each histogram we accounted for stellar completeness and subtracted the field stars. The black continuous lines overimposed on the histograms are the best-fit least-squares three-Gaussian functions, whose components are colored green, magenta and blue. From the average of the population ratio obtained in the five magnitude intervals we obtain that the MS-A, MS-B and MS-C host 26.3$\pm$1.4%, 46.9$\pm$1.3% and 26.8$\pm$2.0%, respectively, of the total number of MS stars. The uncertainties are estimated as the ratio between the r.m.s. of the five population-ratio measurements divided by the square root of four. The fractions of MS-A, MS-B and MS-C stars with respect to the total number of MS stars are estimated from the areas of the corresponding Gaussians. Results are listed in Table 1, where we also provide the dispersion of each Gaussian component. Noticeably, the MS-B is significantly wider than the other two sequences, thus indicating that its stars are not chemically homogeneous.
$m_{\rm F160W}$ bin $N$ $f_{\rm MS-A}$ $\sigma_{\rm MS-A}$ $f_{\rm MS-B}$ $\sigma_{\rm MS-B}$ $f_{\rm MS-C}$ $\sigma_{\rm MS-C}$
--------------------- ----- ----------------- --------------------- ----------------- --------------------- ----------------- ---------------------
21.25-21.75 248 0.276$\pm$0.028 0.060 0.486$\pm$0.032 0.155 0.238$\pm$0.027 0.065
20.75-21.25 280 0.255$\pm$0.026 0.052 0.464$\pm$0.030 0.140 0.281$\pm$0.027 0.061
20.25-20.75 296 0.243$\pm$0.026 0.051 0.467$\pm$0.029 0.132 0.290$\pm$0.027 0.060
19.75-20.25 341 0.265$\pm$0.024 0.042 0.476$\pm$0.028 0.142 0.259$\pm$0.024 0.063
19.25-19.75 256 0.274$\pm$0.029 0.056 0.452$\pm$0.031 0.156 0.274$\pm$0.029 0.076
\
\[tab:data\]
The radial distribution of multiple populations
-----------------------------------------------
In past years, the multiple populations of NGC6752 have been investigated at different radial distances from the cluster center. Milone et al.(2013, 2017) identified the three main populations of NGC6752 within six arcmin from the cluster center and found that populations A, B and C comprise about 25%, 45% and 30% of the total number of cluster stars. Nardiello et al.(2015) extended the investigation at larger radial distances and concluded that the MS-A hosts 26$\pm$4% of the total number of MS stars in the region between $\sim$5.9 and 17.9 arcmin from the cluster center. Both papers by Milone et al.(2013) and Nardiello et al.(2015) conclude that there is no evidence for any radial gradient of the different stellar populations. Similarly, Lee(2018) analyzed multiple populations in NGC6752 by using Ca-CN photometry and confirmed that the two main groups of CN-weak and CN-strong stars that he identified along the RGB follow the same radial distribution within $\sim$8.2 arcmin from the cluster center.
In the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:pratio1\] we plot the ratio of population-A, B, and C stars against the radial distance from the cluster center by using results from literature and from this paper. The present investigation, which is based on a field with radial distance between 3.3 and 6.6 arcmin from the center of NGC6752, corroborates the conclusion that the three populations of NGC6752 are consistent with a flat radial distribution.
Dependence of multiple populations from stellar mass
----------------------------------------------------
Published studies on multiple populations in NGC6752 are mostly focused on RGB and bright MS stars, which are more massive than $\sim$0.6$\mathcal{M}_{\odot}$. Specifically, results by Milone et al.(2013, 2017) are based either on [*HST*]{} photometry of MS stars with $19.05<m_{\rm F814W}<20.15$ or on photometry of RGB stars from [*HST*]{} and from the Str${\rm \ddot{o}}$mgren catalogue by Grundahl et al.(2002) obtained from New-Technology-Telescope data. The conclusion by Nardiello et al.(2015) are inferred from photometry of MS stars with $19.25<V<20.51$.
The lower panel of Fig. \[fig:pratio1\] shows the fraction of stars in the distinct populations as a function of the stellar mass, where the stellar masses are derived by using the mass-luminosity relation provided by the best-fit isochrones derived in Sect. \[subsec:theory\]. Results are consistent with constant fraction of population-A, -B and -C stars over the analyzed interval of $\sim0.15$-$0.80$ solar masses.
![Fractions of stars in the populations A (green), B (magenta), and C (blue) against radial distance from the cluster center (upper panel) and stellar mass (lower panel). The fractions of stars more massive than 0.5 solar masses are taken from Milone et al.(2013, 2017 circles) and Nardiello et al.(2015, squares), while the results for low-mass stars are derived in this paper and are represented with triangles. This figure suggests that there is no evidence for strong dependence between the population ratios and neither stellar mass nor radial distance.[]{data-label="fig:pratio1"}](f5.ps){width="8.7cm"}
Summary and discussion {#sec:discussion}
======================
In the context of the [*HST*]{} Large program on NGC6752 (GO-15096), we analyzed deep WFC3/NIR photometry to investigate multiple stellar populations among M-dwarfs in NGC6752. The $m_{\rm F160W}$ vs.$m_{\rm F110W}-m_{\rm F160W}$ CMD of NGC6752 reveals that the MS splits into three distinct sequences below the MS knee.
The comparison between the observations and isochrones that account for the chemical composition of stars in NGC6752, demonstrates that the three sequences correspond to the three populations (A, B and C) identified along the brightest part of the MS, the SGB, and the RGB by Milone et al.(2013, see also Yong et al.2005, 2013).
The MS-B is significantly wider than both MS-A and MS-C. The fact that its stars exhibit a color spread that is larger than the broadening expected from photometric uncertainties alone, demonstrates that MS-B is not chemically homogeneous.
We find that the MS-A, MS-B and MS-C host 26.3$\pm$1.4%, 46.9$\pm$1.3% and 26.8$\pm$2.0%, respectively, of the total number of MS stars. These results, that we derived in a field of view located about 4.8 arcmin north-east from the cluster center, are similar to the relative numbers of stars in the population-A, B, and C estimated at various radial distances (Milone et al.2013; Nardiello et al.2015; Lee 2018). Hence, we confirm that there is no evidence for any strong radial gradients within $\sim$16 arcmin (i.e.$\sim$8.4 half-light radii) from the center of NGC6752.
The relative numbers of population-A, population-B, and population-C stars are almost constant along the entire interval that ranges from $\sim$0.15 to 0.80 solar masses. Moreover, the range of \[O/Fe\] needed to reproduce the color broadening of stars at the bottom of the MS is similar to that inferred from spectroscopy of more-massive RGB stars. Noticeably, Milone et al.(2014) obtained similar conclusion for M4, where the relative numbers of stars in the two stellar populations of this cluster and the oxygen abundances inferred from M-dwarfs are similar to the corresponding quantities measured among RGB and more-massive MS stars (Marino et al.2008, 2011, 2017; Nardiello et al.2015; Milone et al.2017). These facts suggest that the properties of the multiple populations of GCs do not depend significantly on the stellar mass in the $\sim$0.15-0.80 $\mathcal{M}_{\odot}$ range, and provide new constraints to the scenarios for the formation of multiple populations.
According to some scenarios, GCs have experienced multiple episodes of star formation, where the material ejected by relatively massive first-generation (1G) stars produces a cooling flow, rapidly collects in the innermost regions of the cluster and forms centrally-concentrated second stellar generations (2G, e.g.Ventura et al.2001; Decressin et al.2007; De Mink et al.2009; D’Ercole et al.2010; Denissenkov et al.2014; D’Antona et al.2016). It has been suggested that the proto GCs should have been substantially (by a factor of about ten) more massive at birth. This conclusion comes from the evidence that 1G stars are the minority population in most GCs and that only a fraction of 1G stars is turned into 2G stars. As a consequence, the proto GCs should have lost the majority of their 1G stars into the Galactic halo thus providing a major contribution to the assembly of the Galaxy. In this case, 1G and 2G stars could form in environments with different densities and follow a different dynamical evolution during the early phases of cluster formation.
The present-day 1G/2G ratio among stars with different masses, depends on the initial mass functions of the distinct stellar populations and on their dynamical evolution (see Vesperini et al.2018). As a consequence, the evidence that the population ratios are almost constant along the $\sim$0.15-0.80 $\mathcal{M}_{\rm \odot}$ mass interval provides strong constraints to the early phases of GC formation.
Alternative scenarios of formation of multiple populations in GCs suggest that there would have been only one episode of star formation, but a fraction of stars would have successively accreted material processed and polluted by massive stars of the same generation (e.g.Bastian et al.2013; Gieles et al.2018). In these scenarios, the amount of accreted material would depend on the stellar mass.
Our work shows that the oxygen variation needed to reproduce the observed colors of multiple MSs of low-mass stars is consistent with the range of \[O/Fe\] inferred from spectroscopy of more-massive RGB stars. As a consequence, in any scenario based on accretion onto already-existing stars, the rate of accreated material should be proportional to the stellar mass. As an example, our results exclude a Bondi accretion, where the amount of accreted material is proportional to the square of the stellar mass and low-mass stars would be inefficient to accreate polluted material. In general, the discovery of multiple MSs of faint MS stars in NGC6752, together with similar findings on NGC2808, M4 and $\omega$Cen, indicate that multiple sequences of M-dwarfs are common features of GCs. The evidence that stellar populations with different chemical compositions are also present in M-dwarfs, which are fully-convective stars, demonstrates that the chemical composition of multiple populations is not a product of stellar evolution.
acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the referee for her/his work that improved the manuscript. This paper has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research innovation programme (Grant Agreement ERC-StG 2016, No 716082 ‘GALFOR’, PI: Milone), and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie (Grant Agreement No 797100, beneficiary: Marino). APM acknowledges support from MIUR through the the FARE project R164RM93XW ‘SEMPLICE’. JA, AB and ML acknowledge support from STScI grant GO-15096.
Anderson, J., Sarajedini, A., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2008, [AJ]{}, 135, 2055
Bastian, N., Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2013, [MNRAS]{}, 436, 2398
Bedin, L. R., Cassisi, S., Castelli, F., et al. 2005, [MNRAS]{}, 357, 1038
Bedin, L. R., King, I. R., Anderson, J., et al. 2008, [ApJ]{}, 678, 1279
Bedin, L. R., Salaris, M., Piotto, G., et al. 2009, [ApJ]{}, 697, 965
Bedin, L. R., Salaris, M., King, I. R., et al. 2010, [ApJ]{}, 708, L32
Bedin, L. R., Salaris, M., Anderson, J., et al. 2015, [MNRAS]{}, 448, 1779
Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R. G., et al. 2009, [A&A]{}, 505, 117
Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R. G., Lucatello, S., & D’Orazi, V. 2012, [ApJ]{}, 750, L14
Castelli, F. 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 8, 25
D’Antona, F., Vesperini, E., D’Ercole, A., et al. 2016, [MNRAS]{}, 458, 2122
Decressin, T., Meynet, G., Charbonnel, C., Prantzos, N., & Ekstr[ö]{}m, S. 2007, [A&A]{}, 464, 1029
de Mink, S. E., Pols, O. R., Langer, N., & Izzard, R. G. 2009, [A&A]{}, 507, L1
Denissenkov, P. A., & Hartwick, F. D. A. 2014, [MNRAS]{}, 437, L21
D’Ercole, A., D’Antona, F., Ventura, P., Vesperini, E., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2010, [MNRAS]{}, 407, 854
Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi[ć]{}, D., et al. 2008, [ApJS]{}, 178, 89
Dotter, A., Sarajedini, A., Anderson, J., et al. 2010, [ApJ]{}, 708, 698
Dotter, A., Ferguson, J. W., Conroy, C., et al. 2015, [MNRAS]{}, 446, 1641
Gieles, M., Charbonnel, C., Krause, M. G. H., et al. 2018, [MNRAS]{}, 478, 2461
Girardi, L., Groenewegen, M. A. T., Hatziminaoglou, E., & da Costa, L. 2005, [A&A]{}, 436, 895
Grundahl, F., Briley, M., Nissen, P. E., & Feltzing, S. 2002, [A&A]{}, 385, L14
Harris, W. E. 1996, [AJ]{}, 112, 1487
Kurucz, R. L. 1970, SAO Special Report, 309, 309
Kurucz, R. L., & Avrett, E. H. 1981, SAO Special Report, 391, 391
Kurucz, R. L. 1993, Kurucz CD-ROM, Cambridge, MA: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, |c1993, December 4, 1993, Kurucz, R. L. 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 8, 14
Lee, J.-W. 2018, [ApJS]{}, 238, 24
Marino, A. F., Villanova, S., Piotto, G., et al. 2008, [A&A]{}, 490, 625
Marino, A. F., Villanova, S., Milone, A. P., et al. 2011, [ApJ]{}, 730, L16
Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Yong, D., et al. 2017, [ApJ]{}, 843, 66
Milone, A. P., Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., & Anderson, J. 2009, [A&A]{}, 497, 755
Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., King, I. R., et al. 2010, [ApJ]{}, 709, 1183
Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Cassisi, S., et al. 2012, [ApJ]{}, 754, L34
Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2012, [A&A]{}, 540, A16
Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Piotto, G., et al. 2013, [ApJ]{}, 767, 120
Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2014, [MNRAS]{}, 439, 1588
Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2017, [MNRAS]{}, 469, 800
Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., Renzini, A., et al. 2017, [MNRAS]{}, 464, 3636
Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Renzini, A., et al. 2018, [MNRAS]{}, 481, 5098
Nardiello, D., Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., et al. 2015, [A&A]{}, 573, A70
Partridge, H., & Schwenke, D. W. 1997, J.Chem.Phys., 106, 4618
Sbordone, L., Bonifacio, P., Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2004, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 5, 93
Sbordone, L., Bonifacio, P., & Castelli, F. 2007, Convection in Astrophysics, 239, 71
Schwenke, D. W. 1998, Faraday Discussions, 109, 321
Silverman, B. W. 1986, Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability, London: Chapman and Hall, 1986,
Ventura, P., D’Antona, F., Mazzitelli, I., & Gratton, R. 2001, [ApJ]{}, 550, L65
Vesperini, E., Hong, J., Webb, J. J., D’Antona, F., & D’Ercole, A. 2018, [MNRAS]{}, 476, 2731
Yong, D., Grundahl, F., Lambert, D. L., Nissen, P. E., & Shetrone, M. D. 2003, [A&A]{}, 402, 985
Yong, D., Grundahl, F., Nissen, P. E., Jensen, H. R., & Lambert, D. L. 2005, [A&A]{}, 438, 875
Yong, D., Grundahl, F., Johnson, J. A., & Asplund, M. 2008, [ApJ]{}, 684, 1159
Yong, D., Mel[é]{}ndez, J., Grundahl, F., et al. 2013, [MNRAS]{}, 434, 3542
Yong, D., Grundahl, F., & Norris, J. E. 2015, [MNRAS]{}, 446, 3319
[^1]: Based on observations with the NASA/ESA [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{}, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.
[^2]: Instrument Handbook, Section 7.7\
http://www.stsci.edu/hst/wfc3/documents/handbooks/currentIHB/c07 ir08.htm
[^3]: http://www.stsci.edu/\~jayander/WFC3/
[^4]: http://www.stsci.edu/wfc3/phot\_zp\_lbn
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A new accurate analysis is presented for an OFDM-based multicast-broadcast single-frequency network (MBSFN). The topology of the network is modeled by a constrained random spatial model involving a fixed number of base stations placed over a finite area with a minimum separation. The analysis is driven by a new closed-form expression for the conditional outage probability at each location of the network, where the conditioning is with respect to the network realization. The analysis accounts for the diversity combining of signals transmitted by different base stations of a given MBSFN area, and also accounts for the interference caused by the base stations of other MBSFN areas. The analysis features a flexible channel model, accounting for path loss, Nakagami fading, and correlated shadowing. The analysis is used to investigate the influence of the minimum base-station separation and provides insight regarding the optimal size of the MBSFN areas. In order to highlight the percentage of the network that will fail to successfully receive the broadcast, the area below an outage threshold (ABOT) is here used and defined as the fraction of the network that provides an outage probability (averaged over the fading) that meets a threshold.'
address: 'West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA.'
bibliography:
- 'icassp2014.bib'
title: An Accurate and Efficient Analysis of a MBSFN Network
---
Introduction {#Section:Intro}
============
Multicast-broadcast single-frequency network (MBSFN) is a transmission mode defined in the Long Term Evolution (LTE) standard [@ltea], and in particular for the Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Service (MBMS) [@mbms2]. MBSFN is designed to send multicast or broadcast data as a multicell transmission over a synchronized single-frequency network (SFN). A group of those cells that are targeted to receive the same data is called an [*MBSFN area*]{}. MBSFN enables the efficient delivery of applications such as mobile TV, radio broadcasting, file delivery and emergency alerts without the need of additional expensive licensed spectrum and without requiring new infrastructure and end-user devices. The transmissions from the different base stations in an MBSFN area are tightly synchronized and the MBSFN transmission appear to a user equipment (UE) as a transmission from a single large cell, with each base station transmission appearing as a separate multipath component, dramatically increasing the signal-to-interference-noise ratio (SINR). Since only transmissions from base stations that lie outside the MBSFN area are interference, the intercell interference is reduced [@alexiou:2010].
This paper presents a new and precise analysis for MBSFN orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) networks. The analysis is driven by a new closed-form expression for the outage probability conditioned with respect to the network topology and shadowing. In particular, in [@torrieri:2012] a closed-form expression is derived for conventional networks, and in [@talarico:2013] it has been extended when signals arriving over different paths can be resolved in the presence of noise and interference. The channel model accounts for path loss, correlated shadowing, and Nakagami fading, and the Nakagami fading parameters do not need to be identical for all links.
In contrast with other works on MBSFN networks [@alexiou:2010; @rong:2008; @alexiou:2010b; @alexiou:2012], we don’t use the classical approach to model cellular networks; i.e., we do not assume that the base stations are placed according to a lattice or regular grid. Rather, we assume that the base-station locations are modeled as a realization of a random point process [@ganti:2009b; @baccelli:2009; @baccelli:2009b; @andrews:2011; @haenggi:2012]. In particular, in order to model the network more realistically, a [*uniform cluster model*]{} is used, which the authors have recently adopted to analyze both the downlink [@Valenti:2013] and the uplink [@torrieri:2013] of a conventional non-cooperative cellular network. Having adopted a realistic model and an accurate analysis, the influence of the minimum base-station separation is investigated and insight provided regarding the optimal size of the MBSFN areas. Furthermore, in this paper we propose to quantify performance using the [*area below an outage threshold*]{} (ABOT), which is here defined to be the fraction of the network that meets an outage constraint. The ABOT gives a useful indication of the percentage of the network that will successfully receive the broadcast.
Network Model {#Section:SystemModel}
=============
The network comprises $M$ cellular base stations $\{X_1, ..., X_M\}$ placed on a finite square area $A_\mathsf{net}$ with sides of length $d_\mathsf{net}$. The variable $X_i$ represents both the $i^{th}$ base station and its location. To facilitate the analysis, the coverage area of the network is discretized into a large number of points, and the variable $Y_j$ is used to indicate the location of the $j^{th}$ point within the network. Each location $Y_j$ within a radio cell receives the same content from one or multiple base stations, which belongs to an MBSFN area. In each MBSFN area, the same content is synchronously broadcasted. Let $\mathcal G_{j,z}$ denote the set of the indexes of the base stations that belong to the $z^{th}$ MBSFN area and serving location $Y_j$. Furthermore, let $\mathcal Z_j$ denote the index of the MBSFN area that covers the location $Y_j$ and $N_j=|\mathcal G_{j, \mathcal Z_j}|$ be the number of base stations that belongs to that area.
The base stations are deployed according to a *uniform-clustering* model [@torrieri:2012]. Using this model, the $M$ base stations are uniformly deployed in the network area $A_\mathsf{net}$. An [*exclusion zone*]{} of radius $r_{bs}$ surrounds each base station, and no other base stations are allowed within this zone. In particular, each base station is placed one at a time uniformly into the portion of the network that remains outside of the exclusion zones of the previously placed base stations. The radius of the base-station exclusion zones can be primarily determined by economic considerations and the terrain.
The network comprises $S$ MFSFN areas, which are defined as follows. Inside the network arena, $\{Z_1, ..., Z_S\}$ points are picked according to a regular hexagonal grid and equally separated by $d_\mathsf{sfn}$, where the variable $Z_z$ represents the $z^{th}$ location. The $z^{th}$ MBSFN area is then formed by the radio cells of all base stations that are closer to the location of $Z_z$.
In a MBSFN OFDMA network, the transmissions are tightly synchronized and it is possible to combine the signals that are sent by all base stations $X_i, i \in \mathcal G_{j, \mathcal Z_j}$ and received at the UE, located at position $Y_j$, if the signals arrive within the *extended cyclic prefix*, which is fixed to be equal to $T_{ECP}=16.7 \mu s$ [@dahlman:2011]. The signal from base station $X_i, i \in \mathcal G_{\mathcal Z_j}$ to the UE at location $Y_j$ is then included in the MRC combined signal passed to the demodulator, if $||X_i-Y_j||< d_\mathsf{max}$, where $d_\mathsf{max}= 5$ km, otherwise it results in inter-symbol interference (ISI). The set $\mathcal G_{j,z}$ contains the indices of those base stations that are closer to $Z_{\mathcal Z_j}$ and they are located such that their signals arrive at $Y_j$ within the extended cyclic prefix. The set $\mathcal G_{j,z}$ is then selected such that $i \in \mathcal G_{j, \mathcal Z_j}$ if $||Z_{\mathcal Z_j}-X_i||<||Z_s-X_i||$, $\forall s \neq \mathcal Z_j$ and also if $||X_i-Y_j||<d_\mathsf{max}$.
Let $\rho_{i,j}$ represent the instantaneous received power of $X_i$ at location $Y_j$, which depends on the path loss, shadowing, and fading. We assume that the path loss has a power-law dependence on distance. In particular, for a distance $d \geq d_{0}$, the path-loss function is expressed as the attenuation power law $$\begin{aligned}
f\left( d\right) = \left( \frac{d}{d_{0}}\right) ^{-\alpha},
\label{eqn:pathloss}$$ where $\alpha\geq2$ is the attenuation power-law exponent, and it is assumed that $d_{0}$ is sufficiently large that the signals are in the far field.
Let $d_{i,j} = ||X_i-Y_j||$ be the distance between base station $X_i$ and location $Y_j$. The instantaneous power of the signal received at the location $Y_j$ from the base station $X_i$ is $$\begin{aligned}
{\rho}_{i,j}
=
P_0 g_{i,j} 10^{\xi_{i,j}/10} f( d_{i,j} ), \label{eqn:instantaneous_power}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_0$ is the transmit power, which is common for all base stations, $g_{i,j}$ is the power gain due to fading and $\xi_{i,j}$ is a *shadowing factor*. The $\{ g_{i,j} \}$ are independent with unit-mean, and $g_{i,j}=a_{i,j}^{2}$, where $a_{i,j}$ is Nakagami with parameter $m_{i,j}$. While the $\{g_{i,j}\}$ are independent from mobile to mobile, they are not necessarily identically distributed, and for each mobile each link between $Y_j$ and $X_i$ can be characterized by a distinct Nakagami parameter $m_{i,j}$. When the channel between $X_i$ and $Y_j$ experiences Rayleigh fading, $m_{i,j}=1$ and $g_{i,j}$ is exponentially distributed. It is assumed that the {$g_{i,j}\}$ remain fixed for the duration of a MBSFN subframe, but vary independently from subframe to subframe. In the presence of log-normal shadowing, the $\{\xi_{i,j}\}$ are zero-mean Gaussian with variance $\sigma_{s}^{2}$ and characterized by the normalized autocorrelation function $\mathcal R\left( \Delta x\right)$, where $\Delta x$ is the change in distance. The normalized autocorrelation function can be described with sufficient accuracy by an exponential function as [@Gudmundson:1991] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal R\left( \Delta x\right) = \exp\left\{ -
\frac{||\Delta x||}{d_\mathsf{corr}} \ln 2 \right\}\end{aligned}$$ with the decorrelation length $d_\mathsf{corr}$ , which is dependent on the environment. For the urban vehicular test environment (VTE), [@mbms5] proposes $d_\mathsf{corr}=20$ m. This correlation works satisfactorily for distances up to approximately $500$ m. In the absence of shadowing, $\xi_{i,j}=0$.
A *distance-dependent fading* model is assumed, where a signal originating at base station $X_i$ arrives at location $Y_j$ with a Nakagami fading parameter $m_{i,j}$ determined as following $$m_{i,j}=\begin{cases}
3 & \mbox{ if }\;||X_{i}-Y_{j}||\leq r_{\mathsf{f}}/2 \\
2 & \mbox{ if }\;r_{\mathsf{f}}/2<||X_{i}-Y_{j}||\leq r_{\mathsf{f}} \\
1 & \mbox{ if }\;||X_{i}-Y_{j}||>r_{\mathsf{f}}\end{cases}
\label{eqn:ddfading}$$ where $r_{\mathsf{f}}$ is the *line-of-sight radius*. The distance-dependent-fading model characterizes the situation where a mobile close to the base station is in the line-of-sight, while mobiles farther away are usually not.
$$\begin{aligned}
F_{\mathsf{Z}_j}(z \big| \boldsymbol \Omega_j)
\hspace{-0.3 cm}& = &\hspace{-0.3 cm}
\sum_{k \in \mathcal G_{j,\mathcal Z_j} } \sum_{n=1}^{m_{k,j}} \Xi_{N_j} \hspace{-0.1 cm}\left( k, n, \left\{ m_{q,j} \right\}_{\forall q \in \mathcal G_{j,\mathcal Z_j}},\left\{\frac{\Omega_{q,j}}{\beta m_{q,j}} \right\}_{\forall q \in \mathcal G_{j,\mathcal Z_j}} \right) \left\{ 1 - \exp \left(\hspace{-0.1 cm}- \frac{\beta m_{k,j} z}{\Omega_{k,j}} \right) \sum_{\mu=0}^{n-1} \left(\frac{\beta m_{k,j} z }{\Omega_{k,j}} \right)^\mu \right. \vspace{-0.3 cm} \vspace{-0.4cm} \nonumber \\
\hspace{-0.3 cm} & & \hspace{-0.3 cm}
\sum_{t=0}^\mu
\frac{z^{-t}}{\left( \mu - t \right)!} \hspace{-0.5 cm} \mathop{ \sum_{\ell_i \geq 0}}_{\sum_{i=0}^{M-N_j}\ell_i=t} \left.
\prod_{ i \notin \mathcal G_{j,\mathcal Z_j} } \left[
\ \frac{ \Gamma(\ell_i+m_{i,j}) }{ \ell_i! \Gamma( m_{i,j} ) } \hspace{-0.1 cm}
\left( \frac{\Omega_{i,j}}{m_{i,j}} \right)^{\ell_i}
\hspace{-0.1 cm} \left(
\frac{\beta m_{k,j} }{\Omega_{k,j}} \frac{\Omega_{i,j}}{m_{i,j}} + 1
\right)^{-(m_{i,j}+\ell_i)} \right] \right\}.
\label{eqn_final_case1_Naka2}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& &\hspace{-0.9 cm}\Xi_{L} \left( k, n, \left\{ r_q \right\}_{q=1}^{L},\left\{\eta_q \right\}_{q=1}^{L} \right) =
\sum_{l_1=n}^{r_k} \sum_{l_2=n}^{l_1} \hspace{-0.1 cm} \cdots \hspace{-0.2 cm} \sum_{l_{L-2}=n}^{l_{L-3}}\hspace{-0.1 cm} \left[ \hspace{-0.1 cm} \frac{\left( -1 \right)^{R_L-r_k} \eta_k^n}{\prod_{h=1}^{L} \eta_h^{r_h}} \frac{\left( r_k+r_{1+u(1-k)}-l_1-1 \right)!}{\left( r_{1+u(1-k)} -1 \right)! \left( r_k - l_1\right)!} \right. \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-0.9 cm} \left.
\left( \frac{1}{\eta_j}-\frac{1}{\eta_{1+u(1-k)}} \right)^{l_1-r_k-r_{1+u(1-k)}} \frac{\left( l_{L-2}+r_{L-1+u(L-1-k)}-n-1 \right)!}{\left( r_{L-1+u(L-1-k)}-1\right)! \left(l_{L-2}-n\right)!}
\left( \frac{1}{\eta_k} - \frac{1}{\eta_{L-1+u(L-1-k)}} \right)^{n-l_{L-2}-r_{L-1+u(L-1-k)}} \right. \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-0.9 cm} \left. \prod_{s=1}^{L-3} \frac{\left( l_s + r_{s+1+u(s+1-k)}-l_{s+1}-1\right)!}{\left( r_{s+1+u(s+1-k)}-1\right)! \left( l_s -l_{s+1}\right)!} \left(\frac{1}{\eta_k}-\frac{1}{\eta_{s+1+u(s+1-k)}}\right)^{l_{s+1}-l_s-r_{s+1+u(s+1-k)}}
\right]
\label{Xi_L}.\end{aligned}$$
The instantaneous SINR at location $Y_j$ by using (\[eqn:pathloss\]) and (\[eqn:instantaneous\_power\]) can be expressed as [@rong:2008] $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_j
& = &
\frac{\displaystyle{\sum_{i \in \mathcal G_{j,\mathcal Z_j} } g_{i,j}\Omega_{i,j}}}
{\displaystyle\Gamma^{-1}
+
\sum_{ i \notin \mathcal G_{j,\mathcal Z_j} }
g_{i,j}\Omega_{i,j}},
\label{Equation:SINR2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma=d_{0}^{\alpha} N_j P_0 /\mathcal{N}$ is the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at a mobile located at unit distance when fading and shadowing are absent, $\mathcal{N}$ is the noise power, and $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{i,j}
& = &
\frac{10^{\xi_{i,j}/10} || X_i - Y_j||^{-\alpha} }{N_j }
\label{eqn:omega}\end{aligned}$$ is the normalized power of $X_i$ at receiver $Y_j$.
Outage Probability {#Section:Outage}
==================
\[Section:OutageProbability\] Let $\beta$ denote the minimum SINR required at location $Y_j$ for reliable reception and $\boldsymbol{\Omega }_j=\{\Omega_{1,j},...,\Omega _{M,j}\}$ represent the set of normalized base-station powers received at $Y_j$. An *outage* occurs when the SINR falls below $\beta$. As discussed subsequently, there is a relationship between the SINR threshold and the supported [*rate*]{} of the transmission. Conditioning on $\boldsymbol{\Omega }_j$, the outage probability of mobile $Y_j$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_j
& = &
P \left[ \gamma_j \leq \beta \big| \boldsymbol \Omega_j \right].
\label{Equation:Outage1}\end{aligned}$$ Because it is conditioned on $\boldsymbol{\Omega }_j$, the outage probability depends on the particular network realization, which has dynamics over timescales that are much slower than the fading. By defining $$\begin{aligned}
\mathsf S = \sum_{k \in \mathcal G_{j,\mathcal Z_j}} \beta^{-1} g_{k,j} \Omega_{k,j}, \hspace{0.2 cm} Y_i =g_{i,j} \Omega_{i,j}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathsf Z_j & = & \mathsf S - \sum_{ i \notin \mathcal G_{j,\mathcal Z_j} }
Y_i \label{eqn:z}\end{aligned}$$ the conditional outage probability may be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_j
& = &
P
\left[
\mathsf Z_j \leq \Gamma^{-1} \big| \boldsymbol \Omega_j
\right]
= F_{\mathsf Z_j} \left( \Gamma^{-1} \big| \boldsymbol \Omega_j \right) \label{Equation:OutageCDF}\end{aligned}$$ which is the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of $\mathsf Z_j$ conditioned on $\boldsymbol \Omega_j$ and evaluated at $\Gamma^{-1}$. Restricting the Nakagami parameter $m_{i,j}$ between location $Y_j$ and base station $X_i$ to be integer-valued, the cdf of $\mathsf Z_j$ conditioned on $\boldsymbol \Omega_j$ is proved in [@talarico:2013] to be (\[eqn\_final\_case1\_Naka2\]) at the top of this page. The function $\Xi_{L} \left( k, n, \left\{ r_q \right\}_{q=1}^{L},\left\{\eta_q \right\}_{q=1}^{L} \right)$ is defined by (\[Xi\_L\]) at the top of this page, where $u(x)$ is the step function and $R_L = \sum_{k=1}^{L} r_k.$
Network Performance {#Section:Results}
===================
In order to analyze the network performance, the [*area below an outage threshold*]{} (ABOT) is used, which is defined as the fraction of the network realization $t$ that provides an outage probability (averaged over the fading) that meets a threshold $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal A_\mathsf{bot}^{\left(t\right)}
& = &
P \left[ \epsilon_j < \hat{\epsilon} \right].
\label{area_below_an_outage_threshold}\end{aligned}$$ The ABOT is an indicator of the percentage of the network that will successfully receive the broadcast. An outage threshold of $\hat{\epsilon} = 0.1$ is typical and appropriate for modern systems. For instance, in Fig.\[Example\] it is shown a portion of an example network, where the area in white is the portion of the network for which the outage probability is above $\hat{\epsilon}=0.1$ with $\beta=0$ dB, $\Gamma=10$ dB and $\alpha=3.5$, which as expected corresponds to the edge of the MBSFN areas, that are here illustrated with different colors and obtained by fixing $d_\mathsf{sfn}=3$. The base-station exclusion radius is fixed to $r_{bs} = 0.5$, $M=400$ base stations are deployed into a square network arena with side of length $d_\mathsf{net}=20$. The base station locations are given by the large filled circles and the Voronoi tessellation shows the radio cell boundaries that occur in the absence of shadowing.
![ Close-up of an example network topology. The white areas are the portion of the network for which the outage probability is above a typical value of $\hat{\epsilon}=0.1$. \[Example\] ](Example){width="8"}
After computing $ \mathcal A_\mathsf{bot}^{\left(t\right)}$ for $\Upsilon$ network topologies, its [*spatial average*]{} can be computed as following $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mathcal A}_\mathsf{bot}
& = &
\frac{1}{\Upsilon} \sum_{t=1}^{\Upsilon} \mathcal A_\mathsf{bot}^{\left(t\right)}.
\label{area_below_an_outage_threshold}\end{aligned}$$
A key consideration in the operation of the network is the manner that base stations select their rates at which the multimedia content is broadcasted. The SINR threshold depends on the modulation and coding scheme and receiver implementation. For a given $\beta$, there is a corresponding transmission rate $R$ that can be supported, and typically only a discrete set of $R$ can be supported. Let $R = C(\beta)$ represent the relationship between $R$, expressed in units of bits per channel use (bpcu), and $\beta$. While the exact dependence of $R$ on $\beta$ can be determined empirically through tests or simulation, we make the simplifying assumption when computing our numerical results that $C(\beta) = \log_2(1+\beta)$ corresponding to the Shannon capacity for complex discrete-time AWGN channels. This assumption is fairly accurate for systems that use capacity-approaching codes and a large number of code rates and modulation schemes, such as modern cellular systems, which use turbo codes with a large number of available modulation and coding schemes.
![ ABOT as a function of the threshold $\hat{\epsilon}$ for both a shadowed ($\sigma_s=8$ dB) and unshadowed environment with $R=0.5$. \[Abot\_Shad\] ](ABOT_Rate_lambda){width="8"}
![ ABOT as a function of the threshold $\hat{\epsilon}$ for both a shadowed ($\sigma_s=8$ dB) and unshadowed environment with $R=0.5$. \[Abot\_Shad\] ](Abot_Shad){width="8"}
![ ABOT as a function of $r_{bs}$ when $R=0.1$, $\lambda=0.1$ and $d_\mathsf{sfn}=6$. \[Figure:A\] ](ABOT_REB){width="8"}
In order to determine the rate $R$ for a typical network the following approach is used. Draw a realization of the network by placing base stations according to a uniform clustering model with density $\lambda=M/A_{net}$. Group the base stations into MBSFN areas. Compute the path loss from each base station to a very large number of locations, selected such that they form an extremely dense grid that covers the entire network arena, applying randomly generated correlated shadowing factors if shadowing is present. Determine the outage probabilities by using (\[eqn\_final\_case1\_Naka2\]) parameterized by the SINR threshold for all locations. By applying the function $R=C(\beta)$, find the corresponding rate.
As an example, consider a square network area with sides of length $d_\mathsf{net}=20$, where the performance is evaluated only in the center $10 \times 10$ portion of the network, in order to exclude edge effects. The base-station exclusion zone is set to $r_\mathsf{bs} = 0.5$ and the outage constraint is set to $\hat{\epsilon} = 0.1$. The line-of-sight radius is $r_\mathsf{f} = 0.5$. Other fixed parameter values are $\alpha=3.5$, $\Gamma = 10$ dB and $\Upsilon=1000$.
Fig. \[ABOT\_Rate\_lambda\] shows the ABOT as function of the rate for both a shadowed ($\sigma_s = 8$ dB) and an unshadowed scenario and for three values of lambda when $d_\mathsf{sfn}=6$: (1) $\lambda=1$, (2) $\lambda=0.5$ and (3) $\lambda=0.1$. Fig. \[ABOT\_Rate\_lambda\] shows that there is a tradeoff between the two quantities. Shadowing is detrimental and an increase in the density of base-station results in an higher ABOT. Fig. \[Abot\_Shad\] shows the ABOT as function of the outage threshold parameterized for three values of $d_\mathsf{sfn}$ when $\lambda=0.5$ and $R=0.5$. Fig. \[Abot\_Shad\] shows that an increase in the size of the MBSFN areas results in an improvement in performance, but only until a certain value. After a certain value of $d_\mathsf{sfn}$, the ISI starts to increase and the regions at the edge of the MBSFN areas don’t get any more benefit by increasing them furthermore. Fig. \[Figure:A\] shows the area below an outage threshold as function of the minimum separation among base-station when $R=0.1$,$\lambda=0.1$ and $d_\mathsf{sfn}=6$. The curves are shown for both a shadowed ($\sigma_s = 8$ dB) and an unshadowed scenario and for both Rayleigh fading ($r_{f}=0$) and a distance-depending fading when $r_{bs}=r_{f}$. Fig. \[Figure:A\] shows that the fraction of network that succeeds to meet an outage constraint increases when the base-stations have an higher minimum separation and this effect is more prominent under a distance-depending fading.
Conclusion {#Section:Conclusion}
==========
This paper has presented a new approach for modeling and analyzing the performance of multicast-broadcast single-frequency network (MBSFN). The analysis combines a new outage probability expression, which is exact for a given network realization, with a constrained random spatial model, which allows the statistics to be determined for a class of network topologies. The results show that an increase in the size of an MBSFN areas leads to an improvement in performance only until a certain value of $d_\mathsf{sfn}$ is reached and as expected performance increases as the minimum separation among base-station gets higher.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper is concerned with nanowords, a generalization of links, introduced by Turaev. It is shown that the system of bigraded homology groups is an invariant of nanowords by introducing a new notion $\mathcal{U}_{L}$. This paper gives two examples which show the independence of this invariant from some of Turaev’s homotopy invariants.'
author:
- Tomonori Fukunaga and Noboru Ito
title: Khovanov homology and words
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, an alphabet is a finite set and a letter means its element. A word on an alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ is a finite sequence of letters in $\mathcal{A}$, and a phrase is a finite sequence of words on $\mathcal{A}$. If each letter in the alphabet appears exactly twice in the word (respectively phrase), then we call this word a Gauss word (respectively a Gauss phrase).
In the papers [@turaev1] and [@turaev2], V. Turaev introduced the theory of topology of words and phrases (see also [@turaev3]). The theory is a combinatorial extension of the theory of virtual knots and links. Let $\alpha$ be an alphabet endowed with an involution $\tau$. An $\alpha$-alphabet is a pair an alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ and a map $|\cdot|$ from $\mathcal{A}$ to $\alpha$. We call this map $|\cdot|$ a projection. Then a nanoword (respectively nanophrase) over $\alpha$ is a pair an $\alpha$-alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ and a Gauss word (respectively a Gauss phrase) on $\mathcal{A}$.
Turaev defined an equivalence relation which is called $S$-homotopy on nanophrases for a subset $S$ of $\alpha^{3}$. Two nanophrases are $S$-homotopic each other if and only if they are related by a finite sequence of isomorphisms and $S$-homotopy moves (i), (ii), (iii), and inverse moves of $S$-homotopy moves (definitions of an isomorphism of nanophrases and $S$-homotopy moves is given in Section \[turaevswords\]).
In the paper [@turaev2], Turaev gave some geometric meanings of the theory of topology of words and phrases. Let $\alpha_{\ast}$ be a set consisting of four letters $a_{+}$, $a_{-}$, $b_{+}$, and $b_{-}$. Moreover let $\tau_{\ast}$ be an involution on $\alpha_{\ast}$ and $S_{\ast}$ be a subset of $\alpha_{\ast}^{3}$ which is defined in Section 2. Then Turaev proved that the set of the $S_{\ast}$-homotopy classes of nanophrases over $\alpha_{\ast}$ is one to one corresponds to the set of the stable equivalence classes of ordered pointed $k$-component curves.
In the same paper, Turaev considered nanophrases over $\alpha_{1}$ with an involution $\tau_{1}$ up to $S_{1}$-homotopy (we call elements of this set pseudolinks, see Section 2 of [@turaev2] for more details). Turaev constructed the Jones polynomial for pseudolinks.
The purpose of this paper is to construct Khovanov homology for pseudolinks and we prove $S_{1}$-homotopy invariance of the homology. As an application of the Khovanov homology for pseudolinks to nanophrases over an arbitrary alphabet, we construct a new invariant for nanophrases by using the Khovanov homology for pseudolinks. Moreover, we show that the new invariant is independent of the homotopy invariants $\lambda$ and characteristic sequences for nanowords which were defined in [@turaev1].
In [@manturov2], Manturov defines Khovanov homology with $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ coefficients of virtual knots and observes that the homology he defined is invariant under virtualizations (see Figure \[fig1\]).
![Virtualization.[]{data-label="fig1"}](virtulization.eps){width="6cm"}
Since we can view pseudolinks as virtual links modulo virtualizations, Manturov’s Khovanov homology is an invariant of pseudolinks. We can see that our homology $KH^{i, j}$ $=$ $H^{i}(C^{*, j}, d)$ is the same as that of Manturov by considering the isomorphism between Viro’s definition [@viro] and Bar-Natan’s definition [@bar-natan] of Khovanov homology. However, our construction has some benefits over Manturov’s construction as follows. First, it is easy to calculate our homology as an invariant of long virtual strings because there is a natural bijection from pseudolinks without shifts to long virtual strings using word theory. Second, our construction makes it easier to calculate our new invariants of nanophrases over an arbitrary alphabet. Third, our proof of invariance of the homology is simple because the proof is given by explicit chain homotopy maps and retractions on complexes.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review the theory of topology of words and phrases. In Section 3, we introduce Kauffman-type states of pseudolinks, and we define the Jones polynomial for pseudolinks by using Kauffman-type states of pseudolinks. After that we show that this definition is equivalent to the definition of the Jones polynomial for pseudolinks introduced by Turaev in [@turaev2]. In Section 4, we define Khovanov homology with $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ coefficient, and in Section 5, we prove $S_{1}$-homotopy invariance of the homology which is constructed in Section 4. In Section 6, we discuss an application of the Khovanov homology for pseudolinks to the theory of topology of nanowords and nanophrases over an arbitrary alphabet.
Turaev’s theory of words {#turaevswords}
========================
Nanowords and Nanophrase
------------------------
For our preliminary discussions, we define [*nanophrases*]{} and their $S$-[*homotopy*]{} in the same manner as that in Turaev’s original paper [@turaev1 Section 2], [@turaev2 Section 2], Gibson’s paper [@andrew3 Section 2], or Fukunaga’s paper [@fukunaga1 Section 2.1]; these papers provide a detailed description of the terminology of nanophrases.
An [*alphabet*]{} is a finite set and [*letters*]{} are its elements. For an alphabet $\alpha$, an $\alpha$-alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ is a set where every element $A$ of $\mathcal{A}$ has a projection $|~|:$ $A\mapsto |A|\in\alpha$. A [*word of length $n \ge 1$*]{} in an alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ is a mapping $w:$ $\hat{n} \to {\mathcal A}$, where $\hat{n}$ $=$ $\{ i \in {\mathbb{N}}~|~1 \le i \le n \}$. Such a word is encoded by the sequence $w(1)w(2) \cdots w(n)$. By definition, there exists a unique word $\emptyset$ of length $0$. We define an [*opposite word*]{} by writing the letters of a word $w$ in the opposite order. For example, if $w$ $=$ $abc$, then $w^{-}$ $=$ $cba$. A word $w:$ $\hat{n} \to {\mathcal A}$ is a [*Gauss word*]{} in an alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ if each element of $\mathcal A$ is the image of precisely two elements of $\hat{n}$ or $w$ is $\emptyset$. A [*Gauss phrase*]{} in an alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ is a sequence of words $x_1$, $x_2, \dots$, $x_m$ in $\mathcal{A}$ denoted by $x_1|x_2|\dots|x_m$ such that $x_1 x_2 \cdots x_m$ is a Gauss word in $\mathcal{A}$. We call $x_{i}$ the $i$th component of the Gauss phrase. In particular, if a Gauss phrase has only one component, that component is a Gauss word. A [*nanoword*]{} $(\mathcal A, w)$ over $\alpha$ is a pair (an $\alpha$-[*alphabet*]{} $\mathcal A$, a Gauss word in the alphabet $\mathcal A$). For a nanoword $(\mathcal{A}, w=w_{1}w_{2}\cdots w_{k})$ over $\alpha$ consisting of subwords $w_{i}$ $(1 \le i \le k)$ of $w$, a [*nanophrase*]{} of length $k \ge 0$ over $\alpha$ is defined as $(\mathcal{A}, w_{1}|w_{2}|\cdots|w_{k})$. Whenever possible, $(\mathcal{A}, w_{1}|w_{2}|\cdots|w_{k})$ is indicated by simple symbols: $w_{1}|w_{2}|\cdots|w_{k}$, $(\mathcal{A}, P)$, or $P$. We call $w_{i}$ the $i$th component of the nanophrase. An arbitrary nanoword $w$ over $\alpha$ yields a nanophrase $w$ of length $1$. However, we distinguish between nanowords and nanophrases of length $1$. By definition, there exists a unique nanophrase of length $0$. Note the fact that $\emptyset$ is not a nanophrase of length $0$ (see [@turaev2 Subsection 6.1]. Turaev did not differentiate between nanowords and nanophrases of length $1$). We denote the nanophrase of length $0$ by $\emptyset$. Note that we distinguish the nanophrase $\emptyset|\emptyset | \dots |\emptyset$ of length $k$ from that $\emptyset|\emptyset | \dots |\emptyset$ of length $l$ if $k$ $\neq$ $l$.
An [*isomorphism*]{} of $\alpha$-alphabets $\mathcal{A}_1$, $\mathcal{A}_2$ is a bijection $f:$ $\mathcal{A}_1$ $\to$ $\mathcal{A}_2$ such that $|A|=|f(A)|$ for an arbitrary $A \in \mathcal{A}_1$. Two nanophrases $(\mathcal{A}_{1}, p_{1}= w_{1}|w_{2}|\cdots|w_{k})$ and $(\mathcal{A}_{2}, p_{2}= w'_{1}|w'_{2}|\cdots|w'_{k'})$ over $\alpha$ are [*isomorphic*]{} if $k = k'$ and there exists an isomorphism of $\alpha$-alphabets $f:$ $\mathcal{A}_1$ $\to$ $\mathcal{A}_2$ such that $w'_{i}=fw_{i}$ for every $i$ $\in \{1, 2, \cdots, k\}$.
Homotopy of nanophrases
-----------------------
To define a homotopy of nanophrases, we consider a finite set $\alpha$ with an involution $\tau:$ $\alpha \to \alpha$ and a subset $S$ $\subset \alpha \times \alpha \times \alpha$. We call the triple $(\alpha, \tau, S)$ [*homotopy data*]{}. Turaev defined an $S$-[*homotopy*]{} as follows (see [@turaev2 Section 2.2], [@fukunaga1 Section 2.1], [@andrew3 Section 2]).
Let $(\alpha, \tau, S)$ be homotopy data. Two nanowords $(\mathcal{A}_1, w_{1})$ and $(\mathcal{A}_2, w_{2})$ are $S$-homotopic if one nanophrase is changed into the other by the finite sequence of the isomorphisms and the following three type deformations (1)–(3), called [*homotopy moves*]{}, and their inverses. The relation $S$-homotopy is denoted by $\simeq_{S}$.
(H1) Replace ($\mathcal{A}$, $xAAy$) with ($\mathcal{A} \setminus \{A\}$, $xy$) for $\mathcal{A}$, and $x$, $y$ are words in $\mathcal{A} \setminus \{A\}$ that possibly include the character $|$ such that $xy$ is a Gauss phrase.
(H2) Replace $(\mathcal{A}, xAByBAz)$ with $(\mathcal{A} \setminus \{A, B\}, xyz)$ if $A, B \in \mathcal{A}$ with $\tau(|A|)=|B|$ where $x$, $y$, $z$ are words in $\mathcal{A} \setminus \{A, B\}$ that possibly include the character $|$ such that $(xyz)$ is a Gauss phrase.
(H3) Replace $(\mathcal{A}, xAByACzBCt)$ with $(\mathcal{A}, xBAyCAzCBt)$ for $(|A|, |B|, |C|)$ $\in S$, where $x$, $y$, $z$, and $t$ are words in $\mathcal{A}$ that possibly include the character $|$ such that $(xyzt)$ is a Gauss phrase.
We note the following two lemmas from [@turaev2 Lemma 2.1, Lemma 2.2] (see [@fukunaga1 Lemma 2.4, Lemma 2.5]).
Let $(\alpha, \tau, S)$ be homotopy data and $\mathcal A$ be an $\alpha$-alphabet. Let $A$, $B$, and $C$ be distinct letters in $\mathcal A$ and let $x$, $y$, $z$, and $t$ be words that possibly include the character $|$ in the alphabet $\mathcal A$ $\setminus$ $\{A, B, C\}$ such that $(xyzt)$ is a Gauss phrase in this alphabet. Then,
\(i) $(\mathcal{A}, xAByCAzBCt)$ $\simeq_{S}$ $(\mathcal{A}, xBAyACzCBt)$ $(|A|, \tau(|B|), |C|) \in S$;
\(ii) $(\mathcal{A}, xAByCAzCBt)$ $\simeq_{S}$ $(\mathcal{A}, xBAyACzBCt)$ $(\tau(|A|), \tau(|B|), |C|) \in S$; and
\(iii) $(\mathcal{A}, xAByACzCBt)$ $\simeq_{S}$ $(\mathcal{A}, xBAyCAzBCt)$ $(\tau(|A|), |B|, |C|) \in S$.
\[abab\] Suppose that $S$ $\cap$ $(\alpha \times \{b\} \times \{b\})$ $\neq$ $\emptyset$ for all $b \in \alpha$. Let $(\mathcal{A}, xAByABz)$ be a nanophrase over $\alpha$ with $|B| = \tau(|A|)$, where $x$, $y$, and $z$ are words that possibly include the character $|$ in the alphabet $\mathcal{A} \setminus \{A, B\}$ such that $xyz$ is a Gauss phrase in this alphabet. Then, $(\mathcal{A}, xAByABz)$ $\simeq_{S}$ $(\mathcal{A} \setminus \{A, B\}, xyz)$.
Let $\alpha$ be a finite set. Consider an involution $\nu:$ $\alpha$ $\to$ $\alpha$ called the [*shift involution*]{}. The $\nu$-shift of a nanoword $(\mathcal{A}, w:\hat{n} \to \mathcal{A})$ over $\alpha$ is the nanoword $(\mathcal{A'}, w':\hat{n} \to \mathcal{A'})$ obtained by steps (1)–(3): (1) Let $\mathcal{A}$ $:=$ $(\mathcal{A} - \{A\})$ $\cup$ $\{A_{\nu}\}$, where $A_{\nu}$ is a letter not belonging to $\mathcal{A}$.
\(2) The projection $\mathcal{A}' \to \alpha$ extends the given projection $\mathcal{A}-\{A\} \to \alpha$ by $|A_{\nu}|=\nu(|A|)$.
\(3) The word $w'$ in the alphabet $\mathcal{A}'$ is defined by $w' = xA_{\nu}yA_{\nu}$ for $w = AxAy$.
We define $\nu$-shifts and $\nu$-permutations of words in a nanophrase $P$ $=$ $(\mathcal{A},$ $w_{1}|w_{2}|$ $\cdots$ $|w_{k})$ over $\alpha$ and define $\mathcal{P}(\alpha, S, \nu)$ in the following manner as in [@turaev2 Subsection 6.2].
Fix a homotopy data $(\alpha, \tau, S)$ and a shift involution in $\alpha$.
For $i$ $=$ $1, \dots, k$, the $i$th $\nu$-[*shift*]{} of a nanophrase $P$ moves the first letter, say $A$, of $w_{i}$ to the end of $w_{i}$, keeping $|A| \in \alpha$ if $A$ appears in $w_{i}$ only once and applying $\nu$ if $A$ appears in $w_{i}$ twice. All other words in $P$ are preserved.
Given two words $u$, $v$ on an $\alpha$-alphabet $\mathcal{A}$, consider the mapping $\mathcal{A} \to \alpha$ sending $A \in \mathcal{A}$ to $\nu(|A|) \in \alpha$ if $A$ appears both in $u$ and $v$ and sending $A$ to $|A|$ otherwise. The set $\mathcal{A}$ with this projection to $\alpha$ is an $\alpha$-alphabet denoted by $\mathcal{A}_{u \cap v}$. For $i$ $=$ $1, \dots, k-1$, the $\nu$-[*permutation*]{} of the $i$th and $(i+1)$st words transforms a nanophrase $P$ $=$ $(\mathcal{A}, w_{1}|w_{2}|\cdots|w_{k})$ into the nanophrase $(\mathcal{A}, w_{1}|w_{2}|\cdots|w_{i-1}|w_{i+1}|w_{i}|w_{i+2}|\cdots|w_{k})$. The operation is involutive. The $\nu$-permu-tations define an action of the symmetric group $S_{k}$ on the set of nanophrases of length $k$.
$\mathcal{P}(\alpha, S, \nu)$ denotes the set of nanophrases over $\alpha$ quotiented by the equivalence relation generated by $S$-homotopy, $\nu$-permutations and, $\nu$-shifts on words.
Turaev defined [*pseudolinks*]{} in the following manner as in [@turaev2 Subsection 7.1].
Let $\alpha_{1}$ $=$ $\{-1, 1\}$ with involution $\tau$ permuting $1$ and $-1$ and let $S_{1} \subset \alpha_{1} \times \alpha_{1} \times \alpha_{1}$ consists of the following six triples: $(1, 1, 1)$, $(1, 1, -1)$, $(-1, 1, 1)$, $(-1, -1,- 1)$, and $(-1, -1, 1)$, $(1, -1, -1)$. Let $\nu$ $=$ $\operatorname{id}$. Nanophrases in $\mathcal{P}(\alpha_{1}, S_{1}, \operatorname{id})$ are called [*pseudolinks*]{}.
Let $\alpha_{*}$ be a set consisting of $4$ distinct elements $a_{+}, a_{-}, b_{+},$ and $b_{-}$ with involution $\tau:$ $a_{\pm} \mapsto b_{\mp}$. Let $S_{*}$ $=\{(a_{\pm},$ $a_{\pm}, a_{\pm}),$ $(a_{\pm}, a_{\pm}, a_{\mp}),$ $(a_{\mp}, a_{\pm}, a_{\pm}),$ $(b_{\pm}, b_{\pm}, b_{\pm}),$ $(b_{\pm}, b_{\pm}, b_{\mp}),$ $(b_{\mp}, b_{\pm},$ $b_{\pm})\}$. A projection $\alpha_{*} \to$ $\alpha_{1}:=\{1, -1\};$ $a_{+}, b_{+} \mapsto 1$ and $a_{-}, b_{-} \mapsto -1$ induces a surjective mapping ${\mathcal P}(\alpha_{*}, S_{*}, \nu)$ $\to$ ${\mathcal P}(\alpha_{1}, S_{1}, \operatorname{id})$.
In the last part of this section, we describe the notation $\mathcal{A}_{w}$ as in [@turaev2 Subsection 6.2] and the notation $P_{w}$ as in [@turaev2 Subsection 8.2].
For a word $w$, $\mathcal{A}_{w}$ denotes the same alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ with a new projection $|\cdots|_{w}$ to $\alpha$ defined as follows: for $A \in \mathcal{A}$, set $|A|_{w}$ $=$ $\tau(|A|)$ if $A$ occurs once, $|A|_{w}$ $=$ $\nu(|A|)$ if $A$ occurs twice, and $|A|_{w}$ $=$ $|A|$ otherwise. For a phrase $P$ in an $\alpha_{1}$-alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ and a word $w$ on $\mathcal{A}$, $P_{w}$ denotes the same phrase on the $\alpha_{1}$-alphabet $\mathcal{A}_{w}$.
Jones polynomial for pseudolinks {#jones-by-word}
================================
Turaev defined the Jones polynomial for pseudolinks by using recursive relations for the bracket polynomial of nanophrases over $\alpha_{*}$ [@turaev2 Section 8]. In this section, we present a state sum representation of the Jones polynomial for pseudolinks.
For every pseudolink $P$ $=$ $(\mathcal{A},$ $w_{1}|w_{2}|\cdots|w_{k})$, we assign a sign $-1$ or $1$ to each letter $A$ and call the sign the [*marker*]{} of $A$, denoted by $mark(A)$. Let a [*state*]{} $s$ of $P$ be $P$ with their markers for all the elements of $\mathcal{A}$.
For an arbitrary pseudolink $P$ assigned with state $s$, we consider the following deformation ($\ast$):
$$(\ast) \begin{cases}
& w_1|\cdots|AxAy|\cdots|w_{k} \to \begin{cases}
& w_1|\cdots|x|y|\cdots|w_{k}~\text{if}~{\rm mark}(A) = |A|\\
& (w_1|\cdots|x^{-}y|\cdots|w_{k})_{x}~\text{if}~{\rm mark}(A) = -|A|
\end{cases}
\\
& w_1|\cdots|Ax|Ay|\cdots|w_{k} \to \begin{cases}
& w_1|\cdots|xy|\cdots|w_{k}~\text{if}~{\rm mark}(A) = |A|\\
& (w_1|\cdots|x^{-}y|\cdots|w_{k})_{x}~\text{if}~{\rm mark}(A) = -|A|.
\end{cases}
\end{cases}$$
A pseudolink $\emptyset|\cdots|\emptyset$ is obtained by repeating these deformations from $P$. We denote the length of this pseudolink $\emptyset|\cdots|\emptyset$ by $|s|$.
We denote a letter $A$ with $|A| = 1$ and ${\rm mark}(A) = +1$ (respectively ${\rm mark}(A) = -1$) by $A_{+}$ (respectively $A_{-}$), and we denote a letter $A$ with $|A|=-1$ and ${\rm mark}(A) = +1$ (respectively ${\rm mark}(A) = -1$) by $\overline{A}_{+}$ (respectively $\overline{A}_{-}$).
Consider $P$ $=$ $ABAB$ with $|A|$ $=$ $|B|$ $=$ $1$. If mark($A$) $=$ $1$ and mark($B$) $=$ $-1$, $P$ is represented as $A_{+}B_{-}A_{+}B_{-}$ and $$\begin{split}
A_{+}B_{-}A_{+}B_{-} &\stackrel{(\ast)}{\rightarrow} B_{-}|B_{-}\\
&\stackrel{(\ast)}{\rightarrow} \emptyset.
\end{split}$$ If $P$ has mark($A$) $=$ $1$ and mark($B$) $=$ $-1$, $$\begin{split}
A_{-}B_{+}A_{-}B_{+} &\stackrel{(\ast)}{\rightarrow} \overline{B}_{+}\overline{B}_{+}\\ &\stackrel{(\ast)}{\rightarrow} \emptyset.
\end{split}$$
\[3LetterEx\] Let us add two more examples. $$\begin{split}
A_{+}\overline{B}_{+}A_{+}C_{+}\overline{B}_{+}C_{+} &\stackrel{(\ast)}{\rightarrow} \overline{B}_{+}|C_{+}\overline{B}_{+}C_{+}\\ &\stackrel{(\ast)}{\rightarrow} C_{+}C_{+}\\ &\stackrel{(\ast)}{\rightarrow}\emptyset|\emptyset.
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
A_{-}\overline{B}_{-}A_{-}C_{+}\overline{B}_{-}C_{+} &\stackrel{(\ast)}{\rightarrow}{B_{-}}C_{+}{B_{-}}C_{+}\\ &\stackrel{(\ast)}{\rightarrow}\overline{C}_{+}\overline{C}_{+}\\ &\stackrel{(\ast)}{\rightarrow}\emptyset.
\end{split}$$
\[well-def\] $|s|$ is well defined. In other words, $|s|$ does not depend on the order in which letters are deleted.
By the definition of the deformation, it is sufficient to consider the cases which do not contain an overline. For such cases, we obtain Table \[table1\].
cases deleting $A$ then $B$ deleting $B$ then $A$
------------------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
$A_{+}xA_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t$ $x|z|ty$ $z|x|yt$
$A_{-}xA_{-}yB_{+}zB_{+}t$ $z|tx^{-}y$ $z|x^{-}yt$
$A_{+}xA_{+}yB_{-}zB_{-}t$ $z|x|yt$ $x|z|ty$
$A_{-}xA_{-}yB_{-}zB_{-}t$ $z^{-}tx^{-}y$ $ x^{-}yz^{-}t$
$A_{+}xB_{+}yA_{+}zB_{+}t$ $yxtz$ $ zyxt$
$A_{-}xB_{+}yA_{-}zB_{+}t$ $z^{-}xty^{-}$ $y^{-}z^{-}xt$
$A_{+}xB_{-}yA_{+}zB_{-}t$ $x^{-}y^{-}tz$ $t^{-}yxz^{-}$
$A_{-}xB_{-}yA_{-}zB_{-}t$ $x^{-}z|ty^{-}$ $yt|xz^{-}$
$A_{+}xA_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t$ $ x|y|z|t$ $x|y|z|t$
$A_{-}xA_{-}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t$ $x^{-}y|z|t$ $ x^{-}y|z|t$
$A_{+}xA_{+}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t$ $x|y|z^{-}t$ $x|y|z^{-}t$
$A_{-}xA_{-}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t$ $x^{-}y|z^{-}t$ $ x^{-}y|z^{-}t$
$A_{+}xB_{+}y|A_{+}zB_{+}t$ $yz|tx$ $ xt|zy$
$A_{-}xB_{+}y|A_{-}zB_{+}t$ $z^{-}xty^{-}$ $ t^{-}x^{-}zy$
$A_{+}xB_{-}y|A_{+}zB_{-}t$ $z^{-}y^{-}tx$ $t^{-}yzx^{-}$
$A_{-}xB_{-}y|A_{-}zB_{-}t$ $ x^{-}z|ty^{-}$ $ y^{-}t|zx^{-}$
$A_{+}x|A_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t$ $z|txy$ $ xyt|z$
$A_{-}x|A_{-}yB_{+}zB_{+}t$ $z|tx^{-}y$ $ x^{-}yt|z$
$A_{+}x|A_{+}yB_{-}zB_{-}t$ $z^{-}txy$ $ xyz^{-}t$
$A_{-}x|A_{-}yB_{-}zB_{-}t$ $z^{-}tx^{-}y$ $x^{-}yz^{-}t$
$A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t$ $ xy|z|t$ $ xy|z|t$
$A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t$ $x^{-}y|z|t$ $x^{-}y|z|t$
$A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t$ $xy|z^{-}t$ $xy|z^{-}t$
$A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t$ $ x^{-}y|z^{-}t$ $ x^{-}y|z^{-}t$
$A_{+}x|B_{+}y|A_{+}zB_{+}t$ $ txzy$ $xzyt$
$A_{-}x|B_{+}y|A_{-}zB_{+}t$ $ tx^{-}zy$ $x^{-}zyt$
$A_{+}x|B_{-}y|A_{+}zB_{-}t$ $xzy^{-}t$ $y^{-}txz$
$A_{-}x|B_{-}y|A_{-}zB_{-}t$ $ z^{-}xt^{-}y$ $ t^{-}yz^{-}x$
$A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{+}z|B_{+}t$ $xy|zt$ $xy|zt$
$A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{+}z|B_{+}t$ $x^{-}y|z|t$ $x^{-}y|z|t$
$A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{-}z|B_{-}t$ $xy|z^{-}t$ $xy|z^{-}t$
$A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{-}z|B_{-}t$ $x^{-}y|z^{-}t$ $x^{-}y|z^{-}t$
: All the types of the nanophrases that should be checked are arranged in the left column. For each nanophrase in the same and left line, the nanophrase is got after we delete a letter $A$ and then $B$ in each line of the center column. The counterparts of the center column that are got after we delete $B$ and $A$ in the left column.
\[table1\]
For example, consider the case $A_{+}xA_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t$. If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}xA_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& x|yB_{+}zB_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& x|B_{+}zB_{+}ty \\
&\longrightarrow& x|z|ty \\ \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}xA_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& B_{+}zB_{+}tA_{+}xA_{+}y \\
&\longrightarrow& z|tA_{+}xA_{+}y \\
&\longrightarrow& z|A_{+}xA_{+}yt \\
&\longrightarrow& z|x|yt\end{aligned}$$ Thus $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
0
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{+}xA_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}xA_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& x|yB_{+}B_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& x|B_{+}B_{+}ty \\
&\longrightarrow& x|y|ty \\ \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}xA_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& B_{+}zB_{+}tA_{+}xA_{+}y \\
&\longrightarrow& z|tA_{+}xA_{+}y \\
&\longrightarrow& z|A_{+}xA_{+}yt \\
&\longrightarrow& z|x|yt\end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}xA_{-}yB_{+}zB_{+}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xA_{-}yB_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& x^{-}yB_{+}zB_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& B_{+}zB_{+}tx^{-}y \\
&\longrightarrow& z|tx^{-}y \\ \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xA_{-}yB_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& B_{+}zB_{+}tA_{-}xA_{-}y \\
&\longrightarrow& z|tA_{-}xA_{-}y \\
&\longrightarrow& z|A_{+}xA_{+}yt \\
&\longrightarrow& z|x^{-}yt\end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider $A_{+}xA_{+}yB_{-}zB_{-}t$..
In this case we can prove similar as the case of $A_{-}xA_{-}yB_{+}zB_{+}t$.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}xA_{-}yB_{-}zB_{-}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then
$$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xA_{-}yB_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& B_{-}zB_{-}tx^{-}y \\
&\longrightarrow& z^{-}tx^{-}y \end{aligned}$$
If we delete $B$ first, then
$$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xA_{-}yB_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& z^{-}tA_{-}xA_{-}y \\
&\longrightarrow& A_{-}xA_{y}z^{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}yz^{-}t\end{aligned}$$
Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the cases $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}x\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}y
B_{\epsilon_{2}}zB_{\epsilon_{2}}t$, where $\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2} \in \{+,-\}$.
In this case we can prove similarly as the cases of $A_{-\epsilon_{1}}xA_{-\epsilon_{1}}yB_{\epsilon_{2}}zB_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ .\
$\bullet$ Consider the cases $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}x\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}
y\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}z\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}t$, where $\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2} \in \{+,-\}$.
In this case we can prove similarly as the case of $A_{-\epsilon_{1}}xA_{-\epsilon_{1}}y
B_{-\epsilon_{2}}zB_{-\epsilon_{2}}t$.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{+}xB_{+}yA_{+}zB_{+}t$.
In this case, If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}xB_{+}yA_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& xB_{+}y|zB_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& B_{+}yx|B_{+}tz \\
&\longrightarrow& yxtz \\ \end{aligned}$$
If we delete $B$ first, then
$$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}xB_{+}yA_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& B_{+}yA_{+}zB_{+}tA_{+}x \\
&\longrightarrow& yA_{+}z|tA_{+}x \\
&\longrightarrow& A_{+}zy|A_{+}xt \\
&\longrightarrow& zyxt\end{aligned}$$
Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}xB_{+}yA_{-}zB_{+}t$.
In this case, If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xB_{+}yA_{-}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& y^{-}\overline{B}_{+}x^{-}z\overline{B}_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& \overline{B}_{+}x^{-}z\overline{B}_{+}ty^{-} \\
&\longrightarrow& z^{-}xty^{-} \\ \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xB_{+}yA_{-}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& B_{+}yA_{-}zB_{+}tA_{-}x \\
&\longrightarrow& yA_{-}z|tA_{-}x \\
&\longrightarrow& A_{-}zy|A_{-}xt \\
&\longrightarrow& y^{-}z^{-}xt\end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{+}xB_{-}yA_{+}zB_{-}t$.
In this case we can prove similarly as the case of $A_{-}xB_{+}yA_{-}zB_{+}t$.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}xB_{-}yA_{-}zB_{-}t$.
In this case, If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xB_{-}yA_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& y^{-}\overline{B}_{-}x^{-}z\overline{B}_{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& \overline{B}_{-}x^{-}z\overline{B}_{-}ty^{-} \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}z|ty^{-} \\ \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xB_{+}yA_{-}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& B_{-}yA_{-}zB_{-}tA_{-}x \\
&\longrightarrow& z^{-}\overline{A}_{-}y^{-}t\overline{A}_{-}x \\
&\longrightarrow& \overline{A}_{-}y^{-}t\overline{A}_{-}xz^{-} \\
&\longrightarrow& yt|xz^{-}\end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the cases $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}xB_{\epsilon_{2}}
y\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}zB_{\epsilon_{2}}t$, where $\epsilon_{1},
\epsilon_{2} \in \{+,-\}$.
In this cases we can prove similarly as the cases of $A_{-\epsilon_{1}}xB_{\epsilon_{2}}yA_{-\epsilon_{1}}zB_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ .\
$\bullet$ Consider the cases $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}x\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}
y\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}z\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}t$, where $\epsilon_{1},
\epsilon_{2} \in \{+,-\}$.
In this cases we can prove similarly as the cases of $A_{-\epsilon_{1}}xB_{-\epsilon_{2}}yA_{-\epsilon_{1}}zB_{-\epsilon_{2}}t$ .\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{+}xA_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}xA_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& x|y|B_{+}zB_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& x|y|z|t. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}xA_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& A_{+}xA_{+}y|z|t \\
&\longrightarrow& x|y|z|t.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}xA_{-}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xA_{-}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|z|t. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xA_{-}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& A_{-}xA_{-}y|z|t \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|z|t.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}xA_{-}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t$.
In this case we can prove similarly as the case of $A_{-}xA_{-}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t$.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}xA_{-}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xA_{-}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|z^{-}t. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xA_{-}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& A_{-}xA_{-}y|z^{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|z^{-}t.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the cases $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}x\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}y|
B_{\epsilon_{2}}zB_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ and $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}x\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}y|
\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}z\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ where $\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2}$ $ \in \{+,-\}$.
We can prove similarly as the cases of $A_{-\epsilon_{1}}xA_{-\epsilon_{1}}y|B_{\epsilon_{2}}zB_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ and\
$A_{-\epsilon_{1}}xA_{-\epsilon_{1}}y|B_{-\epsilon_{2}}zB_{-\epsilon_{2}}t$ respectively.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{+}xB_{+}y|A_{+}zB_{+}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}xB_{+}y|A_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& xB_{+}yzB_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& B_{+}yzB_{+}tx \\
&\longrightarrow& yz|tx. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}xB_{+}y|A_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& B_{+}yA_{+}x|B_{+}tA_{+}z \\
&\longrightarrow& yA_{+}xtA_{+}z\\
&\longrightarrow& A_{+}xtA_{+}zy\\
&\longrightarrow& xt|zy.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}xB_{+}y|A_{-}zB_{+}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xB_{+}y|A_{-}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& y^{-}\overline{B}_{+}x^{-}z\overline{B}_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& \overline{B}_{+}x^{-}z\overline{B}_{+}ty^{-}\\
&\longrightarrow& z^{-}xty^{-}. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xB_{+}y|A_{-}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& B_{+}yA_{-}x|B_{+}tA_{-}z \\
&\longrightarrow& yA_{-}xtA_{-}z\\
&\longrightarrow& A_{-}xtA_{-}zy\\
&\longrightarrow& t^{-}x^{-}zy.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{+}xB_{-}y|A_{+}zB_{-}t$.
In this case we can prove similarly as the case of $A_{-}xB_{+}y|A_{-}zB_{+}t$.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}xB_{-}y|A_{-}zB_{-}t$.
$$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xB_{-}y|A_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& y^{-}\overline{B}_{-}x^{-}z\overline{B}_{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& \overline{B}_{-}x^{-}z\overline{B}_{-}ty^{-}\\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}z|ty^{-}. \end{aligned}$$
If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}xB_{-}y|A_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& B_{-}yA_{-}x|B_{-}tA_{-}z \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}\overline{A}_{-}y^{-}t\overline{A}_{-}z\\
&\longrightarrow& \overline{A}_{-}y^{-}t\overline{A}_{-}zx^{-}\\
&\longrightarrow& y^{-}t|zx^{-}.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the cases $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}xB_{\epsilon_{2}}y|
\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}zB_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ and $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}x\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}y|
\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}z\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ where $\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2}$ $ \in \{+,-\}$.
We can prove similarly as the cases of $A_{-\epsilon_{1}}xB_{\epsilon_{2}}y|A_{-\epsilon_{1}}zB_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ and\
$A_{-\epsilon_{1}}xB_{-\epsilon_{2}}y|A_{-\epsilon_{1}}zB_{-\epsilon_{2}}t$ respectively.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{+}x|A_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}x|A_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& xyB_{+}zB_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& B_{+}zB_{+}txy \\
&\longrightarrow& z|txy. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}x|A_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& A_{+}x|B_{+}zB_{+}tA_{+}y \\
&\longrightarrow& A_{+}x|z|tA_{+}y\\
&\longrightarrow& A_{+}x|A_{+}yt|z\\
&\longrightarrow& xyt|z.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{+}x|A_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|A_{-}yB_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& x^{-}yB_{+}zB_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& B_{+}zB_{+}tx^{-}y \\
&\longrightarrow& z|tx^{-}y. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|A_{-}yB_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|B_{+}zB_{+}tA_{-}y \\
&\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|z|tA_{-}y\\
&\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|A_{-}yt|z\\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}yt|z.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{+}x|A_{+}yB_{-}zB_{-}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}x|A_{+}yB_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& xyB_{-}zB_{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& B_{-}zB_{-}txy \\
&\longrightarrow& z^{-}txy. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}x|A_{+}yB_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& A_{+}x|B_{-}zB_{-}tA_{+}y \\
&\longrightarrow& A_{+}x|z^{-}tA_{+}y\\
&\longrightarrow& A_{+}x|A_{+}yz^{-}t\\
&\longrightarrow& xyz^{-}t.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}x|A_{-}yB_{-}zB_{-}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|A_{-}yB_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& x^{-}yB_{-}zB_{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& B_{-}zB_{-}tx^{-}y \\
&\longrightarrow& z^{-}tx^{-}y. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|A_{-}yB_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|B_{-}zB_{-}tA_{-}y \\
&\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|z^{-}tA_{-}y\\
&\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|A_{-}yz^{-}t\\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}yz^{-}t.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}x|\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}y
B_{\epsilon_{2}}zB_{\epsilon_{2}}t$, $A_{\epsilon_{1}}x|A_{\epsilon_{1}}y
\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}z\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ and $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}x|\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}y
\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}z\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ is proved similarly as the cases of above.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& xy|B_{+}zB_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& xy|z|t. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& A_{+}x|A_{+}y|z|t \\
&\longrightarrow& xy|z|t.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|z|t. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|A_{-}|z|t \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|z|t.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& xy|B_{-}zB_{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& xy|z^{-}t. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& A_{+}x|A_{+}y|z^{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& xy|z^{-}t.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|z^{-}t. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|A_{-}y|z^{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|z^{-}t.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}x|\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}y
|B_{\epsilon_{2}}zB_{\epsilon_{2}}t$, $A_{\epsilon_{1}}x|A_{\epsilon_{1}}y|
\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}z\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ and $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}x|\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}y|
\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}z\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ is proved similarly as the cases of above.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{+}x|B_{+}y|A_{+}zB_{+}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}x|B_{+}y|A_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& A_{+}x|A_{+}zB_{+}t|B_{+}y \\
&\longrightarrow& xzB_{+}t|B_{+}y\\
&\longrightarrow& B_{+}txz|B_{+}y\\
&\longrightarrow& txzy.\\\end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}x|B_{+}y|A_{+}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& A_{+}x|B_{+}y|B_{+}tA_{+}z \\
&\longrightarrow& A_{+}x|ytA_{+}z\\
&\longrightarrow& A_{+}x|A_{+}zyt\\
&\longrightarrow& xzyt.\\\end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}x|B_{+}y|A_{-}zB_{+}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|B_{+}y|A_{-}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|A_{-}zB_{+}t|B_{+}y \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}zB_{+}t|B_{+}y\\
&\longrightarrow& B_{+}tx^{-}z|B_{+}y\\
&\longrightarrow& tx^{-}zy.\\\end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|B_{+}y|A_{-}zB_{+}t &\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|B_{+}y|B_{+}tA_{-}z \\
&\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|ytA_{-}z\\
&\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|A_{-}zyt\\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}zyt.\\\end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}x|B_{+}y|A_{-}zB_{+}t$.
This case is proved similarly as the case of $A_{-}x|B_{+}y|A_{-}zB_{+}t$.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}x|B_{-}y|A_{-}zB_{-}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|B_{-}y|A_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|A_{-}zB_{-}t|B_{+}y \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}zB_{-}t|B_{-}y\\
&\longrightarrow& B_{-}tx^{-}z|B_{-}y\\
&\longrightarrow& z^{-}xt^{-}y.\\\end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|B_{-}y|A_{-}zB_{-}t &\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|B_{-}y|B_{-}tA_{-}z \\
&\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|y^{-}tA_{-}z\\
&\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|A_{-}zy^{-}t\\
&\longrightarrow& t^{-}yz^{-}x.\\\end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}x|B_{\epsilon_{2}}y
|\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}zB_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ and $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}x|\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}y|
\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}z\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ is proved similarly as the cases of above.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{+}z|B_{+}t &\longrightarrow& xy|B_{+}z|B_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& xy|zt. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{+}z|B_{+}t &\longrightarrow& A_{+}x|A_{+}y|zt \\
&\longrightarrow& xy|zt.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{+}z|B_{+}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{+}z|B_{+}t &\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|B_{+}z|B_{+}t \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|z|t. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{+}z|B_{+}t &\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|A_{-}y|zt \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|zt.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{-}z|B_{-}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{-}z|B_{-}t &\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|B_{-}z|B_{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& xy|z^{-}t. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{-}z|B_{-}t &\longrightarrow& A_{+}x|A_{+}y|z^{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& xy|z^{-}t.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{-}z|B_{-}t$.
If we delete $A$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{-}z|B_{-}t &\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|B_{-}z|B_{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|z^{-}t. \end{aligned}$$ If we delete $B$ first, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_{-}x|A_{-}y|B_{-}z|B_{-}t &\longrightarrow& A_{-}x|A_{-}y|z^{-}t \\
&\longrightarrow& x^{-}y|z^{-}t.\\ \end{aligned}$$ Thus in this case $|s|$ does not depend on the order of deletion of letters.\
$\bullet$ Consider the case $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}x|\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}y
|B_{\epsilon_{2}}z|B_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ and $\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}x|\overline{A}_{\epsilon_{1}}y|
\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}z|\overline{B}_{\epsilon_{2}}t$ is proved similarly as the cases of above.
We have now proved the lemma.
The deformation $(\ast)$ corresponds to smoothing crossings of link diagrams in the following figures (see [@viro Page 320, Figure 1]).
(40,40) (0,0)[(1,1)[30]{}]{} (30,0)(30,0)(20,10) (10,20)(0,30)(0,30) (40,10)(45,12)(50,14) (50,14)(50,12)(50,10) (50,10)(55,12)(60,14) (60,14)[(4,1)[0]{}]{} (15,5) (15,25) (15,5)[(0,1)[20]{}]{}
(40,40) (0,0)(20,15)(0,30) (30,0)(10,15)(30,30)
(40,40) (0,0)[(1,1)[30]{}]{} (30,0)(30,0)(20,10) (10,20)(0,30)(0,30) (40,10)(45,12)(50,14) (50,14)(50,12)(50,10) (50,10)(55,12)(60,14) (60,14)[(4,1)[0]{}]{} (5,15) (25,15) (5,15)[(1,0)[20]{}]{}
(40,40) (0,0)(15,20)(30,0) (0,30)(15,10)(30,30)
\[marker\]
For an arbitrary pseudolink $P$ and state $s$ of $P$, we define $[P]$, $[P|s]$ $\in {\mathbb{Z}}[t, u, d]$ by $$\begin{aligned}
[P|s] &:= t^{\sharp\{\text{positive marker}\}}u^{\sharp\{\text{negative marker}\}}d^{|s|-1}, \\
[P] &:= \sum_{s} [P|s]. \end{aligned}$$
The polynomial $[P]$ is invariant under an $S_{1}$-homotopy move (H2) for an arbitrary pseudolink $P$ if and only if $u = t^{-1}$ and $d = -t^{2}-t^{-2}$.
Consider a nanophrase $P= P_{1}|ABxBAy|P_{2}$ with $|A|=+$ and $|B|=-$, where $x$ and $y$ are words not including the character $``|"$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
[P_{1}|ABxBAy|P_{2}]&=&t[P_{1}|BxB|y|P_{2}]+s[(P_{1}|Bx^{-}By|P_{2})_{x}]\\
&=&(t^{2}+tsd+s^{2})[(P_{1}|x^{-}|y|P_{2})_{x}]+
st[P_{1}|xy|P_{2}] \end{aligned}$$ Thus if $[P]$ does not change by the second homotopy move, then $t^{2}+tsd+s^{2}=0$ and $st=1$. In other words $s=t^{-1}$ and $d=-t^{2}-t^{-2}$.
Converse is easily verified by the above equation.
Substituting $t^{-1}$ for $u$ and $-t^{2}-t^{-2}$ for $d$, we have $$[P]=\sum_{s}t^{\sigma(s)}(-t^{2}-t^{-2})^{|s|-1},$$ where $\sigma(s)$ $:=$ $\sharp \{$ positive marker $\}$ $-$ $\sharp \{$ negative marker $\}$.
$[P]$ is invariant under an $S_{1}$-homotopy move (H3) for an arbitrary pseudolink $P$.
First, we consider the case of $(\epsilon(A),\epsilon(B),\epsilon(C)) = (\pm,\pm,\pm)$. Consider the third homotopy move $$P_{1}|ABxACyBCz|P_{2} \longrightarrow P_{1}|BAxCAyCBz|P_{2}.$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
[P_{1}|ABxACyBCz|P_{2}] &=& t^{3\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|xy|z|P_{2}]\\
&+&
(2t^{\epsilon(A)}+t^{-3\epsilon(A)}+t^{-\epsilon(A)}(-t^{2}-t^{-2})
)[P_{1}|zx^{-}y^{-}|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|x^{-}y|z|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|xy^{-}z|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|x^{-}yz|P_{2}]\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
[P_{1}|BAxCAyCBz|P_{2}] &=& t^{3\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|xy|z|P_{2}]\\
&+&\!\!
(2t^{\epsilon(A)}+t^{-3\epsilon(A)}+t^{-\epsilon(A)}(-t^{2}-t^{-2})
)[P_{1}|x^{-}y|z|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|x^{-}y^{-}z|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|xy^{-}z|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|z^{-}y^{-}x|P_{2}].\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$2t^{\epsilon(A)}+t^{-3\epsilon(A)}+t^{-\epsilon(A)}(-t^{2}-t^{-2})
=t^{\epsilon(A)}$$ Therefore $[P_{1}|ABxACyBCz|P_{2}]$ is equal to $[P_{1}|BAxCAyCBz|P_{2}]$.
Consider the third homotopy move $$P_{1}|ABx|ACyBCz|P_{2} \longrightarrow P_{1}|BAx|CAyCBz|P_{2}.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
[P_{1}|ABx|ACyBCz|P_{2}] &=& t^{3\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|xzy|P_{2}]\\
&+&
(2t^{\epsilon(A)}+t^{-3\epsilon(A)}+t^{-\epsilon(A)}(-t^{2}-t^{-2})
)[P_{1}|zx^{-}y^{-}|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|x^{-}|y^{-}z|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|xzy^{-}|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|x^{-}yz|P_{2}]\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
[P_{1}|BAx|CAyCBz|P_{2}] &=& t^{3\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|xyz|P_{2}]\\
&+&
(2t^{\epsilon(A)}+t^{-3\epsilon(A)}+t^{-\epsilon(A)}(-t^{2}-t^{-2})
)[P_{1}|z^{-}x^{-}y|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|x^{-}yz|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|x^{-}|y^{-}z|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|x^{-}y^{-}z|P_{2}].\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $[P_{1}|ABx|ACyBCz|P_{2}]$ is equal to $[P_{1}|BAx|CAyCBz|P_{2}]$.
Consider the third homotopy move $$P_{1}|ABxACy|BCz|P_{2} \longrightarrow P_{1}|BAxCAy|CBz|P_{2}.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
[P_{1}|ABxACy|BCz|P_{2}] &=& t^{3\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|xzy|P_{2}]\\
&+&
(2t^{\epsilon(A)}+t^{-3\epsilon(A)}+t^{-\epsilon(A)}(-t^{2}-t^{-2})
)[P_{1}|xy^{-}z|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|x^{-}y^{-}z|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|x^{-}yz|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|yx^{-}|z|P_{2}]\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
[P_{1}|BAx|CAyCBz|P_{2})] &=& t^{3\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|xyz|P_{2}]\\
&+&
(2t^{\epsilon(A)}+t^{-3\epsilon(A)}+t^{-\epsilon(A)}(-t^{2}-t^{-2})
)[P_{1}|x^{-}yz|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|x^{-}y^{-}z|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|y^{-}x|z|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|xy^{-}z|P_{2}].\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $[P_{1}|ABxACy|BCz|P_{2}]$ is equal to $[P_{1}|BAxCAy|CBz|P_{2}]$.
Consider the third homotopy move $$P_{1}|ABx|ACy|BCz|P_{2} \longrightarrow P_{1}|BAx|CAy|CBz|P_{2}.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
[P_{1}|ABx|ACy|BCz|P_{2}] &=& t^{3\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|y|zx|P_{2}]\\
&+&
(2t^{\epsilon(A)}+t^{-3\epsilon(A)}+t^{-\epsilon(A)}(-t^{2}-t^{-2})
)[P_{1}|y^{-}zx|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|x^{-}|zy^{-}|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|xzy^{-}|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|yx^{-}|z|P_{2}]\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
[P_{1}|BAx|CAy|CBz|P_{2}] &=& t^{3\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|yz|x|P_{2}]\\
&+&
(2t^{\epsilon(A)}+t^{-3\epsilon(A)}+t^{-\epsilon(A)}(-t^{2}-t^{-2})
)[P_{1}|y^{-}xz|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|zy^{-}|x^{-}|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{-\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|x^{-}y|z|P_{2}]\\
&+&
t^{\epsilon(A)}[P_{1}|z^{-}yx^{-}|P_{2}].\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $[P_{1}|ABx|ACy|BCz|P_{2}]$ is equal to $[P_{1}|BAx|CAy|CBz|P_{2}]$.
The cases of $(\epsilon(A),\epsilon(B),\epsilon(C)) = (\mp,\pm,\pm)$ and $(\epsilon(A),\epsilon(B),\epsilon(C)) = (\pm,\pm,\mp)$ are proved in a similar way as the above case.
For an arbitrary pseudolink $P$, the Jones polynomial $J(P)$ for pseudolinks is given as $$\label{jones}
J(P) = (-t)^{-3w(P)}\sum_{s:\text{states}} t^{\sigma(s)} (- t^{2} - t^{-2})^{|s|-1},$$ where $w(P)$ $=$ $\sum_{\text{letters}~A~\text{in}~P}|A|$.
The Jones polynomial $J(P)$ of a pseudolink $P$ is given by using recursive relations for the bracket polynomial of nanophrases over $\alpha_{*}$ [@turaev2 Section 8]. The existence of $J(P)$ can be confirmed from geometrical objects (links). Here, we give this well-definedness by Lemma \[well-def\] and (\[jones\]) using only pseudolinks.
Definition \[enhanced\] of [*enhanced states*]{} is given in the same manner as that in [@viro Page 326, Subsection 4.3].
\[enhanced\] An [*enhanced state*]{} $S$ of pseudolink $P$ implies a collection of markers constituting a state $s$ of $P$ enhanced by an assignment of a plus or minus sign to each of the components $\emptyset|\cdots|\emptyset$. (Recall that $\emptyset|\cdots|\emptyset$ is obtained by deformations ($\ast$).) We denote $\emptyset$ with a positive marker $+$ by $\emptyset_{+}$ and $\emptyset$ with a negative marker $-$ by $\emptyset_{-}$.
\[astast\] We rewrite the deformation ($\ast$) as follows: $$(\ast\ast) \begin{cases}
&\!\!\!\! w_1|\cdots|AxAy|\cdots|w_{k} \to \begin{cases}
&\!\!\!\! w_1|\cdots|ax|ay|\cdots|w_{k}~\text{if}~{\rm mark}(A) = |A|\\
&\!\!\!\! (w_1|\cdots|ax^{-}ay|\cdots|w_{k})_{x}~\text{if}~{\rm mark}(A) = -|A|
\end{cases}
\\
&\!\!\!\! w_1|\cdots|Ax|Ay|\cdots|w_{k} \to \begin{cases}
&\!\!\!\! w_1|\cdots|axay|\cdots|w_{k}~\text{if}~{\rm mark}(A) = |A|\\
&\!\!\!\! (w_1|\cdots|ax^{-}ay|\cdots|w_{k})_{x}~\text{if}~{\rm mark}(A) = -|A|.
\end{cases}
\end{cases}$$ where $a$ is a reminder put on the place of deleting letter $A$ in the case of ($\ast$). We define $a$ as a letter of a nanophrase where $|a|$ is $|A|$. A pseudolink $a_{1}^{1} \cdots a_{n_{1}}^{1}|$ $a_{2}^{1} \cdots a_{n_2}^{2}|\cdots $$|a_{1}^{k'} \cdots a_{n_{k'}}^{k'}$ is given by repeating these deformations ($\ast\ast$) from $P$. The pseudolinks represents an enhanced state $S$ and then the pseudolink is denoted by ${\emptyset_{\epsilon_1}}^{B_{1}^{1} \cdots B_{m_{1}}^{1}}| {\emptyset_{\epsilon_2}}^{B_{1}^{2} \cdots B_{m_{2}}^{2}}|\cdots| {\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k'}}}^{B_{1}^{k'} \cdots B_{m_{k'}}^{k'}}$, where $B_{1}^{i} \cdots B_{m_{i}}^{i}$ is a word obtained by arranging all the distinct letters in $\{A_{1}^{i}, \ldots, A_{n_{i}}^{i}\}$ in any desired order. The symbol $B_{y}^{x}$ implies that the letter of $P$ belongs to the $x$-th component of an enhanced state of $P$ and the letter is the $y$-th letter of the $x$-th component by the desired order.
Example \[3LetterEx\] is rewritten by using Definition \[astast\]. $$\begin{split}
A_{+}\overline{B}_{+}A_{+}C_{+}\overline{B}_{+}C_{+} &\stackrel{(\ast\ast)}{\rightarrow} a\overline{B}_{+}|aC_{+}\overline{B}_{+}C_{+} = \overline{B}_{+}a|\overline{B}_{+}C_{+}aC_{+} \\&\stackrel{(\ast\ast)}{\rightarrow} babC_{+}aC_{+} = C_{+}aC_{+}bab \\&\stackrel{(\ast\ast)}{\rightarrow} ca|cbab = {\emptyset}^{AC}|{\emptyset}^{ABC}.
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
A_{-}\overline{B}_{-}A_{-}C_{+}\overline{B}_{-}C_{+} &\stackrel{(\ast\ast)}{\rightarrow} a{B_{-}}aC_{+}{B_{-}}C_{+} = {B_{-}}aC_{+}{B_{-}}C_{+}a \\ &\stackrel{(\ast\ast)}{\rightarrow} b\overline{C}_{+}ab\overline{C}_{+}a = \overline{C}_{+}ab\overline{C}_{+}ab \\ &\stackrel{(\ast\ast)}{\rightarrow} cbacab = \emptyset^{ABC}.
\end{split}$$
For an arbitrary enhanced state $S$ of pseudolink $P$, let $$\begin{aligned}
i(S) &:= \frac{w(P) - \sigma(S)}{2}, \\
\tau(S) &:= \sharp\{\emptyset_{+}~\text{in}~P_{S}\} - \sharp\{\emptyset_{-}~\text{in}~P_{S}\}, \\
j(S) &:= - \frac{\sigma(S) + 2 \tau (S) - 3w(P)}{2} \in {\mathbb{Z}}. \end{aligned}$$
Let $s$ be a state of a pseudolink $P$, $S$ be an enhanced state of $P$, and $\hat{J}(P)$ $=$ $(- t^{2} - t^{-2})J(P)$. By using the above notations, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{J}(P) &= (-t)^{-3w(P)}\sum_{\text{states $s$}} t^{\sigma(s)} (- t^{2} - t^{-2})^{|s|}\\
&= (-t)^{-3w(P)}\sum_{\text{enhanced states $S$}} t^{\sigma(S)} (- t^{2})^{\tau(S)}\\
&= \sum_{\text{enhanced states $S$}}(-1)^{w(P)+\tau(S)}~t^{-2 j(S)}\\
&= \sum_{\text{enhanced states $S$}}(-1)^{\frac{w(P) - \sigma(S)}{2}} q^{j(S)} \quad (q = -t^{-2})\\
&= \sum_{\text{enhanced states $S$}}(-1)^{i(S)} q^{j(S)}. \end{aligned}$$
\[s1tos0\] Let $\alpha_{0}$ be a set $\{-1, 1\}$ with an involution $\tau_{0}:$ $\pm 1 \mapsto \mp 1$ and $S_{0}$ be $\{($$-1,$ $-1,$ $-1),$ $(1,$ $1,$ $1)\}$. Note that every $S_{1}$-homotopy invariant of pseudolinks is an $S_{0}$-homotopy invariant of nanophrases over $\alpha_{0}$ because $S_{0}$ $\subset$ $S_{1}$.
\[jones-s0\] $J(P)$ and $\hat{J}(P)$ are $S_{0}$-homotopy invariants for nanophrases $P$ over $\alpha_{0}$.
The Khovanov homology for pseudolinks
=====================================
For an arbitrary pseudolink $P$, let $C(P)$ be a free abelian group generated by the enhanced states of $P$. We define the subgroup $C^{i, j}(P)$ of $C(P)$ by $$C^{i,j}(P) := \left\langle S : \text{enhanced states}~|~j(S) = j, i(S) = i \right\rangle~(i,~j \in \mathbb{Z}).$$
The Jones polynomial is given as $$\hat{J}(P) = \sum_{j= - \infty}^{\infty}q^{j}\sum_{i= - \infty}^{\infty}(-1)^{i}{\rm rk}C^{i,j}(P).$$
Let us define the differential $d$ of bidegree $(1, 0)$ as follows: $$d(S) = \sum_{\text{enhanced states}~T} (S:T) T.$$ In other words, for two arbitrary enhanced states $S$ and $T$, we define incidence numbers $(S:T)$. We define the differential in the manner similar to that in [@viro Section 5]. Assume that the order of letters in the alphabet of a pseudolink $P$ is given.
The incidence number $(S:T)$ is zero unless the markers of $S$ and $T$ differ at only one letter of $P$; this letter is called [*the different part between $S$ and $T$*]{}. The marker of $S$ is positive and that of $T$ is negative at this different part. If $(S:T) \neq 0$, the different part between $S$ and $T$ satisfies one of the six cases (\[diff1\])–(\[diff6\]) in the following:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{diff1}
S &: \emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}\\ \nonumber
&\begin{minipage}{20pt}
\begin{picture}(20,15)
\qbezier(0,5)(5,7)(10,9)
\qbezier(10,9)(10,7)(10,5)
\qbezier(10,5)(15,7)(20,9)
\put(20,9){\vector(4,1){0}}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}~T : \emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}; \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{diff2}
S &: \emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|{\emptyset_{-}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{+}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}\\ \nonumber
&\begin{minipage}{20pt}
\begin{picture}(20,15)
\qbezier(0,5)(5,7)(10,9)
\qbezier(10,9)(10,7)(10,5)
\qbezier(10,5)(15,7)(20,9)
\put(20,9){\vector(4,1){0}}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}~T : \emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{+}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}; \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{diff3}
S &: \emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{+}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}\\ \nonumber
&\begin{minipage}{20pt}
\begin{picture}(20,15)
\qbezier(0,5)(5,7)(10,9)
\qbezier(10,9)(10,7)(10,5)
\qbezier(10,5)(15,7)(20,9)
\put(20,9){\vector(4,1){0}}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}~T : \emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{+}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}; \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{diff4}
S &: \emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{+}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}\\ \nonumber
&\begin{minipage}{20pt}
\begin{picture}(20,15)
\qbezier(0,5)(5,7)(10,9)
\qbezier(10,9)(10,7)(10,5)
\qbezier(10,5)(15,7)(20,9)
\put(20,9){\vector(4,1){0}}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}~T : \emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{+}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{+}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}; \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{diff5}
S &: \emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}\\ \nonumber
&\begin{minipage}{20pt}
\begin{picture}(20,15)
\qbezier(0,5)(5,7)(10,9)
\qbezier(10,9)(10,7)(10,5)
\qbezier(10,5)(15,7)(20,9)
\put(20,9){\vector(4,1){0}}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}~T : \emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{+}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}; \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{diff6}
S &: \emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}\\ \nonumber
&\begin{minipage}{20pt}
\begin{picture}(20,15)
\qbezier(0,5)(5,7)(10,9)
\qbezier(10,9)(10,7)(10,5)
\qbezier(10,5)(15,7)(20,9)
\put(20,9){\vector(4,1){0}}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}~T : \emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{+}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}; \end{aligned}$$
For (\[diff1\])–(\[diff6\]), $(S : T)$ is defined as $$(S : T) := 1.$$
$d \circ d =0$ modulo $2$.
Let $\epsilon_{i}$ be the $i$th marker of the $i$th letters, and so, $\epsilon_{i}$ is an element of $\{+,-\}$. Consider the $k$-tuple $(\epsilon_{1}, \epsilon_{2}, \dots, \epsilon_{k})$ consisting of all the markers of a phrase. If card $\{j~|~\epsilon_{j} = + \}$ $\le 1$, $d^{2}(S)$ $=$ $0$. Thus we can assume that card $\{j~|~\epsilon_{j} = + \}$ $\ge 2$ now.
To prove $$d \circ d (S) = \sum_{\text{enhanced states}~T,U} (S:T)(T:U)U = 0,$$ we show $\sum_{\text{enhanced states}~T}(S:T)(T:U)=0$.
Let $A$ and $B$ be different parts between $S$ and $U$. We can assume that the other letters in the phrase have already been deleted by the deformation ($\ast \ast$). We denote phrases consisting of letters replaced by the deformation ($\ast \ast$) as $\alpha_{j}$ ($j \in \{1, \cdots k\}$), $x$, $y$, $z$, and $t$. We denote a state $S$ by $S =$ (a phrase $P$ with markers, a pseudolink given by repeating the deformation ($\ast \ast$) from $P$ to the end). We verify the following 26 cases:\
(1) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xA_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots AB \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{13}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (2) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{A}_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots AB \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (3) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{A}_{+}y
\overline{B}_{+}z\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots AB \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (4) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xB_{+}yA_{+}zB_{+}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}^{\cdots AB \cdots}}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (5) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}xB_{+}y
\overline{A}_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (6) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{B}_{+}y
\overline{A}_{+}z\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (7) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xA_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{13}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{14}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (8) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x
\overline{A}_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{13}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (9) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{A}_{+}y|
\overline{B}_{+}z\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (10) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xB_{+}y|A_{+}zB_{+}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (11) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}xB_{+}y|
\overline{A}_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (12) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{B}_{+}y|
\overline{A}_{+}z\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (13) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}|xA_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (14) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x|
\overline{A}_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (15) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}x|A_{+}y\overline{B}_{+}z
\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (16) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x|\overline{A}_{+}y
\overline{B}_{+}z\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (17) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{13}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (18) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x|
\overline{A}_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{13}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (19) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}x|A_{+}y|\overline{B}_{+}z
\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (20) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x|\overline{A}_{+}y|
\overline{B}_{+}z\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (21) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}x|B_{+}y|A_{+}zB_{+}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (22) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x|B_{+}y|
\overline{A}_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (23) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x|\overline{B}_{+}y|
\overline{A}_{+}z\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (24) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}x|A_{+}y|B_{+}z|B_{+}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (25) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x|
\overline{A}_{+}y|B_{+}z|B_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ (26) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x|\overline{A}_{+}y|
\overline{B}_{+}z|\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}).\end{aligned}$$ $\bullet$ Consider case (1).
Let $$\begin{aligned}
U&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{-}xA_{-}yB_{-}zB_{-}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{41}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}).\end{aligned}$$ It is sufficient to show that for each $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12},
\varepsilon_{13}) \in \{+, -\} \times \{+, -\} \times \{+, - \}$, the coefficient of $U$ in $d^{2}(S)$ is even for all $\varepsilon_{41} \in \{+, -\}$. Hence, for $S$ and $U$, we have to check the total number of ways to get $U$ from $S$ is even (we denote the condition by ($\sharp$)). Let us localize the problem of the difference parts of $S$, $A_{+}$, and $B_{+}$. Two routes (i) and (ii) can be found to change $A_{+}$ (respectively $B_{+}$) into $A_{-}$ (respectively $B_{-}$) as follows:\
(i) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xA_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{13}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{-}xA_{-}yB_{+}zB_{+}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{21}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{22}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})
\rightarrow U,\end{aligned}$$ (ii) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xA_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{13}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xA_{+}yB_{-}zB_{-}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{31}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{32}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})
\rightarrow U.\end{aligned}$$ Then the condition ($\sharp$) can also state that the sum of the contribution of (i) to the coefficient of $U$ and the contribution of (ii) to the coefficient of $U$ is even.\
Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12},\varepsilon_{13}) = (+,+,+)$.
In this case $(S,T) = 0$ for all $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22})$ and $(\varepsilon_{31},\varepsilon_{32})$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12},\varepsilon_{13}) = (-,+,+)$.
Consider route (i). $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22}) = (+,+)$. Then for this $T$, $(T,U) = 0$ for all $\varepsilon_{41} \in \{ \pm \}$. On the other hand, in route (ii), $(S,T) = 0$ for all $\varepsilon_{31}, \varepsilon_{32} \in \{ \pm \}$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12},\varepsilon_{13}) = (+,-,+)$.
Consider route (i) (respectively route (ii)). $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22}) = (+,+)$ (respectively $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22}) = (+,+)$). Then for this $T$, $(T,U) = 0$ for all $\varepsilon_{41}$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12},\varepsilon_{13}) = (+,+,-)$.
Consider route (i). in this route $(S,T) = 0$ for all $\varepsilon_{21}, \varepsilon_{22} \in \{ \pm \}$. On the other hand, in route (ii), $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{31},\varepsilon_{32}) = (+,+)$. Then for this $T$, $(T,U) = 0$ for all $\varepsilon_{41} \in \{ \pm \}$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12},\varepsilon_{13}) = (+,-,-)$.
Consider route (i). $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22}) = (+,-)$. Then for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{41} = +$. Similarly, in route (ii), $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ for all $(\varepsilon_{31}, \varepsilon_{32})=(+,-)$. Then for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{41} = +$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12},\varepsilon_{13}) = (-,-,+)$.
Consider route (i). $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22}) = (-,+)$. Then for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{41} = +$. Similarly, in route (ii), $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ for all $(\varepsilon_{31}, \varepsilon_{32})=(-,+)$. Then for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{41} = +$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12},\varepsilon_{13}) = (-,-,-)$.
Consider route (i). $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22}) = (-,-)$. Then for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{41} = -$. Similarly, in route (ii), $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ for all $(\varepsilon_{31}, \varepsilon_{32})=(-,-)$. Then for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{41} = -$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
$\bullet$ Consider case (2).
Let $$\begin{aligned}
U&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{-}x\overline{A}_{-}yB_{-}zB_{-}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{41}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{42}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}).\end{aligned}$$ It is sufficient to show that for each $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12})
\in \{ (\pm, \pm) \}$ where double signs are arbitrary, the coefficient of $U$ in $d^{2}(S)$ is even for all $\varepsilon_{41}, \varepsilon_{42} \in \{\pm\}$. Hence, for $S$ and $U$, we have to check the total number of ways to get $U$ from $S$ is even (we denote the condition by ($\sharp$)). Let us localize the problem of the difference parts of $S$, $A_{+}$ and $B_{+}$. Two routes (i) and (ii) can be found to change $A_{+}$ (respectively $B_{+}$) into $A_{-}$ (respectively $B_{-}$) as follows:\
(i) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{A}_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{13}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{-}x\overline{A}_{-}yB_{+}zB_{+}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{21}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{22}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{23}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})
\rightarrow U,\end{aligned}$$ (ii) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{A}_{+}yB_{+}zB_{+}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{13}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{A}_{+}yB_{-}zB_{-}t|
\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{31}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})
\rightarrow U.\end{aligned}$$ Then the condition ($\sharp$) can also state that the sum of the contribution of (i) to the coefficient of $U$ and the contribution of (ii) to the coefficient of $U$ is even.\
Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12}) = (+,+)$.
Consider route (i). Then $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22},\varepsilon_{23})=(+,+,+)$. For this $T$, $(T,U)=0$ for all $\epsilon_{41}, \varepsilon_{42} \in \{ \pm \}$. On the other hand, in route (ii), we obtain $(S,T) = 0$ for all $\varepsilon_{21}, \varepsilon_{22},\varepsilon_{23} \in \{ \pm \}$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12}) = (+,-)$.
Consider route (i). Then $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22},\varepsilon_{23})=(+,+,+)$. For this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (+,+)$. Consider route (ii). Then $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{31}=+$. For this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (+,+)$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12}) = (-,+)$.
Consider route (i). Then $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22},\varepsilon_{23})=(-,+,+)$ or $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22},\varepsilon_{23})=(+,-,+)$. Substitute $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22},\varepsilon_{23})=(-,+,+)$. For this $T$, we obtain $(T,U)=0$ for all $\varepsilon_{41}, \varepsilon_{42} \in \{ \pm \}$. Substitute $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22},\varepsilon_{23})=(+,-,+)$. For this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (+,+)$. Consider route (ii). Then $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{31}=+$. For this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (+,+)$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds. Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12}) = (-,-)$.
Consider route (i). Then $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22},\varepsilon_{23})=(-,+,-)$ or $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22},\varepsilon_{23})=(+,-,-)$. Substitute $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22},\varepsilon_{23})=(-,+,-)$. For this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (-,+)$. Substitute $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22},\varepsilon_{23})=(+,-,-)$. For this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (+,-)$. Consider route (ii). Then $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{31}=-$. For this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (+,-)$ or $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (-,+)$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
$\bullet$ Consider case (3).
Let $$\begin{aligned}
U&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{-}x\overline{A}_{-}y\overline{B}_{-}z
\overline{B}_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{41}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{42}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{43}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}).\end{aligned}$$ It is sufficient to show that for each $\varepsilon_{11}
\in \{ \pm \} $ the coefficient of $U$ in $d^{2}(S)$ is even for all $\varepsilon_{41}, \varepsilon_{42}, \varepsilon_{43} \in
\{\pm\}$. Hence, for $S$ and $U$, we have to check the total number of ways to get $U$ from $S$ is even (we denote the condition by ($\sharp$)). Let us localize the problem of the difference parts of $S$, $A_{+}$ and $B_{+}$. Two routes (i) and (ii) can be found to change $A_{+}$ (respectively $B_{+}$) into $A_{-}$ (respectively $B_{-}$) as follows:\
(i) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{A}_{+}y\overline{B}_{+}z
\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{-}x\overline{A}_{-}y\overline{B}_{+}z
\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{21}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{22}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})
\rightarrow U,\end{aligned}$$ (ii) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{A}_{+}y\overline{B}_{+}z
\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{A}_{+}y\overline{B}_{-}z
\overline{B}_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{31}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{32}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})
\rightarrow U.\end{aligned}$$ Then the condition ($\sharp$) can also state that the sum of the contribution of (i) to the coefficient of $U$ and the contribution of (ii) to the coefficient of $U$ is even.\
Consider case $\varepsilon_{11} = +$.
Consider route (i). Then $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22}) = (+,+)$. For this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42},
\varepsilon_{43})=(+,+,+)$. Consider route (ii). Then $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{31},\varepsilon_{32}) = (+,+)$. For this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42},
\varepsilon_{43})=(+,+,+)$. Thus in this case the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
Consider case $\varepsilon_{11} = -$.
Consider route (i). In this case $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22}) = (+,-)$ or $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22}) = (-,+)$. Substitute $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22}) = (+,-)$, then for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42},
\varepsilon_{43})=(+,+,-)$. Substitute $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22}) = (-,+)$, then for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42},
\varepsilon_{43})=(-,+,+)$ or $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42},
\varepsilon_{43})=(+,-,+)$. On the other hand, in route (ii) $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{31},\varepsilon_{32}) = (+,-)$ or $(\varepsilon_{31},\varepsilon_{32}) = (-,+)$. Substitute $(\varepsilon_{31},\varepsilon_{32}) = (+,-)$, then for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42},
\varepsilon_{43})=(+,+,-)$. Substitute $(\varepsilon_{31},\varepsilon_{32}) = (-,+)$, then for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42},
\varepsilon_{43})=(-,+,+)$ or $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42},
\varepsilon_{43})=(+,-,+)$. Thus in this case the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
$\bullet$ Consider case (4).
Let $$\begin{aligned}
U&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{-}xB_{-}yA_{-}zB_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{41}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}).\end{aligned}$$ It is sufficient to show that for each $\varepsilon_{11}
\in \{ \pm \} $ the coefficient of $U$ in $d^{2}(S)$ is even for all $\varepsilon_{41}, \varepsilon_{42}, \varepsilon_{43} \in
\{\pm\}$. Hence, for $S$ and $U$, we have to check the total number of ways to get $U$ from $S$ is even (we denote the condition by ($\sharp$)). Let us localize the problem of the difference parts of $S$, $A_{+}$ and $B_{+}$. Two routes (i) and (ii) can be found to change $A_{+}$ (respectively $B_{+}$) into $A_{-}$ (respectively $B_{-}$) as follows:\
(i) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xB_{+}yA_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{-}xB_{+}yA_{-}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{21}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\rightarrow U,\end{aligned}$$ (ii) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xB_{+}yA_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xB_{-}yA_{+}zB_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{31}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\rightarrow U.\end{aligned}$$ Then the condition ($\sharp$) can also state that the sum of the contribution of (i) to the coefficient of $U$ and the contribution of (ii) to the coefficient of $U$ is even.\
In this case, it is clear that $(S,T)(T,U) = 0$ for all $T$ by the definition of $d$.\
$\bullet$ Consider case (5).
Let $$\begin{aligned}
U&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{-}xB_{-}y\overline{A}_{-}zB_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{41}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}).\end{aligned}$$ It is sufficient to show that for each $\varepsilon_{11}
\in \{\pm\} $ the coefficient of $U$ in $d^{2}(S)$ is even for all $\varepsilon_{41} \in \{\pm\}$. Hence, for $S$ and $U$, we have to check the total number of ways to get $U$ from $S$ is even (we denote the condition by ($\sharp$)). Let us localize the problem of the difference parts of $S$, $A_{+}$ and $B_{+}$. Two routes (i) and (ii) can be found to change $A_{+}$ (respectively $B_{+}$) into $A_{-}$ (respectively $B_{-}$) as follows:\
(i) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}xB_{+}y\overline{A}_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{-}xB_{+}y\overline{A}_{-}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{21}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\rightarrow U,\end{aligned}$$ (ii) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}xB_{+}y\overline{A}_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}xB_{-}y\overline{A}_{+}zB_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{31}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{32}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\rightarrow U.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the condition ($\sharp$) can also state that the sum of the contribution of (i) to the coefficient of $U$ and the contribution of (ii) to the coefficient of $U$ is even.\
Consider case $\varepsilon_{11} = +$
On route (i). we obtain $(S,T) = 0$ for all $T$ by the definition of $d$. Consider route (ii). In this case $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{31},\varepsilon_{32}) = (+,+)$. For this $T$, $(T,U)=0$ for all $\varepsilon_{41} \in \{ \pm \}$. Thus in this case the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
Consider case $\varepsilon_{11} = -$
Consider route (i). Then, $(S,T) = 0$ for all $T$. Consider route (ii). Then, $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{31},\varepsilon_{32})=(+,-)$ or $(\varepsilon_{31},\varepsilon_{32})=(-,+)$. Substitute $(\varepsilon_{31},\varepsilon_{32})=(+,-)$. Then, for this $T$, we obtain $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{41}=+$. Substitute $(\varepsilon_{31},\varepsilon_{32})=(-,+)$. Then, for this $T$, we obtain $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{41}=+$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
$\bullet$ Consider case (6).
Let $$\begin{aligned}
U&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{-}x\overline{B}_{-}y\overline{A}_{-}z\overline{B}_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{41}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}).\end{aligned}$$ It is sufficient to show that for each $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12})
\in \{(\pm,\pm)\}$ where double signs are arbitrary, the coefficient of $U$ in $d^{2}(S)$ is even for all $\varepsilon_{41} \in \{\pm\}$. Hence, for $S$ and $U$, we have to check the total number of ways to get $U$ from $S$ is even (we denote the condition by ($\sharp$)). Let us localize the problem of the difference parts of $S$, $A_{+}$ and $B_{+}$. Two routes (i) and (ii) can be found to change $A_{+}$ (respectively $B_{+}$) into $A_{-}$ (respectively $B_{-}$) as follows:\
(i) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{B}_{+}y\overline{A}_{+}z\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{-}x\overline{B}_{+}y\overline{A}_{-}z\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{21}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\rightarrow U,\end{aligned}$$ (ii) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{B}_{+}y\overline{A}_{+}z\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{B}_{-}y\overline{A}_{+}z\overline{B}_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{31}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{32}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\rightarrow U.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the condition ($\sharp$) can also state that the sum of the contribution of (i) to the coefficient of $U$ and the contribution of (ii) to the coefficient of $U$ is even.\
In this case, we can easily check that $(S,T)(T,U) = 0$ for all $T$ by the definition of $T$.\
$\bullet$ Consider case (7).
Let $$\begin{aligned}
U&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{-}xA_{-}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{41}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{42}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}).\end{aligned}$$ It is sufficient to show that for each $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12},
\varepsilon_{13},\varepsilon_{14}) \in \{(\pm,\pm,\pm,\pm)\}$ where double signs are arbitrary, the coefficient of $U$ in $d^{2}(S)$ is even for all $\varepsilon_{41}, \varepsilon_{42} \in \{\pm\}$. Hence, for $S$ and $U$, we have to check the total number of ways to get $U$ from $S$ is even (we denote the condition by ($\sharp$)). Let us localize the problem of the difference parts of $S$, $A_{+}$ and $B_{+}$. Two routes (i) and (ii) can be found to change $A_{+}$ (respectively $B_{+}$) into $A_{-}$ (respectively $B_{-}$) as follows:\
(i) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xA_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{13}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{14}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{-}xA_{-}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{21}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{22}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{23}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\rightarrow U,\end{aligned}$$ (ii) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xA_{+}y|B_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{13}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{14}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xA_{+}y|B_{-}zB_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{31}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{32}}}^{\cdots A \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{33}}}^{\cdots B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\rightarrow U.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the condition ($\sharp$) can also state that the sum of the contribution of (i) to the coefficient of $U$ and the contribution of (ii) to the coefficient of $U$ is even.\
In this case we can easily check that the condition ($\sharp$) holds since empty words which relates $A$ and empty words which relates $B$ are independent.\
$\bullet$ Consider cases (8) and (9).
In this cases the condition ($\sharp$) holds similarly as the case (7).\
$\bullet$ Consider case (10).
Let $$\begin{aligned}
U&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{-}xB_{-}y|A_{-}zB_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{41}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{42}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}).\end{aligned}$$ It is sufficient to show that for each $(\varepsilon_{11},\varepsilon_{12}) \in \{(\pm,\pm)\}$ where double signs are arbitrary, the coefficient of $U$ in $d^{2}(S)$ is even for all $\varepsilon_{41}, \varepsilon_{42} \in \{ \pm \}$. Hence, for $S$ and $U$, we have to check the total number of ways to get $U$ from $S$ is even (we denote the condition by ($\sharp$)). Let us localize the problem of the difference parts of $S$, $A_{+}$ and $B_{+}$. Two routes (i) and (ii) can be found to change $A_{+}$ (respectively $B_{+}$) into $A_{-}$ (respectively $B_{-}$) as follows:\
(i) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xB_{+}y|A_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{-}xB_{+}y|A_{-}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{21}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\rightarrow U,\end{aligned}$$ (ii) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xB_{+}y|A_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|A_{+}xB_{-}y|A_{+}zB_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k}),\\
&&(\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{31}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\rightarrow U.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the condition ($\sharp$) can also state that the sum of the contribution of (i) to the coefficient of $U$ and the contribution of (ii) to the coefficient of $U$ is even.\
Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11}, \varepsilon_{12})=(+,+)$.
In this case, both in route (i) and in route (ii), $(S,T) = 0$ for all $T$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11}, \varepsilon_{12})=(+,-)$.
Consider route (i). In this route $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{21} = +$. Then, for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (+, +)$. Consider route (ii). In this route $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{31} = +$. Then, for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (+, +)$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11}, \varepsilon_{12})=(-,+)$.
Consider route (i). Then, $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{21} = +$. Moreover for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (+, +)$. Consider route (ii). Then, $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{31} = +$. Moreover for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (+, +)$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
Consider case $(\varepsilon_{11}, \varepsilon_{12})=(-,-)$.
Consider route (i). Then, $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{21} = -$. Moreover for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (+, -)$ or $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (-, +)$. Consider route (ii). Then, $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $\varepsilon_{31} = -$. Moreover for this $T$, $(T,U)$ is not equal to $0$ if and only if $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (+, -)$. $(\varepsilon_{41},\varepsilon_{42}) = (-, +)$. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
$\bullet$ Consider case (11).
Let $$\begin{aligned}
U&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{-}xB_{-}y|\overline{A}_{-}zB_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{41}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}).\end{aligned}$$ It is sufficient to show that for each $\varepsilon_{11} \in \{ \pm \}$. the coefficient of $U$ in $d^{2}(S)$ is even for all $\varepsilon_{41} \in \{ \pm \}$. Hence, for $S$ and $U$, we have to check the total number of ways to get $U$ from $S$ is even (we denote the condition by ($\sharp$)). Let us localize the problem of the difference parts of $S$, $A_{+}$ and $B_{+}$. Two routes (i) and (ii) can be found to change $A_{+}$ (respectively $B_{+}$) into $A_{-}$ (respectively $B_{-}$) as follows:\
(i) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}xB_{+}y|\overline{A}_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{-}xB_{+}y|\overline{A}_{-}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{21}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{22}}}^{\cdots A B\cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\rightarrow U,\end{aligned}$$ (ii) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}xB_{+}y|\overline{A}_{+}zB_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}xB_{-}y|\overline{A}_{+}zB_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{31}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{32}}}^{\cdots A B\cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\rightarrow U.\end{aligned}$$ In this case we can chose $\varepsilon_{21}$, $\varepsilon_{22}$, $\varepsilon_{31}$ ,$\varepsilon_{32} \in \{ \pm \}$ so that $(\varepsilon_{21},\varepsilon_{22}) = (\varepsilon_{31},\varepsilon_{32})$ and $(S,T)$ is not equal to $0$. Moreover $T$s in route (i) and in route (ii) have same form. Thus the condition ($\sharp$) holds.\
$\bullet$ Consider case (12).
Let $$\begin{aligned}
U&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{-}x\overline{B}_{-}y|\overline{A}_{-}z\overline{B}_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{41}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{42}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}}).\end{aligned}$$ Then, the condition ($\sharp$) can also state that the sum of the contribution of (i) to the coefficient of $U$ and the contribution of (ii) to the coefficient of $U$ is even.\
It is sufficient to show that for each $(\varepsilon_{11}, \varepsilon_{12})
\in \{ \pm, \pm \}$ where double signs are arbitrary, the coefficient of $U$ in $d^{2}(S)$ is even for all $\varepsilon_{41}, \varepsilon_{42} \in \{ \pm \}$. Hence, for $S$ and $U$, we have to check the total number of ways to get $U$ from $S$ is even (we denote the condition by ($\sharp$)). Let us localize the problem of the difference parts of $S$, $A_{+}$ and $B_{+}$. Two routes (i) and (ii) can be found to change $A_{+}$ (respectively $B_{+}$) into $A_{-}$ (respectively $B_{-}$) as follows:\
(i) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{B}_{+}y|\overline{A}_{+}z\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{-}x\overline{B}_{+}y|\overline{A}_{-}z\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&(\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{21}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\rightarrow U,\end{aligned}$$ (ii) $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{B}_{+}y|\overline{A}_{+}z\overline{B}_{+}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{11}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{12}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rightarrow
T&=&(\alpha_{1}|\cdots|\alpha_{l-1}|\overline{A}_{+}x\overline{B}_{-}y|\overline{A}_{+}z\overline{B}_{-}t|\alpha_{l+1}|\cdots|\alpha_{k},\\
&&\emptyset_{\epsilon_{1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l-1}}|{\emptyset_{\varepsilon_{31}}}^{\cdots A B \cdots}|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{l+1}}|\cdots|\emptyset_{\epsilon_{k}})\rightarrow U.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the condition ($\sharp$) can also state that the sum of the contribution of (i) to the coefficient of $U$ and the contribution of (ii) to the coefficient of $U$ is even.\
This case is completely same as the case (ii).\
$\bullet$The cases (13) - (23)
We can easily check the condition ($\sharp$) by the definition of $d$.\
$\bullet$The cases (24) - (26)
In this case we can prove the condition ($\sharp$) holds same as the case (7).
Now, we have proved the theorem.
We denote the mapping $d$ modulo $2$ $: C^{i, j}(P; {\mathbb{Z}}_{2}) \to C^{i+1, j}(P; {\mathbb{Z}}_{2})$ by $d_{2}^{i}$ for $i$ and $j$. The Khovanov homology group $KH^{i, j}(P)$ for a pseudolink $P$ is defined as $$KH^{i, j}(P) := {\rm Ker} d_{2}^{i} \big{/} {\rm Im} d_{2}^{i-1}.$$
$KH^{i, j}(P)$ is independent of the order of that the letters are removed from $P$ because the incidence number $(S : T)$ is always either $0$ or $1$ modulo $2$ for enhanced states $S$ and $T$.
Invariance under $S_{1}$-homotopy moves
=======================================
$KH^{i, j}(P)$ are $S_{1}$-homotopy invariants for pseudolinks.
Manturov proved this result using virtual knot theory [@manturov2].
From the construction of $KH^{i,j}(P)$, it is evident that $KH^{i,j}(P)$ does not depend on an arbitrary isomorphism of $P$. Then, $KH^{i,j}$ is invariant under isomorphisms. It remains to be proved that if a nanophrase $P$ is obtained from a nanophrase $P'$ by a homotopy move, then $KH^{i,j}(P')$ $\simeq$ $KH^{i,j}(P)$. The following discussion is similar to those in [@viro Subsection 5.6] and [@ito3 Section 2 and 3].
\(I) Consider the first homotopy move $xAAy$ $\rightarrow$ $xy$ and its inverse move where $|A|$ $=$ $1$. For $P'$ and $P$, $S_{+}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{Aw}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{A}|v$ of $P'$ with mark($A$) $=$ $1$ and $S_{-}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{Aw}|v$ of $P'$ with mark($A$) $=$ $-1$, where $\epsilon$, $\eta$ $\in \{+, -\}$. The subcomplex $C'$ of ${C}(P')$ is defined by $C'$ $:=$ ${C}( S_{+}(+, +)$, $S_{+}(+, -)$ $-$ $S_{+}(-, +))$.
First, the retraction $$\rho : {C}(P') \to {C}(S_{+}(+, +),~S_{+}(+, -) - S_{+}(-, +))$$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{+}(+, +) &\mapsto S_{+}(+, +), \\
S_{+}(-, +) &\mapsto S_{+}(-, +) - S_{+}(+, -), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
Second, the isomorphism $${C}(S_{+}(+, +), S_{+}(+, -) - S_{+}(-, +)) \to {C}(P) = {C}(u|{\emptyset_{+}}^{w}|v, u|{\emptyset_{-}}^{w}|v)$$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{+}(+, +) &\mapsto u|{\emptyset_{+}}^{w}|v, \\
S_{+}(+, -) - S_{+}(-, +) &\mapsto u|{\emptyset_{-}}^{w}|v. \end{aligned}$$
Third, consider the following composition of this isomorphism with $\rho:$ $$C(P') \stackrel{\rho}{\to} C' \stackrel{\mathrm{isom}}{\to} C(P).$$
The map $h : {C}(P') \to {C}(P')$ such that $d \circ h$ $+$ $h \circ d$ $=$ $\operatorname{id} - \operatorname{in} \circ \rho$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-}(+) &\mapsto S_{+}(+, -), \\
S_{-}(-) &\mapsto S_{+}(-, -), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
\(II) Consider the second homotopy move $P'$ $=$ $xAByBAz$ $\rightarrow$ $xyz$ $=$ $P$ and its inverse move where $(|A|, |B|)$ $=$ $(1, -1)$. It is necessary to consider two distinct cases (II-1), (II-2) as follows.
(II–1) Consider case where the state of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$) is represented as $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{ABw}|v$.
$S_{+-}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{Aw}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{A B}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$), $S_{-+}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{ABw}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{ABt}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$), $S_{++}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{ABw}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$), and $S_{--}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{ABw}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$), where $\epsilon$, $\eta$ $\in \{+, -\}$. The subcomplex $C'$ of ${C}(P')$ is defined by $C'$ $:=$ ${C}\big( S_{-+}(+, +),$ $S_{-+}(+, -) + S_{+-}(+, -),$ $S_{-+}(-, +) + S_{+-}(-, -),$ $S_{-+}(-, -) + S_{+-}(-, -) \big)$.
First, the retraction $\rho :$ ${C}(P')$ $\to$ $C'$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-+}(+, +) &\mapsto S_{-+}(+, +), \\
S_{-+}(+, -) &\mapsto S_{-+}(+, -) + S_{+-}(+), \\
S_{-+}(-, +) &\mapsto S_{-+}(-, +) + S_{+-}(+), \\
S_{-+}(-, -) &\mapsto S_{-+}(-, -) + S_{+-}(-), \\
S_{+-}(+, +) &\mapsto S_{-+}(+, +), \\
S_{+-}(-, +) &\mapsto S_{-+}(+, -) + S_{-+}(-, +), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
Second, the isomorphism $$C' \to {C}(P) = {C}(u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{t}|v)$$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-+}(+, +) &\mapsto u|{\emptyset_{+}}^{w}|{\emptyset_{+}}^{t}|v, \\
S_{-+}(+, -) + S_{+-}(+) &\mapsto u|{\emptyset_{+}}^{w}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{t}|v, \\
S_{-+}(-, +) + S_{+-}(+) &\mapsto u|{\emptyset_{-}}^{w}|{\emptyset_{+}}^{t}|v, \\
S_{-+}(-, -) + S_{+-}(-) &\mapsto u|{\emptyset_{-}}^{w}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{t}|v. \end{aligned}$$
Third, consider the following composition of this isomorphism with $\rho:$ $$C(P') \stackrel{\rho}{\to} C' \stackrel{\mathrm{isom}}{\to} C(P).$$
The map $h:$ ${C}(P') \to {C}(P')$ such that $d \circ h$ $+$ $h \circ d$ $=$ $\operatorname{id} - \operatorname{in} \circ \rho$, is defined by the formulas
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{--}(\epsilon) &\mapsto S_{+-}(\epsilon, -), \\
S_{+-}(\epsilon, +) &\mapsto S_{++}(\epsilon), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
(II–2) Consider the case where the state of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$) is represented as $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{Aw}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{A Bt}|v$.
$S_{+-}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{Aw}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{A B}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{Bt}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$), $S_{-+}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{A Bwt'}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$), $S_{++}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{Aw}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{A Bt}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$), and $S_{--}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{A Bw}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{Bt}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$), where $\epsilon$, $\eta$ $\in \{+, -\}$ and the word $t'$ is obtained by deleting all letters from $t$ that appear in $w$. The subcomplex $C'$ of ${C}(P')$ is defined by $C'$ $:=$ ${C}\big($$S_{-+}(+)$ $+$ $S_{+-}(+, -, +)$, $S_{-+}(-)$ $+$ $S_{+-}(+, -, -)$ $+$ $S_{+-}(-, -, +)$$\big)$.
First, the retraction $\rho:$ ${C}(P')$ $\to$ $C'$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-+}(+) &\mapsto S_{-+}(+) + S_{+-}(+, -, +), \\
S_{-+}(-) &\mapsto S_{-+}(-) + S_{+-}(+, -, -) + S_{+-}(-, -, +), \\
S_{+-}(+, +, -) &\mapsto S_{-+}(+) + S_{+-}(+, -, +), \\
S_{+-}(-, +, +) &\mapsto S_{-+}(+) + S_{+-}(+, -, +), \\
S_{+-}(-, +, -) &\mapsto S_{-+}(-) + S_{+-}(+, -, -) + S_{+-}(-, -, +), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
Second, the isomorphism $$C' \to {C}(P) = {C}(u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{wt'}|v)$$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-+}(+) + S_{+-}(+, -, +) &\mapsto u|{\emptyset_{+}}^{wt'}|v, \\
S_{-+}(-) + S_{+-}(+, -, -) + S_{+-}(-, -, +) &\mapsto u|{\emptyset_{-}}^{wt'}|v. \end{aligned}$$
Third, consider the following composition of this isomorphism with $\rho:$ $$C(P') \stackrel{\rho}{\to} C' \stackrel{\mathrm{isom}}{\to} C(P).$$
The map $h:$ ${C}(P') \to {C}(P')$ such that $d \circ h$ $+$ $h \circ d$ $=$ $\operatorname{id} - \operatorname{in} \circ \rho$, is defined by the formulas
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{--}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto S_{+-}(\epsilon, -, \eta), \\
S_{+-}(\epsilon, +, \eta) &\mapsto S_{++}(\epsilon, \eta), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
By using (II-1) and (II-2), we proved that $KH^{i, j}(xAByBAz)$ $\simeq$ $KH^{i, j}(xyz)$ if $(|A|, |B|)$ $=$ $(1, -1)$. In addition, (II-1) and (II-2) prove that $KH^{i, j}(xAByABz)$ $\simeq$ $KH^{i, j}(xyz)$ if $(|A|, |B|)$ $=$ $(-1, 1)$. Moreover, by exchanging $A$, $B$ in the proofs above, (II-1) and (II-2) prove that $KH^{i, j}(xAByBAz)$ $\simeq$ $KH^{i, j}(xyz)$ if $(|A|, |B|)$ $=$ $(-1, 1)$ and $KH^{i, j}(xAByABz)$ $\simeq$ $KH^{i, j}(xyz)$ if $(|A|, |B|)$ $=$ $(1, -1)$.
Here, consider $$\begin{aligned}
xAAy &\stackrel{\text{H1}}{\sim} xABBAy \quad \text{with}\ |A| = -1, |B| = 1\\
&\stackrel{\text{H2}}{\sim} xy. \end{aligned}$$ We have already shown the invariance of $KH^{i,j}$ under the above moves and that $KH^{i,j}$ is preserved under the first homotopy move $xAAy$ $\rightarrow$ $xy$ with $|A|$ $=$ $-1$ and its inverse move.
\(III) Consider the third homotopy move $$P' = xAByACzBCt \rightarrow xBAyCAzCBt = P$$ and its inverse move where $(|A|, |B|, |C|)$ $=$ $(-1, -1, -1)$. For the letters $A$, $B$, and $C$, we define $w_{ABC}$, $w_{AB}$, $w_{AC}$, $w_{BC}$, $w_{A}$, $w_{B}$, and $w_{C}$ in the following. Let $w_{ABC}$ be a word containing $A$, $B$, and $C$. Let $(X, Y, Z)$ $=$ $\{(A, B, C)$, $(A, C, B)$, $(B, C, A)\}$. $w_{XY}$ denotes a word containing $X$ and $Y$ but not $Z$, and $w_{Z}$ denotes a word containing $Z$ but not $X$ and $Y$.
(III–1) Consider the case where the state of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$ )) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $1$) is represented as $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$.
$S_{+++}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $1$), $S_{-++}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{A B}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $1$), $S_{+-+}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{A B C}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $1$), $S_{--+}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $1$), $S_{++-}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $-1$), $S_{-+-}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A C}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{A B}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $-1$), $S_{+--}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $-1$), and $S_{---}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $-1$).
The subcomplex $C'$ of ${C}(P')$ is defined by $C'$ $:=$ ${C}\big($ $S_{-++}(+, +)$, $S_{-++}(+, -)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(+, -)$, $S_{-++}(-, +)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(+, -)$, $S_{-++}(-, -)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(-, -)$, $S_{**-}$ $\big)$, where $S_{**-}$ denotes every state with mark($C$) $=$ $-1$.
$T_{+-+}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark( $C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $1$), $T_{-++}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta, -)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{B}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{C}}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{A B C}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $1$), $T_{++-}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $-1$), $T_{-+-}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $-1$), $T_{+--}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $-1$), $T_{---}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $-1$), and $T_{**-}$ denotes every state of $P$ with mark($C$) $=$ $-1$.
The subcomplex $C$ of ${C}(P)$ is defined by $C$ $:=$ ${C}\big($$T_{+-+}(+, \eta)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(+, +, \eta,$ $-)$, $T_{+-+}(-, \eta)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(+, -, \eta, -)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(-, +, \eta, -)$, $T_{**-}$$\big)$.
First, the retraction $\rho:$ ${C}(P')$ $\to$ $C'$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-++}(+, +) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, +), \\
S_{-++}(+, -) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, -) + S_{+-+}(+, -), \\
S_{-++}(-, +) &\mapsto S_{-++}(-, +) + S_{+-+}(+, -), \\
S_{-++}(-, -) &\mapsto S_{-++}(-, -) + S_{+-+}(-, -), \\
S_{**-} &\mapsto S_{**-}, \\
S_{+-+}(+, +) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, +) + S_{++-}(+, +), \\
S_{+-+}(-, +) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, -) + S_{-++}(-, +) + S_{++-}(+, -) + S_{++-}(-, +), \\
S_{--+}(\epsilon) &\mapsto S_{+--}(\epsilon), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
Second, consider the following composition of the following isomorphism with $\rho$ $$\label{third-rei-eq}
C(P') \stackrel{\rho}{\to} C' \stackrel{\mathrm{isom}}{\to} C \stackrel{i}{\to} C(P).$$ The isomorphism $C'$ $\to$ ${C}$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-++}(+, +) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(+, +) + T_{-++}(+, +, +, -), \\
S_{-++}(+, -) + S_{+-+}(+, -) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(+, -) + T_{-++}(+, +, -, -),\\
S_{-++}(-, +) + S_{+-+}(+, -) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(-, +) + T_{-++}(+, -, +, -)\\&\qquad\qquad\qquad\!\quad + T_{-++}(-, +, +, -), \\
S_{-++}(-, -) + S_{+-+}(-, -) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(-, -) + T_{-++}(+, -, -, -)\\&\qquad\qquad\qquad\!\quad + T_{-++}(-, +, -, -), \\
S_{++-}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto T_{++-}(\epsilon, \eta), \\
S_{-+-}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta), \\
S_{+--}(\epsilon) &\mapsto T_{+--}(\epsilon), \\
S_{---}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto T_{---}(\epsilon, \eta). \end{aligned}$$
Third, the map $h:$ ${C}(P') \to {C}(P')$ such that $d \circ h$ $+$ $h \circ d$ $=$ $\operatorname{id} - \operatorname{in} \circ \rho$ is defined by the formulas
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{--+}(\epsilon) &\mapsto S_{+-+}(\epsilon, -), \\
S_{+-+}(\epsilon, +) &\mapsto S_{+++}(\epsilon), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
(III–2) Consider the case where the state of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$ )) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $1$) is represented as $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$.
$S_{+++}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $1$), $S_{-++}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $1$), $S_{+-+}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A C}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{A B C}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B}}$ $|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $1$), $S_{--+}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $1$), $S_{++-}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $-1$), $S_{-+-}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $-1$), $S_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $-1$), and $S_{---}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{A C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $-1$).
The subcomplex $C'$ of ${C}(P')$ is defined by $C'$ $:=$ ${C}\big($$S_{-++}(+)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(+, -, +)$, $S_{-++}(-)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(+, -, -)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(-, -, +)$, $S_{**-}$$\big)$, where $S_{**-}$ denotes every state with mark($C$) $=$ $-1$.
$T_{+-+}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark( $C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $1$), $T_{-++}(\epsilon, \zeta, -)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{B C}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{A}}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{A B C}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $1$), $T_{++-}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $-1$), $T_{-+-}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $-1$), $T_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $-1$), $T_{---}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{A}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $-1$), and $T_{**-}$ denotes every state of $P$ with mark($C$) $=$ $-1$.
The subcomplex $C$ of ${C}(P)$ is defined by $C$ $:=$ ${C}\big($$T_{+-+}(+)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(+, +, -)$, $T_{+-+}(-)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(+, -, -)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(-, +, -)$, $T_{**-}$$\big)$.
First, the retraction $\rho:$ ${C}(P')$ $\to$ $C'$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-++}(+) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+) + S_{+-+}(+, -, +), \\
S_{-++}(-) &\mapsto S_{-++}(-) + S_{+-+}(+, -, -) + S_{+-+}(-, -, +), \\
S_{**-} &\mapsto S_{**-}, \\
S_{+-+}(+, +, -) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+) + S_{+-+}(+, -, +) + S_{++-}(+), \\
S_{+-+}(-, +, +) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+) + S_{+-+}(+, -, +) + S_{++-}(+), \\
S_{+-+}(-, +, -) &\mapsto S_{-++}(-) + S_{+-+}(+, -, -) + S_{+-+}(-, -, -) + S_{++-}(-), \\
S_{--+}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto S_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
Second, consider the following composition (\[third-rei-eq\]) of the following isomorphism with $\rho$. The isomorphism $C'$ $\to$ ${C}$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-++}(+) + S_{+-+}(+, -, +) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(+) + T_{-++}(+, +, -), \\
S_{-++}(-) + S_{+-+}(+, -, -) + S_{+-+}(-, -, +) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(-) + T_{-++}(+, -, -)\\
& \qquad\qquad\quad \ \, + T_{-++}(-, +, -), \\
S_{++-}(\epsilon) &\mapsto T_{++-}(\epsilon), \\
S_{-+-}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto T_{-+-}(\epsilon, \eta), \\
S_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto T_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta), \\
S_{---}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta) &\mapsto T_{---}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta). \end{aligned}$$
Third, the map $h:$ ${C}(P') \to {C}(P')$ such that $d \circ h$ $+$ $h \circ d$ $=$ $\operatorname{id} - \operatorname{in} \circ \rho$ is defined by the formulas
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{--+}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto S_{+-+}(\epsilon, -, \eta), \\
S_{+-+}(\epsilon, +, \eta) &\mapsto S_{+++}(\epsilon, \eta), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
(III–3) Consider the case where the state of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark( $C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $1$) is represented as $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$.
$S_{+++}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $1$), $S_{-++}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $1$), $S_{+-+}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{A B C}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B C}}$ $|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $1$), $S_{--+}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $1$), $S_{++-}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $-1$), $S_{-+-}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $-1$), $S_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A}}$ $|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $-1$), and $S_{---}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $-1$).
The subcomplex $C'$ of ${C}(P')$ is defined by $C'$ $:=$ ${C}\big($$S_{-++}(+)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(+, -, +)$, $S_{-++}(-)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(+, -, -)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(-, -, +)$, $S_{**-}$$\big)$, where $S_{**-}$ denotes every states with mark($C$) $=$ $-1$.
$T_{+-+}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark( $C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $1$), $T_{-++}(\epsilon, -, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{A B C}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $1$), $T_{++-}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A C}}$ $|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{B}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $-1$), $T_{-+-}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark(\
$C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $-1$), $T_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark( $A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $-1$), $T_{---}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $-1$), and $T_{**-}$ denotes every state of $P$ with mark($C$) $=$ $-1$.
The subcomplex $C$ of ${C}(P)$ is defined by $C$ $:=$ ${C}\big($$T_{+-+}(+)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(+, -, +)$, $T_{+-+}(-)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(+, -, -)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(-, -, +)$, $T_{**-}$$\big)$.
First, the retraction $\rho:$ ${C}(P')$ $\to$ $C'$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-++}(+) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+) + S_{+-+}(+, -, +), \\
S_{-++}(-) &\mapsto S_{-++}(-) + S_{+-+}(+, -, -) + S_{+-+}(-, -, +), \\
S_{**-} &\mapsto S_{**-}, \\
S_{+-+}(+, +, +) &\mapsto S_{++-}(+, +, +), \\
S_{+-+}(+, +, -) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+) + S_{+-+}(+, -, +) + S_{++-}(+, +, -) + S_{++-}(+, -, +), \\
S_{+-+}(-, +, +) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+) + S_{+-+}(+, -, +) + S_{++-}(-, +, +), \\
S_{+-+}(-, +, -) &\mapsto S_{-++}(-) + S_{+-+}(+, -, -) + S_{+-+}(-, -, +) + S_{++-}(-, +, -) \\
&\qquad\qquad\,\,\,\, \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad + S_{++-}(-, -, +), \\
S_{--+}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto S_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
Second, consider the following composition (\[third-rei-eq\]) of the following isomorphism with $\rho$. The isomorphism $C'$ $\to$ ${C}$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-++}(+) + S_{+-+}(+, -, +) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(+) + T_{-++}(+, -, +), \\
S_{-++}(-) + S_{+-+}(+, -, -) + S_{+-+}(-, -, +) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(-) + T_{-++}(+, -, -) \\
&\qquad\qquad\quad\ \, + T_{-++}(-, -, +), \\
S_{++-}(\epsilon) &\mapsto T_{++-}(\epsilon), \\
S_{-+-}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto T_{-+-}(\epsilon, \eta), \\
S_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto T_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta), \\
S_{---}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta) &\mapsto T_{---}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta). \end{aligned}$$
Third, the map $h:$ ${C}(P') \to {C}(P')$ such that $d \circ h$ $+$ $h \circ d$ $=$ $\operatorname{id} - \operatorname{in} \circ \rho$ is defined by the formulas
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{--+}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto S_{+-+}(\epsilon, -, \eta), \\
S_{+-+}(\epsilon, +, \eta) &\mapsto S_{+++}(\epsilon, \eta), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
(III–4) Consider the case where the state of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark( $C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $1$) is represented as $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{C}}|v$.
$S_{+++}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $1$), $S_{-++}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{A B}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $1$), $S_{+-+}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{A B C}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $1$), $S_{--+}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $1$), $S_{++-}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$\
), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $-1$), $S_{-+-}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $-1$), $S_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $-1$), and $S_{---}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $-1$).
The subcomplex $C'$ of ${C}(P')$ is defined by $C'$ $:=$ ${C}\big($ $S_{-++}(+, +, \eta)$, $S_{-++}(+, -, $ $\eta)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(+, -,$ $\eta)$, $S_{-++}(-, +, \eta)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(+, -, \eta)$, $S_{-++}(-, -, \eta)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(-, -,$ $\eta)$, $S_{**-}$ $\big)$, where $S_{**-}$ denotes every state with mark($C$) $=$ $-1$.
$T_{+-+}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{A B}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark( $B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $1$), $T_{-++}(\epsilon, -, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B}}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{A B C}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $1$), $T_{++-}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $-1$), $T_{-+-}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $-1$), $T_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $-1$), $T_{---}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $-1$), and $T_{**-}$ denotes every state of $P$ with mark($C$) $=$ $-1$.
The subcomplex $C$ of ${C}(P)$ is defined by $C$ $:=$ ${C}\big($$T_{+-+}(+, +, \eta)$, $T_{+-+}(+, -, \eta)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(+, -, \eta)$, $T_{+-+}(-, +, \eta)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(+, -, \eta)$, $T_{+-+}(-, -, \eta)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(-, -, \eta)$, $T_{**-}$$\big)$.
First, the retraction $\rho:$ ${C}(P')$ $\to$ $C'$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-++}(+, +, \eta) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, +, \eta), \\
S_{-++}(+, -, \eta) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, -, \eta) + S_{+-+}(+, -, \eta), \\
S_{-++}(-, +, \eta) &\mapsto S_{-++}(-, +, \eta) + S_{+-+}(+, -, \eta), \\
S_{-++}(-, -, \eta) &\mapsto S_{-++}(-, -, \eta) + S_{+-+}(-, -, \eta), \\
S_{**-} &\mapsto S_{**-}, \\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
S_{+-+}(+, +, +) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, +, +), \\
S_{+-+}(+, +, -) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, +, -) + S_{++-}(+), \\
S_{+-+}(-, +, +) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, -, +) + S_{-++}(-, +, +) + S_{++-}(+), \\
S_{+-+}(-, +, -) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, -, -) + S_{-++}(-, +, -) + S_{++-}(-), \\
S_{--+}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto S_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
Second, consider the following composition (\[third-rei-eq\]) of the following isomorphism with $\rho$. The isomorphism $C'$ $\to$ ${C}$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-++}(+, +, \eta) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(+, +, \eta), \\
S_{-++}(+, -, \eta) + S_{+-+}(+, -, \eta) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(+, -, \eta) + T_{-++}(+, -, \eta), \\
S_{-++}(-, +, \eta) + S_{+-+}(+, -, \eta) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(-, +, \eta) + T_{-++}(+, -, \eta), \\
S_{-++}(-, -, \eta) + S_{+-+}(-, -, \eta) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(-, -, \eta) + T_{-++}(-, -, \eta), \\
S_{++-}(\epsilon) &\mapsto T_{++-}(\epsilon), \\
S_{-+-}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto T_{-+-}(\epsilon, \eta), \\
S_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto T_{+--}(\epsilon, \eta), \\
S_{---}(\epsilon) &\mapsto T_{---}(\epsilon). \end{aligned}$$
Third, the map $h:$ ${C}(P') \to {C}(P')$ such that $d \circ h$ $+$ $h \circ d$ $=$ $\operatorname{id} - \operatorname{in} \circ \rho$ is defined by the formulas
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{--+}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto S_{+-+}(\epsilon, -, \eta), \\
S_{+-+}(\epsilon, +, \eta) &\mapsto S_{+++}(\epsilon, \eta), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
(III–5) Consider the case where the state of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark( $C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $1$) is represented as $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{C}}|v$.
$S_{+++}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark( $B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $1$), $S_{-++}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $1$), $S_{+-+}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta, \theta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{B}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{C}}|{\emptyset_{\theta}}^{A B C}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $1$), $S_{--+}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{B}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $1$), $S_{++-}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $-1$), $S_{-+-}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $-1$), $S_{+--}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{B}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $-1$), and $S_{---}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B}}|v$ of $P'$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $-1$).
The subcomplex $C'$ of ${C}(P')$ is defined by $C'$ $:=$ ${C}\big($ $S_{-++}(+, \eta)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(+, +, \eta,$ $-)$, $S_{-++}(-, \eta)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(+, -, \eta, -)$ $+$ $S_{+-+}(-, +, \eta, -)$, $S_{**-}$ $\big)$ where $S_{**-}$ denotes every states with mark($C$) $=$ $-1$.
$T_{+-+}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $1$), $T_{-++}(\epsilon, -)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{-}}^{A B C}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $1$), $T_{++-}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A C}}$ $|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $1$, $-1$), $T_{-+-}(\epsilon)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $1$, $-1$), $T_{+--}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A C}}|{\emptyset_{\zeta}}^{w_{B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{A B}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($1$, $-1$, $-1$), $T_{---}(\epsilon, \eta)$ denotes the state $u|{\emptyset_{\epsilon}}^{w_{A B C}}|{\emptyset_{\eta}}^{w_{B C}}|v$ of $P$ with (mark($A$), mark($B$), mark($C$)) $=$ ($-1$, $-1$, $-1$), $T_{**-}$ denotes every state of $P$ with mark($C$) $=$ $-1$.
The subcomplex $C$ of ${C}(P)$ is defined by $C$ $:=$ ${C}\big($$T_{+-+}(+, +)$, $T_{+-+}(+, -)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(+, -)$, $T_{+-+}(-, +)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(+, -)$, $T_{+-+}(-, -)$ $+$ $T_{-++}(-, -)$, $T_{**-}$$\big)$.
First, the retraction $\rho:$ ${C}(P')$ $\to$ $C'$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-++}(+, \eta) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, \eta) + S_{+-+}(+, +, \eta, -), \\
S_{-++}(-, \eta) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, -, \eta, -) + S_{+-+}(-, +, \eta, -), \\
S_{**-} &\mapsto S_{**-}, \\
S_{+-+}(+, +, -, +) &\mapsto S_{++-}(+, +), \\
S_{+-+}(+, -, +, +) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, +) + S_{+-+}(+, +, +, -) + S_{++-}(+, +), \\
S_{+-+}(+, -, -, +) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, -) + S_{+-+}(+, +, -, -) + S_{++-}(+, -), \\
S_{+-+}(-, +, +, +) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, +) + S_{+-+}(+, +, +, -), \\
S_{+-+}(-, +, -, +) &\mapsto S_{-++}(+, -) + S_{+-+}(+, +, -, -) + S_{++-}(-, +), \\
S_{+-+}(-, -, +, +) &\mapsto S_{-++}(-, +) + S_{+-+}(+, -, +, -) + S_{+-+}(-, +, +, -) \\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\ \ + S_{++-}(-, +), \\
S_{+-+}(-, -, -, +) &\mapsto S_{-++}(-, -) + S_{+-+}(+, -, -, -) + S_{+-+}(-, +, -, -)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\ \ + S_{++-}(-, -), \\
S_{--+}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta) &\mapsto S_{+--}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
Second, consider the following composition (\[third-rei-eq\]) of the following isomorphism with $\rho$. The isomorphism $C'$ $\to$ ${C}$ is defined by the formulas $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-++}(+, +) + S_{+-+}(+, +, +, -) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(+, +), \\
S_{-++}(+, -) + S_{+-+}(+, +, -, -) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(+, -) \\&\qquad\!+ T_{-++}(+, -), \\
S_{-++}(-, +) + S_{+-+}(+, -, +, -) + S_{+-+}(-, +, +, -) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(-, +) \\&\qquad\!+ T_{-++}(+, -), \\
S_{-++}(-, -) + S_{+-+}(+, -, -, -) + S_{+-+}(-, +, -, -) &\mapsto T_{+-+}(-, -) \\&\qquad\!+ T_{-++}(-, -), \\
S_{++-}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto T_{++-}(\epsilon, \eta), \\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
S_{-+-}(\epsilon) &\mapsto T_{-+-}(\epsilon), \\
S_{+--}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta) &\mapsto T_{+--}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta), \\
S_{---}(\epsilon, \eta) &\mapsto T_{---}(\epsilon, \eta). \end{aligned}$$
Third, the map $h:$ ${C}(P') \to {C}(P')$ such that $d \circ h$ $+$ $h \circ d$ $=$ $\operatorname{id} - \operatorname{in} \circ \rho$ is defined by the formulas
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{--+}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta) &\mapsto S_{+-+}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta, -), \\
S_{+-+}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta, +) &\mapsto S_{+++}(\epsilon, \zeta, \eta), \\
{\rm{otherwise}} &\mapsto 0. \end{aligned}$$
(III–1) – (III–5) prove that $KH^{i, j}(xAByACzBCt)$ $\simeq$ $KH^{i, j}(xBAyCAzCBt)$ if $(|A|, |B|, |C|)$ is any among $\{(-1, -1, -1)$, $(-1, 1, 1)$, $(1, 1, -1)$ $\}$.
Consider $P'$ $=$ $xAByACzBCt$ $\rightarrow$ $xBAyCAzCBt$ $=$ $P$, where $(|A|, |B|, |C|)$ $=$ $(1, -1, -1)$. $$\begin{aligned}
xAByACzBCt &\stackrel{\nu-\text{shift}}{\sim} xBCyABzACt \quad \text{with}\ (|A|, |B|, |C|) = (1, -1, -1) \\
&\stackrel{\text{isom}}{\simeq} xAByDAzDBt \quad \text{with}\ (|A|, |B|, |D|) = (-1, -1, 1)\\
&\stackrel{\text{Lemma \ref{abab}}}{\sim} xAByDA\underline{CE}zDB\underline{CE}t
\quad \text{with}\ |C| = -1, |E| = 1\\
&\stackrel{H3}{\sim} x\underline{BA}yD\underline{CA}EzD\underline{CB}Et \quad \text{with}\ (|A|, |B|, |C|) = (-1, -1, -1)\\
&\stackrel{H2}{\sim} x{BA}yAEzBEt \quad \text{with}\ |C| = -1, |D| = 1\\
&\stackrel{\text{isom}}{\simeq} xCByBAzCAt \quad \text{with}\ (|A|, |B|, |C|) = (1, -1, -1)\\
&\stackrel{\nu-\text{shift}}{\sim} xBAyCAzCBt \quad \text{with}\ (|A|, |B|, |C|) = (1, -1, -1) \end{aligned}$$ We have already shown the invariance of $KH^{i,j}$ under the above moves and that $KH^{i,j}$ is preserved under the third homotopy move H3 and its inverse move with $(|A|, |B|, |C|)$ $=$ $(1, -1, -1)$. In particular, in this case, we use the invariance of $KH^{i,j}$ under H3 and its inverse with $($$|A|,$ $|B|,$ $|C|)$ $=$ $(-1,$ $-1,$ $-1)$. By using the invariance under H3 and its inverse with $($$|A|,$ $|B|,$ $|C|)$ $=$ $(1,$ $1,$ $-1)$ (resp. $(-1,$ $1,$ $1)$), we can verify the invariance of $KH^{i,j}$ under H3 and its inverse with $($$|A|,$ $|B|,$ $|C|)$ $=$ $(1,$ $1,$ $1)$ (resp. $(-1,$ $-1,$ $1)$).
We conclude that $KH^{i,j}(P')$ $\simeq$ $KH^{i,j}(P)$ for $P'$ $\simeq_{S_{1}}$ $P$.
The following corollary is a similar to Corollary \[jones-s0\].
\[cor-s0-homotopy\] $KH^{i, j}(P)$ are $S_{0}$-homotopy invariants for nanophrases $P$ over $\alpha_{0}$.
An application of $KH^{i, j}$ via words to nanophrases over any $\alpha$ {#sec6}
========================================================================
In the previous sections, we discuss $S_{1}$-homotopy invariants $\hat{J}(P)$ and $KH^{i,j}(P)$ of pseudolinks. Here, we construct homotopy invariants of nanophrases over any $\alpha$ from $\hat{J}(P)$ and $KH^{i,j}(P)$.
Let $\alpha$ be an arbitrary alphabet, $\tau$ be $\alpha \to \alpha$; involution, $\Delta_{\alpha}$ be $\{(a, a, a)\}_{a \in \alpha}$, and $\alpha/\tau$ $:=$ $\{\tilde{a}_{1}, \dots, \tilde{a}_{m}\}$. We consider a complete residue system $\{a_{1}, \dots, a_{m}\}$ of $\alpha/\tau$ and denote $\{a_{1}, \dots, a_{m}\}$ by ${\rm crs}(\alpha/\tau)$.
We use the notation of Definition \[orbit\] as in [@turaev1 Section 4.1].
\[orbit\] An [*orbit*]{} of the involution $\tau:$ $\alpha \to \alpha$ is a subset of $\alpha$ consisting either of one element preserved by $\tau$ or of two elements permuted by $\tau$; in the latter case, the orbit is [*free*]{}.
For $A \in \mathcal{A}$, we define the ${\rm sign}$ of $A$ by $${\rm sign}_{L} (A) := \begin{cases}
& 1~\text{if}~|A| \in L ; |\tilde{A}|: \text{a free orbit}\\
& -1~\text{if}~|A| \in \tau(L) ; |\tilde{A}|: \text{a free orbit}\\
& 0~\ \ \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ where $L$ is a nonempty subset of ${\rm crs}(\alpha/\tau)$.
Let $\mathcal{P}_{k}(\alpha, \tau)$ be a set of nanophrases of length $k$ over $\alpha$ with $\tau$.
For an arbitrary $(\alpha, \tau)$ and an arbitrary subset $L \subset {\rm crs}(\alpha/\tau)$, $\mathcal{U}_{L}:$ $\mathcal{P}_{k}(\alpha, \tau) \to \mathcal{P}_{k}(\alpha_{0}, \tau_{0});$ $P \mapsto P_{0}$ is defined by the following two steps:
(Step 1) Remove $A \in \mathcal{A}$ such that ${\rm sign}_{L}(A) = 0$ from $(\mathcal{A}, P)$ $\in \mathcal{P}_{k}(\alpha, \tau)$.
(Step 2) Let the nanophrase be $(\mathcal{A}', P')$ after removing letters from $(\mathcal{A}, P)$ by using (Step 1). We consider an $\alpha_{0}$-alphabet $\mathcal{B}$ such that ${\rm card} \mathcal{B}$ $=$ ${\rm card} \mathcal{A}'$ and $\mathcal{A}' \cap \mathcal{B}$ is the empty set. Transpose each letter of $(\mathcal{A}', P')$ and a letter in $\mathcal{B}$ as follows: $$\begin{cases}
&\text{transform}~$A$~\text{with}~{\rm sign}(A) = 1~\text{into}~B \in \mathcal{B}~\text{with}~|B| = 1\\
&\text{transform}~$A$~\text{with}~{\rm sign}(A) = -1~\text{into}~B \in \mathcal{B}~\text{with}~|B| = -1.
\end{cases}$$ By (1) and (2), the nanophrase over $\alpha_{0}$ derived from $(\mathcal{A}, P)$ is denoted by $\mathcal{U}_{L}((\mathcal{A}, P))$ or simply $\mathcal{U}_{L}(P)$.
\[0\_to\_diagonal\] For an arbitrary $L \subset {\rm crs}(\alpha/\tau)$ and for two arbitrary nanophrases $(\mathcal{A}_{1}, P_{1})$ and $(\mathcal{A}_{2}, P_{2})$, $$(\mathcal{A}_{1}, P_{1}) \simeq_{\Delta_{\alpha}} (\mathcal{A}_{2}, P_{2}) \Longrightarrow \mathcal{U}_{L}((\mathcal{A}_{1}, P_{1})) \simeq_{S_{0}} \mathcal{U}_{L}((\mathcal{A}_{2}, P_{2})).$$
It is clear that isomorphisms does not change the $\mathcal{U}_{L}(P)$.
Consider the first homotopy move $$P_{1}:=(\mathcal{A}, xAAy) \longrightarrow P_{2}:=(\mathcal{A} \setminus
\{A\}, xy)$$ where $x$ and $y$ are words on $\mathcal{A}$, possibly including the character “$|$". Suppose ${\rm sign}(A) \neq 0$. Then, $$\mathcal{U}_{L}(P_{1})=x_{L}AAy_{L} \simeq x_{L}y_{L} =
\mathcal{U}_{L}(P_{2})$$ where $x_{L}$ and $y_{L}$ are words that are obtained by deleting all letters $X \in \mathcal{A}$, such that ${\rm sign}(X) = 0$, from $x$ and $y$, respectively.
Suppose ${\rm sign}(A) = 0$. Then, $$\mathcal{U}_{L}(P_{1})=x_{L}y_{L}=\mathcal{U}_{L}(P_{2}).$$ Thus the first homotopy move does not change the homotopy class of $\mathcal{U}_{L}(P)$.
Consider the second homotopy move $$P_{1}:=(\mathcal{A}, xAByBAz) \longrightarrow
(\mathcal{A} \setminus \{A,B\}, xyz)$$ where $|A|=\tau(|B|)$, and $x$, $y$, and $z$ are words on $\mathcal{A}$ possibly including the character “$|$". Suppose $|A| \in L \cup \tau(L)$ and $\tilde{|A|}$ is free orbit. Then, $|B| \in L \cup \tau(L)$ and $\tilde{|A|}$ is free orbit since $|A|= \tau(|B|)$. Thus $$\mathcal{U}_{L}(P_{1})=x_{L}ABy_{L}BAz_{L}
\simeq x_{L}y_{L}z_{L} = \mathcal{U}_{L}(P_{2}).$$ where $x_{L}$, $y_{L}$ and $z_{L}$ are words that are obtained by deleting all letters $X \in \mathcal{A}$, such that ${\rm sign}(X) = 0$, from $x$, $y$ and $z$, respectively. Suppose $|A| \not\in L \cup \tau(L)$ or $|A|$ is a fixed point of $\tau$. Then, $|B| \not\in L \cup \tau(L)$ or $|B|$ is a fixed point of $\tau$ since $|A|= \tau(|B|)$. Thus, $$\mathcal{U}_{L}(P_{1})= x_{L}y_{L}z_{L} = \mathcal{U}_{L}(P_{2}).$$ The above equation shows that the second homotopy move does not change the homotopy class of $\mathcal{U}_{L}(P)$.
Consider the third homotopy move $$P_{1}:= (\mathcal{A}, xAByACzBCt) \rightarrow
P_{2}:=(\mathcal{A}, xBAyCAzCBt)$$ where $|A|=|B|=|C|$, and $x$, $y$, $z$, and $t$ are words on $\mathcal{A}$ possibly including the character “$|$". Suppose ${\rm sign}(A) \neq 0$. Then, ${\rm sign}(B), {\rm sign}(C) \neq 0$ since $|A|=|B|=|C|$. Thus we obtain $$\mathcal{U}_{L}(P_{1}) = x_{L}ABy_{L}ACz_{L}ACt_{L}
\simeq x_{L}BAy_{L}CAz_{L}CBt_{L}
=\mathcal{U}_{L}(P_{2}).$$ where $x_{L}$, $y_{L}$, $z_{L}$ and $t_{L}$ are words that are obtained by deleting all letters $X \in \mathcal{A}$, such that ${\rm sign}(X) = 0$, from $x$, $y$, $z$, and $t$ respectively. Suppose ${\rm sign}(A) = 0$. Then, ${\rm sign}(B), {\rm sign}(C) = 0$ since $|A|=|B|=|C|$. Thus we obtain $$\mathcal{U}_{L}(P_{1}) = x_{L}y_{L}z_{L}t_{L} = \mathcal{U}_{L}(P_{2}).$$ Thus the third homotopy move does not change the homotopy class of $\mathcal{U}_{L}(P)$.
The above equation shows that $\mathcal{U}_{L}$ is a homotopy invariant of nanophrases.
\[f-cor\] Let $I$ be an $S_{0}$-homotopy invariant of nanophrase over $\alpha_{0}$. For $P$ $\in \mathcal{P}_{k}(\alpha, \tau)$, we define $I'$ as $$I'(P) := \big\{I(\mathcal{U}_{L}(P))\big\}_{L \subset {\rm crs(\alpha/\tau)}}.$$ $I'$ is a $\Delta_{\alpha}$-homotopy invariant of $P$ $\in \mathcal{P}_{k}(\alpha, \tau)$. In particular, for $(\mathcal{A}, P)$ $\in \mathcal{P}_{k}(\alpha_{0}, \tau_{0})$, $I'(P)$ $=$ $\{I(P)\}$ if ${\rm crs}(\alpha_{0}/\tau_{0})$ $=$ $\{1\}$.
Theorem \[0\_to\_diagonal\] implies the following corollaries.
\[jones-apply\] Let $\alpha$ be an arbitrary alphabet. $\hat{J}(\mathcal{U}_{L}(P))$ are $\Delta_{\alpha}$-homotopy invariants for nanophrases $P$ over $\alpha$.
\[homology-apply\] Let $\alpha$ be an arbitrary alphabet. $KH^{i,j}(\mathcal{U}_{L}(P))$ are $\Delta_{\alpha}$-homotopy invariants for nanophrases $P$ over $\alpha$.
$\hat{J}(\mathcal{U}_{L}(P))$ $=$ $\sum_{j= - \infty}^{\infty}q^{j}\sum_{i= - \infty}^{\infty}(-1)^{i}{\rm rk}KH^{i,j}(\mathcal{U}_{L}(P))$.
We present some examples of the calculation of $KH^{i,j}(P)$ or $KH^{i,j}(\mathcal{U}_{L}(P))$.
For two pseudolinks $P_{1}$ $=$ $ABCDEABCDE$ with $|A|$ $=$ $|B|$ $=$ $|C|$ $=$ $|D|$ $=$ $|E|$ $=$ $-1$ and $P_{2}$ $=$ $ABCDEFBGDHFIJEHCGAIJ$ with $|A|$ $=$ $|C|$ $=$ $|E|$ $=$ $|G|$ $=$ $|H|$ $=$ $|I|$ $=$ $|J|$ $=$ $-1$ and $|B|$ $=$ $|D|$ $=$ $|D|$ $=$ $|F|$ $=$ $1$, $\hat{J}(P_{1})$ $=$ $\hat{J}(P_{2})$. However, $KH^{-7, 15}(P_{1})$ $\simeq$ $0$ and $KH^{-7, 15}(P_{2})$ $\simeq$ $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ (see [@bar-natan; @turner]).
$KH^{i,j}(P)$ is a strictly stronger invariant than $\hat{J}(P)$.
$KH^{i, j}(\mathcal{U}_L(P))$ is a strictly stronger invariant than $\hat{J}(P)$ for nano-phrases $P$ over $\alpha$.
In [@turaev1], Turaev constructed a $\Delta_{\alpha}$-homotopy invariant $\lambda$ for nanophrases over $\alpha$.
\[lambda\] Let $a$, $b$, and $c$ be elements (possibly coinciding) of any alphabet $\alpha$ and $A$, $B$, and $C$ be letters with $|A|$ $=$ $a$, $|B|$ $=$ $b$, and $|C|$ $=$ $c$. If $a$ $=$ $c$ $=$ $\tau(b)$ $\neq$ $b$, $\lambda(ABACBC)$ $=$ $\lambda(ACAC)$ $=$ $a$ $+$ $a_{\bullet}$ $-$ $a{a_{\bullet}}^{2}$ $-$ $a^{2}a_{\bullet}$. However, $KH^{0, 2}(\mathcal{U}_{\{a\}}(ACAC))$ $\simeq$ $0$ and $KH^{0, 2}(\mathcal{U}_{\{a\}}(ABACBC))$ $\simeq$ $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$.
Turaev comments that the invariant $\lambda$ and all the other invariants of nanowords introduced form the beginning to Section 13.2 of [@turaev1] do not distinguish the two nanowords in Example \[lambda\].
Turaev constructed a strictly stronger $\Delta_{\alpha}$-homotopy invariant $f \circ v_{+}$ than $\lambda$ for nanophrases over $\alpha$ [@turaev1].
Let $a$, $b$, $c$, and $d$ be elements (possibly coinciding) of any alphabet $\alpha$ and $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$ be letters with $|A|$ $=$ $a$, $|B|$ $=$ $b$, $|C|$ $=$ $c$, and $|D|$ $=$ $d$. If $a$ $=$ $b$, $c$ $=$ $\tau(b)$ $=$ $d$, $a$ $\neq$ $\tau(b)$, and $c$ $\neq$ $\tau(d)$, $f(v_{+}(ABCDCDAB))$ $=$ $f(v_{+}(\emptyset))$ $=$ $\underline{1}$. However, $KH^{0, 3}(\mathcal{U}_{\{c\}}(\emptyset))$ $\simeq$ $0$ and $KH^{0, 3}(\mathcal{U}_{\{c\}}(ABCDCDAB))$ $\simeq$ $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$.
Let $\alpha$ be an arbitrary alphabet and $S$ be $\Delta_{\alpha}$. $KH^{i,j}(\mathcal{U}_{L}(P))$ is independent of $f \circ v_{+}$ for nanophrases $P$ over $\alpha$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Professors Toshiyuki Akita, Goo Ishikawa and Jun Murakami for their support. The authors also wish to thank Andrew Gibson, Professor Kokoro Tanaka for their useful comments. The authors are Research Fellows of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. This work was partly supported by KAKENHI.
[99]{} D. Bar-Natan, On Khovanov’s categorification of the Jones polynomial, *Algebr. Geom. Topol.* 2 (2002), 337–370.
T. Fukunaga, Homotopy classification of nanophrases in Turaev’s theory of words, *J. Knot Theory Ramifications*, **18** (2009), 901–915.
A. Gibson, Homotopy invariants of Gauss phrases, to appear in Indiana Univ. Math. J., arXiv:math.GT/0810.4389.
N. Ito, On Reidemeister invariance of the Khovanov homology group of the Jones polynomial, arXiv:math.GT/0901.3952.
V. Manturov, The Khovanov complex for virtual links, (Russian) *Fundam. Prikl. Mat.* **11** (2005), 127–152; translation in *J. Math. Sci. (N. Y.)* (2007), 4451–4467.
V. Turaev, Topology of words, *Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.* (3) **95** (2007), 360–412.
V. Turaev, Knots and words, *Int. Math. Res. Not.* **2006**, Art. ID 84098, 23pp.
V. Turaev, Lectures on topology of words, *Jpn. J. Math.* **2** (2007), 1–39.
P. Turner, Five lectures on Khovanov homology, arXiv:math.GT/0606464.
O. Viro, Khovanov homology, its definitions and ramifications, *Fund. Math.* 184 (2004), 317–342.
Department of Mathematics
Hokkaido University
Sapporo 060-0810, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]
Department of Pure and Applied Mathematics
Waseda University
Tokyo 169-8555, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the problem of peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) reduction for orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) based large-scale multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) systems. A novel perturbation-assisted scheme is developed to reduce the PAPRs of the transmitted signals by exploiting the redundant degrees-of-freedom (DoFs) inherent in the large-scale antenna array. Specifically, we introduce artificial perturbation signals to the frequency-domain precoded signals, with the aim of reducing the PAPRs of their time-domain counterpart signals. Meanwhile, the additive perturbation signal associated with each tone is constrained to lie in the null-space of its associated channel matrix, such that it does not cause any multi-user inference or out-of-band radiations. Such a problem is formulated as a convex optimization problem, and an efficient algorithm is developed by resorting to the variable splitting and alterative direction method of multipliers (ADMM) techniques. Simulation results show that the proposed method has a fast convergence rate and achieves substantial PAPR reduction within only tens of iterations. In addition, unlike other precoding-based PAPR reduction methods, our proposed method which introduces perturbation signals to the precoded signals is independent of the precoding stage and thus could be more suitable for practical systems.'
author:
- 'Hengyao Bao, Jun Fang, , Zhi Chen, and Tao Jiang, [^1] [^2] [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'newbib.bib'
title: 'Perturbation-Assisted PAPR Reduction for Large-Scale MIMO-OFDM Systems via ADMM'
---
Large-scale MIMO, OFDM, perturbation-assisted PAPR reduction, ADMM.
Introduction
============
Large-scale multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO), also known as very-large or massive MIMO, is a very promising technology for the next generation wireless communication systems. In large-scale MIMO systems, a large number of antennas are equipped at the base station (BS), simultaneously serving a much smaller number of users sharing the same time-frequency resource. In addition to a higher throughput, large-scale MIMO systems have the potential to improve the energy efficiency and enable the use of inexpensive low-power components. These advantages render large-scale MIMO an appealing technology for future wireless communication systems.
Due to the delay spread of wireless channels, broadband wireless communications generally suffer from frequency-selective fading. The most widely used technique to deal with the frequency-selective fading is the orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM), in which digital symbols are independently encoded on multiple “orthogonal" sub-carriers. MIMO-OFDM has been adopted as a standard air interface technique in many real wireless communication systems, such as LTE-A [@LTE-A], WiMAX [@WiMAX] and Wi-Fi [@Wi-Fi]. However, OFDM-modulated signals usually incur a high peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR), due to the fact that phases of sub-carriers are independent of each other and may combine in a constructive or destructive manner. To avoid signal distortions and out-of-band radiations, high-resolution digital-to-analog converters (DACs) and linear power amplifiers need to be used for each antenna, which is not only expensive but also power-inefficient. In particular, the cost becomes unaffordable when the number of antennas is large, which makes large-scale MIMO systems impractical. Therefore, it is of crucial importance to reduce the PAPR of massive MIMO-OFDM systems to facilitate low-cost and power-efficient hardware implementations.
Over the past years, a plethora of PAPR reduction techniques have been proposed for single-input single-output (SISO) systems [@Clipping; @TR; @ACE; @SLM; @PTS; @JiangYang05] and point-to-point MIMO systems [@HanLee05; @FischerHoch06; @JiangWu08; @TsiJones10]. The extension of these schemes to the multi-user (MU) MIMO systems, however, is not straightforward because joint signal processing at the receiver side is impossible as users are spatially distributed. In [@PrabhuEdfors14], a PAPR reduction scheme similar to the tone reservation (TR) [@TR] was developed for large-scale MU-MIMO-OFDM systems, where the amplitude clipping is used for some transmit antennas to reduce the PAPR, while other antennas are reserved to compensate for the distortions caused by the clipping. This method [@PrabhuEdfors14] has a low computational complexity. But those antennas reserved for compensation may incur large PAPRs. A precoding-based PAPR reduction scheme was proposed in [@StuderLarsson13] for large-scale MIMO-OFDM systems. The proposed method, through designing a suitable precoding matrix, aims to reduce the PAPR of the transmitted signal and, meanwhile, remove the multiuser interference (MUI). Specifically, the joint PAPR reduction and MUI cancelation problem was formulated as a linear constrained $\ell_\infty$ optimization and a fast iterative truncation algorithm (FITRA) was developed. Following [@StuderLarsson13], efficient approximate message passing (AMP)-based Bayesian methods [@BaoFang2016; @ChenWang15] were also developed for joint PAPR reduction and MUI cancelation for large-scale MIMO-OFDM systems, in which the problem was formulated as searching for a low PAPR solution to an underdetermined linear system.
In this paper, we develop a novel perturbation-assisted approach to address the PAPR reduction problem for large-scale MIMO-OFDM systems. Our proposed method introduces artificial perturbation signals to the frequency-domain precoded signals. The perturbation signals are devised to reduce the PAPRs of the time-domain counterpart signals. Meanwhile, the additive perturbation signal associated with each tone is constrained to lie in the null-space of its associated channel matrix. This null-space constraint guarantees that the additive perturbation signals cause no multi-user interference or out-of-band radiations. The design of the perturbation signals can be formulated as a constrained convex optimization problem. By resorting to the variable splitting and alterative direction method of multipliers (ADMM) techniques, we develop an efficient algorithm to solve the optimization problem. Compared with existing methods, e.g. [@PrabhuEdfors14; @StuderLarsson13; @BaoFang2016; @ChenWang15], our proposed method has the following advantages:
- Most PAPR reduction schemes for large-scale MIMO-OFDM systems are precoding-based, e.g. [@StuderLarsson13; @BaoFang2016; @ChenWang15]. These methods reduce the PAPR through designing the precoding matrices or devising the precoded signals directly. Nevertheless, in some practical systems, e.g. in LTE-A systems, the precoding matrices are usually chosen from a fixed codebook. Hence those precoding-based schemes may be impractical for real systems. In contrast, our proposed approach is independent of the precoding design, and thus is free of this issue and compatible with real systems.
- Our proposed perturbation-assisted method does not cause any additional multi-user interference (MUI) and out-of-band radiations. If a zero-forcing precoding scheme is employed, then perfect MUI cancelation can be achieved by our proposed method, whereas other precoding-based methods (e.g. [@StuderLarsson13; @BaoFang2016; @ChenWang15]) cannot guarantee complete MUI cancelation. For example, the FITRA algorithm [@StuderLarsson13] needs to choose an appropriate regularization parameter to ensure a small amount of MUI.
- The proposed method has a low computational complexity. Besides, numerical results show that the proposed scheme has a fast convergence rate and achieves a substantial PAPR reduction within tens of iterations, which are amiable merits for practical systems.
The reminder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we discuss the system model and the PAPR reduction problem. A perturbation-assisted PAPR reduction scheme is proposed in Section III, where the PAPR reduction is formulated as a constrained convex optimization problem. An efficient ADMM-based algorithm is developed in Section IV to solve the optimization problem. Simulation results are provided in Section V, followed by concluding remarks in Section VI.
*Notations:* Bold lowercase letters (e.g. $\boldsymbol{x}$) denote column vectors, bold lowercase letters with a superscript $(\cdot)^r$ (e.g. $\boldsymbol{x}^r$) denote row vectors, and bold uppercase letters (e.g. $\boldsymbol{X}$) denote matrices. For a $M\times N$-dimensional matrix $\boldsymbol{X}=\{x_{mn}\}$, we use $\boldsymbol{x}_m$ to designate the $m$th column, and $\boldsymbol{x}^r_n$ to designate the $n$th row. The superscripts $(\cdot)^{*}$, $(\cdot)^{T}$ and $(\cdot)^{H}$ represent the conjugate, transpose and conjugate transpose, respectively. In addition, we use $\|\boldsymbol{x}\|_{2}$ and $\|\boldsymbol{x}\|_{\infty}$ to denote the $\ell_{2}$-norm and $\ell_{\infty}$-norm of vector $\boldsymbol{x}$, respectively, and use $\|\boldsymbol{X}\|_{F}$ to stand for the Frobenius norm of matrix $\boldsymbol{X}$. The $N\times N$ identity matrix and the $M\times N$ zero matrix are denoted by $\boldsymbol{I}_{N}$ and $\boldsymbol{0}_{M\times N}$, respectively.
Preliminaries
=============
System Model
------------
The system model of the large-scale multi-user MIMO-OFDM downlink scenario is depicted in Fig. \[systemmodel\]. We assume that the BS, equipped with $M$ transmit antennas, simultaneously serves $K$ single-antenna users, where $K\ll M$. The number of OFDM tones (sub-carriers) is assumed to be $N$, and the signal vector $\boldsymbol{s}_{n}\in\mathbb{C}^{K\times1}$ comprises the modulated symbols associated with the $n$-th tone for the $K$ users. To shape the spectrum of the transmit signals, OFDM tones are usually divided into two complementary sets $\mathcal{T}$ and $\mathcal{T}^\mathcal{C}$, where the tones in set $\mathcal{T}$ are used for data transmission, and the tones in set $\mathcal{T}^\mathcal{C}$ are used for guard bands which are located at both ends of the spectrum. Moreover, for each tone $n\in\mathcal{T}$, each symbol of $\boldsymbol{s}_{n}$ is chosen from a complex-valued signal alphabet $\mathcal{B}$. For each tone $n\in\mathcal{T}^\mathcal{C}$, we set $\boldsymbol{s}_{n}=\boldsymbol{0}_{K\times1}$ such that no signal is transmitted on the guard band.
{width="17.9cm"}
For large-scale multi-user MIMO-OFDM systems, precoding needs to be performed at the BS to eliminate multi-user interference (MUI) at the receivers. The signal vector $\boldsymbol{s}_n$ can be linearly precoded as $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{w}_n=\boldsymbol{P}_n\boldsymbol{s}_n
\label{precoding}\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{w}_n\in\mathbb{C}^{M\times1}$ is an $M$-dimensional precoded vector with its $m$th entry transmitted through the $m$th antenna over the $n$th sub-carrier, and $\boldsymbol{P}_n\in\mathbb{C}^{M\times K}$ corresponds to the precoding matrix for the $n$th tone. Zero-forcing (ZF) is a precoding scheme that aims at eliminating the MUI completely. Since $K\ll M$, there are an infinite number of precoding matrices that can achieve perfect MUI cancelation, among which the most widely used form is $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{P}_n^{\text{ZF}}=\boldsymbol{H}_n^H(\boldsymbol{H}_n\boldsymbol{H}_n^H)^{-1}
\label{ZF}\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{H}_{n}\in\mathbb{C}^{K\times M}$ is the channel matrix associated with the $n$th tone. In this paper, we assume that the channel matrices $\{\boldsymbol{H}_{n}\}$ are perfectly known at the BS. Besides the ZF, other widely used precoding schemes include matched filter (MF) precoding and minimum mean-square error (MMSE) precoding [@Fischer2002].
After precoding, all precoded signals $\boldsymbol{w}_{n}, \forall
n$ are reordered to $M$ transmit antennas for OFDM modulation, $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{X}\triangleq[\boldsymbol{x}_{1}\cdot\cdot\cdot\boldsymbol{x}_{M}]=
[\boldsymbol{w}_{1}\cdot\cdot\cdot\boldsymbol{w}_{N}]^{T},
\label{reorder}\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{x}_{m}\in\mathbb{C}^{N}$ represents the frequency-domain signal to be transmitted from the $m$th antenna. In practice, a normalization may be applied to the frequency-domain signal $\boldsymbol{X}$ to ensure unit or fixed transmit power. This normalization is omitted here for simplicity. The time-domain signal $\boldsymbol{Y}\triangleq[\boldsymbol{y}_{1}\cdot\cdot\cdot\boldsymbol{y}_{M}]$ is obtained by performing an inverse discrete Fourier transform (IDFT) of $\{\boldsymbol{x}_{m}\}$. To avoid the intersymbol interference (ISI), a cyclic prefix (CP) is added to the time-domain samples at each antenna. Finally, these samples are converted to analog signals and transmitted.
At the receivers, after removing the CPs, the frequency-domain signal can be obtained by performing a discrete Fourier transform (DFT). Specifically, the signal received by $K$ users can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{r}_{n}=\boldsymbol{H}_{n}\boldsymbol{w}_{n}+\boldsymbol{e}_{n},
\quad \forall n\label{transmition}\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{r}_{n}\in\mathbb{C}^{K\times1}$ is the received frequency-domain signal associated with the $n$th tone, and $\boldsymbol{e}_{n}\in\mathbb{C}^{K\times1}$ denotes the receiver noise whose entries obey i.i.d circularly-symmetric complex Gaussian distribution with zero-mean and variance $N_0$. If ZF precoding is employed, the MUI can be perfectly removed as we have $\boldsymbol{r}_{n}=\boldsymbol{s}_{n}+\boldsymbol{e}_{n}, \forall
n$.
Peak-to-Average Power Ratio (PAPR)
----------------------------------
OFDM is a digital multi-carrier modulation scheme which encodes digital symbols on multiple “orthogonal” sub-carriers. Specifically, given a frequency-domain signal $\boldsymbol{x}_m$ at the $m$th transmit antenna, the corresponding continuous time domain OFDM signal can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
y_m(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}x_{mn}\cdot e^{j2\pi n\triangle ft},~ 0\leq t<T
\label{continuous-ofdm}\end{aligned}$$ where $T$ denotes the symbol duration, and $\triangle f=1/T$ is the sub-carrier spacing that is carefully devised to make sub-carriers orthogonal to each other. As can be seen from (\[continuous-ofdm\]), these sub-carriers may combine in a constructive or a destructive manner since the phases of sub-carriers are independent of each other. Therefore, OFDM-modulated signals typically exhibit a large dynamic range, which can be characterized by the peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) metric. The PAPR of a signal is defined as the ratio of the peak power of the signal to its average power, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\textsf{PAPR}\left(y_m(t)\right)=\frac{\max\limits_{0\leq{t}\leq{T}}|y_m(t)|^2}
{1/T\cdot\int_0^{T}|y_m(t)|^2dt}\end{aligned}$$ Signals with a large dynamic range are usually susceptible to non-linear RF components. To avoid undesirable out-of-band radiation and in-band distortions, high-resolution DACs and linear power amplifiers are required at the transmitter. Nevertheless, these linear components are not only expensive but also power-inefficient. Thus, PAPR reduction is crucial to facilitate low-cost and power-efficient hardware implementations for large-scale MIMO-OFDM systems.
Clearly, the PAPR of the analog signal $y_m(t)$ is of our concern. Nevertheless, analog signals are not amiable for calculation and analysis. To address this issue, we consider a sampled version of the analog signal $y_m(t)$. To approximate the PAPR of the analog signal accurately, an $L$-times oversampled version of the analog signal is usually considered [@Tellambura01], that is $$\begin{aligned}
y_{mk}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}x_{mn}\cdot e^{\frac{j2\pi nk}{LN}},~ 0\leq k\leq LN-1
\label{IDFT}\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is an integer no less than $1$. This oversampling operation (\[IDFT\]) can also be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{y}_m=\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}^H\boldsymbol{x}_m\end{aligned}$$ where the oversampling matrix $\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}^H\in\mathbb{C}^{LN\times N}$ is the first $N$ columns of the $LN$-points IDFT matrix (scaled by $\sqrt{L}$). Thus the PAPR of the time-domain samples with $L$-times oversampling is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\textsf{PAPR}\left(\boldsymbol{y}_m\right)
=\frac{\max\limits_{0\leq{k}\leq{LN-1}}|y_{mk}|^2}
{\mathbb{E}\{|y_{mk}|^2\}}
=\frac{LN\left\|\boldsymbol{y}_m\right\|_\infty^2}{\left\|\boldsymbol{y}_m\right\|_2^2}
\label{PAPR}\end{aligned}$$ For any signals $\boldsymbol{y}_m\in\mathbb{C}^{LN\times1}$, the PAPR satisfies the following inequalities: $$\begin{aligned}
1\leq\textsf{PAPR}\left(\boldsymbol{y}_m\right)\leq LN
\label{PAPRbound}\end{aligned}$$ So far most existing PAPR reduction methods (e.g. [@StuderLarsson13; @BaoFang2016; @ChenWang15]) for large-scale MU MIMO-OFDM systems reduce the PAPR through directly devising the precoded signals $\{\boldsymbol{w}_n\}$. The rationale behind these works is that, due to the redundant degrees-of-freedom (DoFs) rendered by the large number of antennas at the BS, there exist an infinite number of precoded signals that can achieve perfect MUI cancelation, from which we may find a set of precoded signals $\{\boldsymbol{w}_n\}$ whose time-domain counterpart signals $\{\boldsymbol{y}_m\}$ have a low PAPR. These precoding-based approaches, however, may have limited applicability because, in practical systems, the precoding matrices have to be chosen from a pre-specified codebook, and as a result, the precoded signals cannot be arbitrarily devised. To address this difficulty, in the following, we propose a perturbation-assisted scheme which does not rely on the precoding design to reduce the PAPR.
Proposed Perturbation-Assisted PAPR Reduction Method
====================================================
The idea of our PAPR reduction method is to add carefully designed perturbation signals $\{\Delta\boldsymbol{x}_m\}$ to the precoded signals $\{\boldsymbol{x}_m\}$ (a reordered version of $\{\boldsymbol{w}_n\}$) to reduce the PAPR of the resulting time-domain signals $\{\boldsymbol{y}_m\}$ (see Fig. \[systemmodel\]). Meanwhile, the additive perturbation signal is constrained to lie in the null space of its associate channel matrix such that it is invisible to the receivers, i.e. the signal received by $K$ users remains unchanged before and after the perturbation signals are added to the precoded signals. We assume that a zero-forcing precoding or other precoding schemes such as a dirty paper coding is employed to remove or suppress the multi-user interference. Since the perturbation signals vanish after propagating through the wireless channel, inclusion of the perturbation signals does not incur additional multi-user interference. Therefore, unlike previous works (e.g. [@StuderLarsson13; @BaoFang2016; @ChenWang15]) that jointly consider the PAPR reduction and multi-user precoding, the PAPR reduction problem is decoupled from the multi-user precoding in our paper. As will be shown in this paper, this decoupling enables us to develop a more efficient algorithm that has a faster convergence rate than existing methods.
Let $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\boldsymbol{X}\triangleq[\Delta\boldsymbol{x}_1\cdot\cdot\cdot\Delta\boldsymbol{x}_M]
=[(\Delta\boldsymbol{x}^r_1)^T\cdot\cdot\cdot(\Delta\boldsymbol{x}^r_N)^T]^T\end{aligned}$$ denote the perturbation signals added to the precoded signals $\{\boldsymbol{x}_m\}$. Specifically, $\Delta\boldsymbol{x}_m\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times1}$ is the perturbation signal added to the precoded signal of the $m$-th transmit antenna, i.e. $\boldsymbol{x}_m$, while $\Delta\boldsymbol{x}^r_n\in\mathbb{C}^{1\times M}$ (the $n$th row of $\Delta\boldsymbol{X}$) is the perturbation signal added to the $n$-th tone signal, i.e. $\boldsymbol{w}_n$. To avoid any in-band distortions in the frequency domain, the perturbation signals are required to satisfy the following conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{H}_n(\Delta\boldsymbol{x}^r_n)^T = \boldsymbol{0}_{K\times1},\quad n\in\mathcal{T}
\label{con1}\end{aligned}$$ That is, the perturbation signal added to the $n$th tone has to lie in the null space of the channel matrix associated with the $n$th tone. This constraint guarantees that the perturbation signals do not cause any multi-user inference to receivers. Also, to avoid out-of-band radiations, we impose the following constraints on the guard bands: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\boldsymbol{x}^r_n = \boldsymbol{0}_{1\times M}, \quad n\in\mathcal{T}^\mathcal{C}
\label{con2}\end{aligned}$$ With the above two constraints, the addition of the perturbation signal $\Delta\boldsymbol{X}$ does not necessitate any additional processing at the receivers since the perturbation signals are like nonexistent to the receivers.
We now discuss how to design the perturbation signals $\{\Delta\boldsymbol{x}_m\}$ to reduce the PAPR at each transmit antenna. Ideally, we wish to minimize the PAPR (\[PAPR\]) associated with each transmit antenna. This, however, is an ill-defined problem because the above constraints (\[con1\])–(\[con2\]) demands a joint optimization of the perturbations signals $\{\Delta\boldsymbol{x}_m\}$, and hence PAPRs of different antennas cannot be simultaneously minimized. This is also the situation for other works, e.g. [@StuderLarsson13; @BaoFang2016; @ChenWang15]. Besides, directly optimizing (\[PAPR\]) results in a non-convex problem and hence, finding the solution with an efficient algorithm seems to be difficult. To circumvent this difficulty, [@StuderLarsson13] proposes to minimize the largest magnitude of the time-domain signal samples, which not only leads to a convex formulation, but also has been shown to be effective to substantially reduce the PAPR. Inspired by [@StuderLarsson13], we propose to minimize a sum of the largest magnitudes of different antenna’s time-domain signals. The problem can be cast as $$\begin{split}
&\mathop{\text{minimize}}\limits_{\Delta\boldsymbol{X}} \quad \sum_{m=1}^M\left\|\boldsymbol{y}_m\right\|_\infty\label{obj}\\
&\text{subject to}\quad
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\boldsymbol{Y} = \boldsymbol{F}_{LN}^H(\boldsymbol{X}+\Delta\boldsymbol{X}) \\
&\boldsymbol{H}_n(\Delta\boldsymbol{x}^r_n)^T = \boldsymbol{0}_{K\times1},\quad n\in\mathcal{T} \\
&\Delta\boldsymbol{x}^r_n = \boldsymbol{0}_{1\times M}, \quad n\in\mathcal{T}^\mathcal{C}
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{split}$$ where $\ell_{\infty}$ denotes the infinity-norm, $\boldsymbol{X}\triangleq
[\boldsymbol{x}_1\phantom{0}\ldots\phantom{0}\boldsymbol{x}_M]$ is the aggregation of all antenna’s precoded frequency-domain signals, and $\boldsymbol{Y}\triangleq[\boldsymbol{y}_{1}\cdot\cdot\cdot\boldsymbol{y}_{M}]$ denotes the time-domain signal associated with $M$ transmit antennas. Note that unlike the method [@StuderLarsson13] that minimizes the largest magnitude of all antennas’ signals (i.e. $\|\text{vec}(\boldsymbol{Y})\|_\infty$), in our proposed scheme, the sum of each antenna’s largest magnitudes is minimized. This metric is useful in the sense that one can assign different weights to different $\ell_\infty$-norm terms, which may be needed when multiple types of RF chains are installed at the BS.
The inclusion of the perturbation signal may result in an increase of the transmit power. To address this issue, we can impose a pre-specified upper bound $P_\text{max}$ on the transmit power, i.e. $\|\boldsymbol{X}+\Delta\boldsymbol{X}\|_F^2\leq
P_\text{max}$. If a ZF precoding scheme is employed, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\big\|\boldsymbol{X}+\Delta\boldsymbol{{X}}\big\|_F^2
&=\big\|\boldsymbol{X}\big\|_F^2+\big\|\Delta\boldsymbol{{X}}\big\|_F^2 \nonumber\\
&~~+\sum_{n=1}^N\left[(\Delta\boldsymbol{x}^r_n)^*{\boldsymbol{w}}_n
+\boldsymbol{w}_{n}^H(\Delta\boldsymbol{{x}}^r_n)^T\right]\nonumber\\
&=\big\|\boldsymbol{X}\big\|_F^2+\big\|\Delta\boldsymbol{{X}}\big\|_F^2
\label{powerequation}\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality follows from the constraint (\[con1\]), i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
(\Delta\boldsymbol{{x}}^r_n)^* \boldsymbol{w}_n
&=(\Delta\boldsymbol{{x}}^r_n)^* \boldsymbol{H}_n^H(\boldsymbol{H}_n\boldsymbol{H}_n^H)^{-1}\boldsymbol{s}_n\nonumber\\
&=\boldsymbol{0}_{1\times K}(\boldsymbol{H}_n\boldsymbol{H}_n^H)^{-1}\boldsymbol{s}_n
=0,\quad n\in \mathcal{T}\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[powerequation\]) indicates that, if a ZF precoding scheme is employed, adding a perturbation signal to the precoded signal always results in an increase in the transmit power, and the increment is exactly the amount of power of the perturbation signal. In fact, for other linear precoding schemes such as the MF precoding and the MMSE precoding, it can be easily verified that (\[powerequation\]) holds valid as well. Therefore, we can simply impose a power constraint on the perturbation signal, i.e. $\|\Delta\boldsymbol{X}\|_F^2\leq \Delta P_\text{max}$. Note that including this constraint into (\[obj\]) does not change the convexity of the optimization problem. Nevertheless, to facilitate an efficient algorithm development, this power constraint is omitted in this paper. On the other hand, our simulation results suggests that this power constraint may not be needed since as illustrated in our simulations, the power increase is always small even without taking this power constraint into account.
PROXINF-ADMM Algorithm
======================
In this section, we develop an efficient PAPR reduction algorithm to find an effective solution to (\[obj\]). To make the problem (\[obj\]) tractable, a variable splitting technique is used, where $\boldsymbol{Y}$ in (\[obj\]) are treated as splitting variables and the equality constraint $\boldsymbol{Y} =
\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}^H(\boldsymbol{X}+\Delta\boldsymbol{X})$ is relaxed as a Lagrange multiplier $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
&\mathop{\text{minimize}}\limits_{\boldsymbol{Y},
\Delta\boldsymbol{X}} ~~\lambda\sum_{m=1}^M\big\|\boldsymbol{y}_m\big\|_\infty+
\big\|\boldsymbol{Y}\!-\!\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}^H(\boldsymbol{X}\!+\!\Delta\boldsymbol{X})\big\|_F^2\\
&\text{subject to}~~
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\boldsymbol{H}_n(\Delta\boldsymbol{x}^r_n)^T = \boldsymbol{0}_{K\times1},\quad n\in\mathcal{T} \\
&\Delta\boldsymbol{x}^r_n = \boldsymbol{0}_{1\times M}, \quad n\in\mathcal{T}^\mathcal{C}
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{split}
\label{relax-obj}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda>0$ is a regularization parameter whose choice will be elaborated later. Note that the signal to be transmitted is $\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}^H(\boldsymbol{X}\!+\!\Delta\boldsymbol{X})$, instead of $\boldsymbol{Y}$. Hence, this relaxation does not cause any additional distortions or multi-user interference as long as $\Delta\boldsymbol{X}$ satisfies the constraints in (\[relax-obj\]). The variable splitting allows the original intractable optimization problem to be decomposed into tractable sub-problems. Specifically, an alternating minimization strategy can be used to solve (\[relax-obj\]), in which we alternatively minimize the objective function with respect to $\boldsymbol{Y}$ and $\Delta\boldsymbol{X}$. This alternating minimization ensures that the objective function is non-increasing at each iteration.
We now discuss how to alternatively minimize the objective function in (\[relax-obj\]) with respect to $\boldsymbol{Y}$ and $\Delta\boldsymbol{X}$. To facilitate our exposition, the objective function in (\[relax-obj\]) is denoted as $f(\Delta\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{Y})$, and we use $\mathcal{F}$ to denote the feasible set of $\Delta\boldsymbol{X}$. Thus in the $(t+1)$th iteration, the alternating procedure can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{Y}^{(t+1)}=&\mathop{\text{argmin}}\limits_{\boldsymbol{Y}}
f(\Delta\boldsymbol{X}^{(t)},\boldsymbol{Y})\label{Y-update}\\
\Delta\boldsymbol{X}^{(t+1)}=&\mathop{\text{argmin}}\limits_{\Delta\boldsymbol{X}}
f(\Delta\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{Y}^{(t+1)}),~~\Delta\boldsymbol{X}\in\mathcal{F}
\label{X-update}\end{aligned}$$ Let us first consider the optimization of $\boldsymbol{Y}$. Clearly, the optimization (\[Y-update\]) can be decomposed into $M$ independent subproblems, each of which is known as the proximal operator of the $\ell_\infty$-norm [@parikh2013proximal; @studer2014democratic] $$\begin{aligned}
\textsf{PROXINF}(\boldsymbol{q}_m^{(t)},\lambda)=\mathop{\text{argmin}}\limits_{\boldsymbol{y}_m}
\lambda\big\|\boldsymbol{y}_m\big\|_\infty\!+\!\big\|\boldsymbol{y}_m\!-\!\boldsymbol{q}_m^{(t)}\big\|_2^2
\label{proxinf}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{q}_m^{(t)}\triangleq\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}^H(\boldsymbol{x}_m+\Delta\boldsymbol{x}_m^{(t)})\end{aligned}$$ As shown in [@StuderLarsson13], the proximal operator of the $\ell_\infty$-norm is in fact a clipping operator, in which the vector $\boldsymbol{q}_m^{(t)}$ is clipped by a clipping level $A$ that is controlled by the regularization parameter $\lambda$. Thus in the step of $\boldsymbol{Y}$-update, the proposed algorithm clips the peaks of the transmit signal associated with each transmit antenna. The clipping level $A$ does not have a closed-form solution. Nevertheless, the value of $A$ can be efficiently obtained by resorting to the method (i.e. Algorithm 2) developed in [@studer2014democratic].
Concerning the update of ${\Delta\boldsymbol{X}}$, the optimization of ${\Delta\boldsymbol{X}}$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathop{\text{minimize}}\limits_{\Delta\boldsymbol{X}}~~
\big\|\boldsymbol{V}^{(t+1)}-\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}^H\Delta\boldsymbol{X}\big\|_F^2,~~\Delta\boldsymbol{X}\in\mathcal{F}
\label{X-update1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{V}^{(t+1)}\triangleq\boldsymbol{Y}^{(t+1)}-\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}^H\boldsymbol{X}\end{aligned}$$ The minimization of $\Delta\boldsymbol{X}$ is not straightforward due to the constraints that $\Delta\boldsymbol{X}$ has to satisfy. In the following, we resort to the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) technique to solve (\[X-update1\]).
Solve (\[X-update1\]) via ADMM
------------------------------
The alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) [@ADMM] is a simple but powerful technique that solves convex optimization problems by breaking them into smaller pieces, each of which is then easier to handle. First, we use $\boldsymbol{D}$ to denote the optimization variable $\Delta\boldsymbol{X}$. The optimization (\[X-update1\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathop{\text{minimize}}\limits_{\boldsymbol{D}}~~
\big\|\boldsymbol{V}^{(t+1)}-\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}^H\boldsymbol{D}\big\|_F^2,~~\boldsymbol{D}\in\mathcal{F}
\label{ADMM1}\end{aligned}$$ By introducing an auxiliary variable $\boldsymbol{Z}$, the above optimization (\[ADMM1\]) can be equivalently written as $$\begin{split}
&\mathop{\text{minimize}}\limits_{\boldsymbol{D},\boldsymbol{Z}}~~
\big\|\boldsymbol{V}^{(t+1)}-\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}^H\boldsymbol{Z}\big\|_F^2\\
&\text{subject to}~~
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\boldsymbol{D}-\boldsymbol{Z}=\boldsymbol{0}_{N\times M}\\
&\boldsymbol{D}\in\mathcal{F}
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{split} \label{opt-1}$$ We resort to the ADMM to solve the above optimization (\[opt-1\]). We first form an *augmented Lagrangian* of the above optimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{Z},&\boldsymbol{D},\boldsymbol{U})\nonumber\\
=&\big\|\boldsymbol{V}^{(t+1)}-\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}^H\boldsymbol{Z}\big\|_F^2
+\rho\big\|\boldsymbol{D}-\boldsymbol{Z}\big\|_F^2\\
&+\sum_{n=1}^N\sum_{m=1}^M
\left[u_{nm}^*(d_{nm}-z_{nm})+u_{nm}(d_{nm}-z_{nm})^*\right]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho>0$ is called the penalty parameter, $d_{nm}$ and $z_{nm}$ denote the $(n,m)$th entry of $\boldsymbol{D}$ and $\boldsymbol{Z}$, respectively, $\boldsymbol{U}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times M}$ is the dual variable or Lagrange multiplier, and $u_{nm}$ denotes the $(n,m)$th entry of $\boldsymbol{U}$. The optimization variables $\boldsymbol{Z}$ and $\boldsymbol{D}$, along with the dual variable $\boldsymbol{U}$, can be optimized via the following iterations [@ADMM]: $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{Z}^{(i+1)}&=\mathop{\text{argmin}}\limits_{\boldsymbol{Z}}
\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{Z},\boldsymbol{D}^{(i)},\boldsymbol{U}^{(i)})\label{Z-update}\\
\boldsymbol{D}^{(i+1)}&=\mathop{\text{argmin}}\limits_{\boldsymbol{D}}
\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{Z}^{(i+1)},\boldsymbol{D},\boldsymbol{U}^{(i)}),~~\boldsymbol{D}\in\mathcal{F}\label{D-update}\\
\boldsymbol{U}^{(i+1)}&=\boldsymbol{U}^{(i)}+\rho(\boldsymbol{D}^{(i+1)}-\boldsymbol{Z}^{(i+1)})\end{aligned}$$ where the superscript $i$ denotes the number of iterations. We see that in each iteration, the ADMM algorithm consists of a $\boldsymbol{Z}$-minimization step, a $\boldsymbol{D}$-minimization step, and a dual variable update. For the $\boldsymbol{Z}$-minimization problem, by setting the derivative of the augmented Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{Z},\boldsymbol{D}^{(i)},\boldsymbol{U}^{(i)})$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{Z}$ to zero, a closed-form solution of $\boldsymbol{Z}^{(i+1)}$ can be obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{Z}^{(i+1)}=
\frac{(\boldsymbol{A}^{(t+1)}+\rho\boldsymbol{D}^{(i)}+\boldsymbol{U}^{(i)})}{(1+\rho)}\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{A}^{(t+1)}\triangleq\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}\boldsymbol{V}^{(t+1)}$. For the $\boldsymbol{D}$-minimization problem (\[D-update\]), after some algebraic manipulations, it can be further decomposed into $|\mathcal{T}|$ independent subproblems, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
&\mathop{\text{minimize}}\limits_{\boldsymbol{d}_n^r}\quad
\big\|\boldsymbol{d}_n^r-(\boldsymbol{z}_n^{r\:(i+1)}-
\boldsymbol{u}_n^{r\:(i)}/\rho)\big\|_F^2,~ \forall n\in\mathcal{T}\\
&\text{subject to}\quad \boldsymbol{H}_n(\boldsymbol{d}_n^{r})^T=\boldsymbol{0}_{K\times1}
\end{split} \label{opt-2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{d}_n^r$, $\boldsymbol{z}_n^r$, and $\boldsymbol{u}_n^r$ denote the $n$th row of $\boldsymbol{D}$, $\boldsymbol{Z}$, and $\boldsymbol{U}$, respectively. For each tone $n\in\mathcal{T}$, the optimization (\[opt-2\]) searches for a vector that is nearest to the vector $(\boldsymbol{z}_n^{r\:(i+1)}-\boldsymbol{u}_n^{r\:(i)}/\rho)$, and meanwhile lies in the null space of the channel matrix $\boldsymbol{H}_n$. The optimal solution, clearly, is the projection of the vector $(\boldsymbol{z}_n^{r\:(i+1)}-\boldsymbol{u}_n^{r\:(i)}/\rho)$ onto the null space of $\boldsymbol{H}_n$, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{d}_n^{r\:(i+1)}=(\boldsymbol{z}_n^{r\:(i+1)}-\boldsymbol{u}_n^{r\:(i)}/\rho)\boldsymbol{G}_n^T\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{G}_n$ denotes the orthogonal projection onto the null-space of $\boldsymbol{H}_n$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{G}_n=
\boldsymbol{I}_M-\boldsymbol{H}_n^H(\boldsymbol{H}_n\boldsymbol{H}_n^H)^{-1}\boldsymbol{H}_n\end{aligned}$$ Note that for $\forall n\in\mathcal{T}^\mathcal{C}$, we always have $\boldsymbol{d}_n^{r}=\boldsymbol{0}_{1\times M}$.
Summary
-------
The proposed algorithm is referred to as the PROXINF-ADMM algorithm which proceeds in a double-loop manner: the outer loop clips the peaks of the transmitted time-domain signals $\{\boldsymbol{q}_m^{(t)}\}$ via the $\ell_{\infty}$-norm proximal operator, and the inner loop updates the perturbation signal via the ADMM algorithm. The details of the PROXINF-ADMM algorithm is summarized in the following table. Our simulation results suggest that only very few iterations are needed to implement the inner loop, i.e. there is no need to wait until the ADMM algorithm converges, and this early termination of the inner loop does not affect the convergence of the proposed algorithm. The dominating operations in each iteration is the simple matrix-vector multiplications, which scale as $\mathcal{O}(MN)$. Thus the proposed algorithm has a low computational complexity. Also, note that the constraints (\[con1\]) and (\[con2\]) are always satisfied throughout the while iterative process. Hence any intermediate solution $\Delta\boldsymbol{X}^{(t)}$ can be used, without causing any in-band or out-of-band radiations. This merit is useful in practical systems.
**PROXINF-ADMM Algorithm**
=0.4pt
[p[8.45cm]{}]{}
-0.2 cm Given a frequency-domain signal $\boldsymbol{X}\!\in\!\mathbb{C}^{N\times M}$, devise a perturbation signal $\Delta\boldsymbol{X}\!\in\!\mathbb{C}^{N\times M}$.
1) *Initialization:* Set $t=0$, $\Delta\boldsymbol{X}^{(0)}=\boldsymbol{0}_{N\times M}$, and set $\lambda$ and $\rho$ to some initial values, and compute $$\begin{aligned}
~~~~~~~~~\boldsymbol{G}_n=
\boldsymbol{I}_M\!-\!\boldsymbol{H}_n^H(\boldsymbol{H}_n\boldsymbol{H}_n^H)^{-1}
\!\boldsymbol{H}_n,\:\forall n\in \mathcal{T}\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
2) *Outer loop, update $\boldsymbol{Y}$:* For $m=1,...,M$, do $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{q}_m^{(t)}=\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}^H(\boldsymbol{x}_m+\Delta\boldsymbol{x}_m^{(t)})~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{y}_m^{(t+1)}=\textsf{PROXINF}(\boldsymbol{q}_m^{(t)},\lambda)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
3) *ADMM inner loop:* Set $\boldsymbol{D}^{(0)}=\Delta\boldsymbol{X}^{(t)}$ and $\boldsymbol{U}^{(0)}=\boldsymbol{0}_{N\times M}$, and compute $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{A}^{(t+1)}=\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}\boldsymbol{Y}^{(t+1)}-\boldsymbol{X}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and for $i\!=\!0,1,...,I_\text{max}\!-\!1$, repeat the following recursions $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{Z}^{(i+1)}=
\frac{(\boldsymbol{A}^{(t+1)}+\rho\boldsymbol{D}^{(i)}+\boldsymbol{U}^{(i)})}{(1+\rho)}~~~~~~\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
~~\boldsymbol{d}_n^{r\:(i+1)}=(\boldsymbol{z}_n^{r\:(i+1)}-\boldsymbol{u}_n^{r\:(i)}/\rho)\boldsymbol{G}_n^T
,~\forall n\in \mathcal{T}\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{U}^{(i+1)}=\boldsymbol{U}^{(i)}+\rho(\boldsymbol{D}^{(i+1)}-\boldsymbol{Z}^{(i+1)})~~~~
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
4) Set $\Delta\boldsymbol{X}^{(t+1)}\!=\!\boldsymbol{D}^{(I_\text{max})}$ and increase $t=t+1$, return to step 2 if $t<T_\text{max}$, otherwise stop and return the solution.
[-1]{}
\
Simulation Results
==================
In this section, we carry out experiments to illustrate the performance of the proposed PAPR reduction algorithm[^4] (referred to as the PROXINF-ADMM). We compare our method with the FITRA algorithm [@StuderLarsson13], the zero-forcing (ZF) precoding scheme, and the amplitude clipping scheme.
In our simulations, the BS is assumed to have $M=128$ transmit antennas and serve $K=16$ single-antenna users. We consider an OFDM modulation with $N=128$ tones and use a spectral map $\mathcal{T}$ as specified in the 40 MHz mode of Wi-Fi [@Wi-Fi], in which $|\mathcal{T}|=114$ tones are used for data transmission. We also consider the convolutional-coded transmission where the information bits for each user are first encoded by a convolutional encoder with generator polynomials $[5_o~7_o]$, and then are randomly interleaved and mapped to a 64-QAM constellation (Gray-coded). The wireless channel is assumed be frequency-selective and modeled as a tap-delay line with $D=8$ taps. The time-domain channel response matrices $\boldsymbol{\hat{H}}_{d}$, $d=1,...,D$, have i.i.d. circularly symmetric Gaussian distributed entries with zero mean and unit variance, and the equivalent frequency-domain response $\boldsymbol{H}_n$ on the $n$-th tone can be obtained by $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{H}_n=\sum^{D}_{d=1}\boldsymbol{\hat {H}}_{d}\exp\left(\frac{-j2\pi
dn}{N}\right).\end{aligned}$$ In each user terminal, after demodulating the received symbols, a Viterbi decoder is employed to decode the information bits.
For the PROXINF-ADMM algorithm and the amplitude clipping method, we assume the precoded signal $\boldsymbol{X}$ is generated by a ZF precoding scheme. The maximum number of iterations for the FITRA algorithm is set to be $2000$, as suggested by [@StuderLarsson13]. For our proposed algorithm, unless explicitly stated otherwise, the maximum numbers of iterations for the outer loop and the inner loop are set to be $T_\text{max}=200$ and $I_\text{max}=2$, respectively. The regularization parameter and the penalty parameter are chosen to be $\lambda=1$ and $\rho=0.5$, respectively. In our simulations, we employ an oversampling rate of $L=4$, and use the complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) to evaluate the PAPR reduction performance. The CCDF denotes the probability that the PAPR of the estimated signal exceeds a given threshold $\textsf{PAPR}_0$, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\textsf{CCDF}(\textsf{PAPR}_0)=\text{Pr}(\textsf{PAPR}>\textsf{PAPR}_0).\end{aligned}$$ Also, in order to evaluate the increase of the transmit power, we define the power increase (PI) as $$\begin{aligned}
\textsf{PI}=\frac{\big\|\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}\big\|_F^2}
{\big\|\boldsymbol{X}^\text{ZF}\big\|_F^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\hat{X}}$ denotes the low-PAPR solution rendered by different schemes, and $\boldsymbol{X}^\text{ZF}$ represents the solution obtained by using a ZF precoding scheme. Note that for the FITRA and PROXINF-ADMM, we have $\textsf{PI}>0\,$dB in general, while for the clipping scheme, we have $\textsf{PI}<0\,$dB. We also note that our proposed method yields solutions that strictly satisfy the null space constraints. Therefore it does not cause any multi-user interference (MUI) or out-of-band radiations. In contrast, the FITRA algorithm cannot achieve perfect MUI and out-of-band radiation cancelation, and needs to choose an appropriate regularization parameter to ensure small MUI and out-of-band radiations.
{width="17.2cm"}
Firstly, we examine the time-domain and frequency-domain signals obtained by respective schemes. The (a), (c), (e) and (g) of Fig. \[signal\] depict the magnitudes of the first antenna’s time-domain samples (i.e. $\boldsymbol{y}_1$) obtained by respective schemes. We observe that, similar to the FITRA algorithm, our proposed algorithm yields a quasi-constant magnitude solution with many of its entries located close to a ceiling, which leads to a very low PAPR. The solution of the clipping scheme is only a slightly alleviated version of the ZF solution. Simulation results show that our proposed method achieves a PAPR of $2.2\,$dB (PAPR associated with the first transmit antenna), the FITRA algorithm attains a slightly lower PAPR of $2.0\,$dB, and the clipping scheme has a higher PAPR of $3.9\,$dB, while the ZF precoding has the highest PAPR of $9.1\,$dB. In the (b), (d), (f) and (h) of Fig. \[signal\], we depict the magnitudes of the corresponding frequency-domain signals. As shown in the figures, there is no out-of-band radiation for the solutions rendered by the ZF, FITRA and PROXINF-ADMM methods (the radiation of the FITRA here is negligible), while the clipping scheme causes severe radiations in the guard band that could degrade the spectral efficiency severely.
{width="17.5cm"}
To better evaluate the PAPR reduction performance, we plot the empirical CCDF of the PAPR for respective schemes in Fig. \[PAPR\_BER\](a). The number of trials is chosen to be $1000$ in our experiments. The PAPR associated with all $M$ transmit antennas are taken into account to compute the empirical CCDF. We also include the results of the PROXINF-ADMM algorithm obtained at the $20$th (outer) iteration. We see that our proposed algorithm, within only 200 iterations, is able to achieve PAPR reduction performance similar to the FITRA algorithm that needs to perform 2000 iterations. Also, our proposed method reduces the PAPR by more than $7\,$dB compared to the ZF scheme (at $\textsf{CCDF(PAPR)}=0.01$). The bit error rate (BER) performance of respective algorithms is shown in Fig. \[PAPR\_BER\](b), where the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is defined as $\textsf{SNR}=\mathbb{E}\{\|\boldsymbol{\hat{x}}_n^r\|_2^2\}/N_0$, where $N_0$ denotes the noise variance at the receivers (c.f. (\[transmition\])). We can see that both the FITRA and our proposed method incur an SNR-performance loss of about $1\,$dB compared to the ZF scheme (at $\textsf{SER}=10^{-4}$). This performance loss, as discussed in [@StuderLarsson13], is primarily due to the transmit power increase, i.e. an increase in the norm of the obtained solution. The performance loss of the clipping scheme (about $3\,$dB), however, is mainly caused by the residual MUI. We also observe that the SNR performance gap can be reduced if we perform only 20 iterations for our proposed method, in which case the norm of the resulting solution has a less significant increase.
![PAPRs vs. the number of iterations.[]{data-label="speed"}](speed.eps){width="8.3cm"}
We now examine the convergence rates of our proposed method and the FITRA algorithm. Fig. \[speed\] shows the PAPR vs. the number of iterations. We observe that the PROXINF-ADMM algorithm can obtain a PAPR of $6\,$dB within only several iterations, while the FITRA algorithm needs about $350$ iterations to reach the same PAPR reduction performance. Also, the proposed method is able to reduce the PAPR down to $4\,$dB within only $20$ iterations, while the FITRA algorithm require as many as $800$ iterations to obtain a similar result. These results indicate that our proposed method has a much faster convergence rate than the FITRA algorithm, which is more suitable for real systems.
{width="17.5cm"}
We examine the impact of the choice of the regularization parameter $\lambda$ on the PAPR reduction performance. Fig. \[PAPR\_PI\_lambda\] shows the PAPR and the average power increase (PI) of our proposed method vs. $\lambda$ under different choices of $T_{\text{max}}$, where $\rho$ is fixed to be $0.5$ and the results are obtained over $1000$ independent runs. From Fig. \[PAPR\_PI\_lambda\], we observe that our proposed algorithm is able to achieve a substantial PAPR reduction when $\lambda$ is within the range $[0.5,5]$. Moreover, when $\lambda<2$, increasing the maximum number of iterations $T_\text{max}$ in general reduces the PAPR but results in a larger power increase (PI). Therefore, to reduce the PI, one can terminate the iterative process as long as the solution meets the specified PAPR requirement. Also, an excessively large value of $\lambda$ leads to bad solutions because the data fitting term becomes less influential, and as a result, the transmitted signal $\boldsymbol{F}_{LN}^H(\boldsymbol{X}\!+\!\Delta\boldsymbol{X})$ could be far away from the desired low PAPR solution $\boldsymbol{Y}$.
Conclusions
===========
We considered the problem of PAPR reduction for large-scale MU-MIMO-OFDM systems. A perturbation-assisted approach was proposed, where carefully devised artificial perturbation signals are added to the precoded signals to reduce the PAPRs of the transmitted signals. Meanwhile, the perturbations signals are constrained to lie within the null-spaces of the associated channel matrices such that they cause no multi-user interference or out-of-band radiations. We formulated the PAPR reduction problem as a convex optimization problem and developed an efficient algorithm by resorting to the variable splitting and the ADMM techniques. Simulations results show that the proposed algorithm achieves remarkable PAPR reduction performance comparable to [@StuderLarsson13], meanwhile providing a much faster convergence rate.
[^1]: Hengyao Bao, Jun Fang, and Zhi Chen are with the National Key Laboratory of Science and Technology on Communications, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China, Email: [email protected], [email protected]
[^2]: Tao Jiang is with the School of Electronics Information and Communications, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China, Email: [email protected]
[^3]: This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation of China under Grant 61522104.
[^4]: Codes are available at http://www.junfang-uestc.net/codes/PROXINF-ADMM.rar
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The paper exploits weak Manhattan constraints to parse the structure of indoor environments from RGB-D video sequences in an online setting. We extend the previous approach for single view parsing of indoor scenes to video sequences and formulate the problem of recovering the floor plan of the environment as an optimal labeling problem solved using dynamic programming. The temporal continuity is enforced in a recursive setting, where labeling from previous frames is used as a prior term in the objective function. In addition to recovery of piecewise planar weak Manhattan structure of the extended environment, the orthogonality constraints are also exploited by visual odometry and pose graph optimization. This yields reliable estimates in the presence of large motions and absence of distinctive features to track. We evaluate our method on several challenging indoors sequences demonstrating accurate SLAM and dense mapping of low texture environments. On existing TUM benchmark [@sturm11rss-rgbd] we achieve competitive results with the alternative approaches which fail in our environments.'
author:
- 'Phi-Hung Le and Jana Kosecka[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'bibfile.bib'
title: '**Dense Piecewise Planar RGB-D SLAM for Indoor Environments** '
---
Introduction
============
The paper exploits weak Manhattan constraints [@SaurerVICOMOR12] to parse the structure of indoor environments from RGB-D video sequences. Manhattan constraints assume that all the planar structures in the environment are aligned with one of the axes of a single orthogonal coordinate frame. In our setting the structure of the scene is comprised of sets of vertical planes, perpendicular to the floor and grouped to different Manhattan coordinate frames. The problem of geometric scene parsing, in our case the floor plan recovery, involves more than just plane fitting and identification of wall and floor surfaces, which are supported by depth measurements. It requires reasoning where the walls intersect, what their extent is and what the occlusion boundaries are, especially in the case of missing or ambiguous depth measurements. Previous researchers studied the problem of scene parsing in the presence of Manhattan constraints in a single view setting. Several works tried to infer the scene structure using vanishing points and lines [@UrtasunIndoorCVPR12] and alternative volumetric constraints [@Lee-CVPR09], using RGB images only [@popupslam].
{width="20.00000%"} {width="20.00000%"}\
{width="20.00000%"} {width="20.00000%"}
We adopt an approach for single view parsing from RGB-D views proposed in [@TaylorRSS12]. In this work the authors infer the 3D layout of the scenes from a single RGB-D view and pixel level labeling in terms of dominant planar structures aligned with the orientations determined by a Manhattan coordinate frame. The optimal labeling is carried out using dynamic programming over image intervals determined using geometric reasoning about presence of corners and occluding boundaries in the image. In our setting we relax the single Manhattan frame assumption and consider the set of dominant planes perpendicular to the floor, but at varying orientations with respect to each other. We further extend the approach to sequences and show how to formulate the geometric parsing recursively, by updating the single view energy function using previous parsing results. The proposed approach yields better, temporally consistent results in challenging RGB-D sequences. In addition to the estimates of piecewise planar models, we use the Manhattan constraints for estimation of visual odometry in challenging sequences with low texture and large displacements and blur. The compact global models of indoor environments are then obtained by loop closure detection and final pose graph optimization [@GraphSLAMTutorial] enabling globally consistent models. We carry out extensive experiments to evaluate our approach.
In summary, our contributions are:
- An extension of a geometric parsing approach for a single RGB-D frame to a temporal setting;
- An integration of structures inferred from the parsing step and point features to estimate accurate visual odometry, yielding drift free rotation estimates;
- These two components along with planar RGB-D SLAM, loop closure detection and pose graph optimization enable us to obtain detailed and high quality floor plan including non-dominant planar structures and doors.
Related Work
============
This work is related to the problem of 3D mapping and motion estimation of the camera from RGB-D sequences. This is a long standing problem, where several existing solutions are applicable to specific settings [@KinectFusionISMAR11; @NiesnerACM13; @PollefeysIJCV08] . Many successful systems have been developed for table top settings or small scale environments at the level of individual rooms. These environments often have a lot of discriminative structures making the process of data association easier. The camera can often move freely enabling denser sampling of the views, making local matching and estimation of odometry well conditioned. Several approaches and systems have been proposed to tackle these environments and typically differ in the final representation of the 3D model, the means of local motion computation using either just RGB or RGB-D data and the presence or absence of the global alignment step.
For the evaluation of visual odometry approaches only, Freiburg RGB-D benchmark datasets [@sturm11rss-rgbd] are the de-facto standard. Simultaneous mapping and dense reconstruction of the environments has been successful in smaller workspaces, using a variety of 3D representations, including signed distance functions, meshes or voxel grids [@KinectFusionISMAR11; @KoltunCVPR15; @NiesnerACM13]. Volumetric representations and an on-line pose recovery using higher quality LIDAR data along with final global refinement were recently proposed [@WangCVPR16], with more detailed related work discussion found within. Approaches for outdoor 3D reconstruction and mapping of outdoors environments have been demonstrated in [@PollefeysIJCV08].
Another set of works focuses on the use of Manhattan constraints to improve 3D reconstruction either from a single view or multiple registered views as well as 3D structure. In [@Flint-ICCV11] authors focused more detailed geometric parsing into floor, walls and ceiling using stereo, 3D and monocular cues using registered views. In [@flint:etal:cvpr2010] the authors demonstrated an on-line real-time system for semantic parsing into floor and walls using a monocular camera, with the odometry estimated using a Kalman filter. The reconstructed models were locally of high quality, but of smaller extent considering only few frames. In [@AlejoAR2015] the authors proposed a monocular SLAM framework for low-textured scenes and for the ones with low-parallax camera motions using scene priors. In [@DPPTAMiros2015] a dense piecewise monocular planar SLAM framework was proposed. The authors detected planes as homogeneous-color regions segmented using superpixels and integrated them into a standard direct SLAM framework. Additional, purely geometric approaches assumed piecewise planarity [@trevor12:planar_surfac_slam_sensor] and used multiple sensing modalities to reconstruct larger scale environments. The poses and planes were simultaneously globally refined using the final pose graph optimization. These works did not pursue more detailed inference about corners and occlusion boundaries induced by planar structures and estimated the planar structures only where the depth measurements were available. This is in contrast to pixel level labeling schemes of [@Flint-ICCV11] where each pixel in the RGB frame is assigned a label. The more general problem of 3D structure recovery in indoors scenes has been tackled in [@Furukawa-ICCV09] using denser high quality laser range data and a box like modeling fitting approach. This approach is computationally expensive and suitable for strictly Manhattan box worlds.
Earlier works of [@Lee-Hebert-Kanade-NIPS10] presented an approach for estimating room layour with walls aligned with Manhattan coordinate frame. An attempt to model the world as a mixture of Manhattan frames has been done in [@straub2014mmf] where Manhattan mixtures were estimated in the post processing stage to refine the quality of the final model. In our case we handle this in an online setting. In [@straub2015cvpr] the 3D rotation for visual odometry in an indoor Manhattan World is tracked by projecting directional data (normal vectors) on a hypersphere and by exploiting the sequential nature of the data. An effective approach for single RGB-D view parsing was proposed in [@TaylorRSS12], where optimal plane labeling was obtained using a dynamic programming approach over a sequence of intervals in which were obtained by aligning the view with the gravity direction.
The presented work extends single view parsing to video sequences. We show how to change the optimization to include the information from the previous frames and relax the Manhattan assumption, by considering vertical planes perpendicular to the floor. The relative orientation between the frames is estimated from consecutive single view estimates, requiring only single 3D point correspondence to estimate the relative translation between the views.
![Right: Bird’s eye view of the line endpoints and intersections of all possible lines in the bounding box volume. Left: Intersections superimposed over image. Blue lines: the FOV of the camera. Red line segments: the projection of walls on the ground floor. Green line segments: the projection of the bounding box volume on the ground floor.[]{data-label="fig:intervals"}](endpoints_hw3_6.png){width="40.00000%"}
Closest to our approach is the work in [@popupslam]. The authors developed a real-time monocular plane SLAM incorporating single view scene layout understanding for low texture structural environments. They also integrated planes with point-based SLAM to provide photometric odometry constraints as planar SLAM can be easily unconstrained. Our single view parsing attains higher quality of 3D models (including doors) and is tightly integrated with pose optimization and loop closure detection.
Approach
========
Single View Parsing
-------------------
This paper extends the work of [@TaylorRSS12] in which authors proposed a dynamic programming solution for single view parsing of RGB-D images to video sequences. In this section, we briefly summarize their method and demonstrate its extensions for the parsing of video sequences. The method takes as an input a single RGB-D view and proceeds in the following steps. The RGB image is first over segmented into superpixels which respect the straight line boundaries. RANSAC-based plane fitting estimates the dominant planes and the associated Manhattan coordinate frame of the current view, determined by one or two vertical planes perpendicular to the floor. The intersection of the vertical planes with the floor plane defines an infinite line; a wall may contain more than one disjointed planar segment with the same normal vector and offset. Each frame defines a bounding box volume which these lines intersect. The end points of the lines segments together with the intersection between pairs of perpendicular infinite lines are found. These points then determine the hypothesized wall intersections and occluding boundaries. The projections of these hypothesized intersections and occluding boundaries onto an image determine the boundaries between the intervals and can be seen in Figure \[fig:intervals\]. The intervals then define the regions of the image over which the final labeling will be carried out. The labels are the identities of the dominant planes ${\bf l} = \{l_1, l_2, \hdots, l_k \}$, where $l_i = (n_i, d_i)$ is the plane normal and offset for one of the infinite dominant planes; ${\bf x} = \{{x}_1, {x}_2, \hdots, {x}_k \}$ is the set of intervals, with ${\bf x_i} = (p_i, p_{i+1})$ is a segment of a field of view. We seek to assign the most likely assignment of plane labels to the set of intervals $P({\bf x} | {\bf z})$ given the depth measurements ${\bf z}$. Maximization of the probability can be rewritten as minimization of the following energy function $$E(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} (f_i (x_i, {\bf z}) + e_i(x_i, x_{i-1}, {\bf z}))$$ where $f_i(x_i)$ is the cost to assign label $l_i$ to the $i^{th}$ interval, and $e_i(x_i, x_{i-1}, {\bf z})$ is the pairwise cost of assigning to the $(i-1)^{th}$ and $i^{th}$ intervals labels $l_{i-1}$ and $l_i$, respectively. Given the estimation of the set of dominant planes definining the labels, each depth measurement is assigned the most likely plane. See Figure \[fig:results\] (upper left corner image) for each example. See Figure \[fig:supports\] where the cost on an interval $f_i(x_i = l_i)$ is defined as the fraction of all pixels with available depth measurements inside the quadrilateral with the best label $l_i$, divided by the total number of pixels in the quadrilateral $$c_1(x_i,l_i) = 1 - \frac{labelCount}{totalCount}$$ ranging between 0 to 1. For the labels representing virtual planes which are not supported by depth measurements, define the bounding box volume $c_1(x_i = l_i) = 0.5.$ The virtual planes not supported by any depth measurements are color coded in red in Figure \[fig:results\]. The final label cost is the plane support cost weighted by the fraction of the total FOV the interval subtends $$f_i(x_i = l_i) = w_i . c_1(x_i, l_i).$$ The pairwise cost $e_i(x_i = l_j, x_{i-1} = l_k)$ penalizes the discontinuity when two consecutive intervals are assigned different labels. When the optimal labeling is achieved, consecutive intervals with the same label are merged. The final result is a compact wall layout of the scene. See Figure \[fig:results\].
![Left: Best wall for each pixel. Middle: A projected quadrilateral from an interval to a wall. Right: support pixels for the wall being considered. []{data-label="fig:supports"}](bestwall_lab.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Left: Best wall for each pixel. Middle: A projected quadrilateral from an interval to a wall. Right: support pixels for the wall being considered. []{data-label="fig:supports"}](quadrilateral_lab.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Left: Best wall for each pixel. Middle: A projected quadrilateral from an interval to a wall. Right: support pixels for the wall being considered. []{data-label="fig:supports"}](supports_lab.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"}
Dynamic Programming for Sequences
---------------------------------
In a video sequence, the local structure of the scene changes very little between two consecutive frames, yet if all the frames are parsed independently, it is easy to obtain parses which are inconsistent. This is due to low quality of the depth measurements, a large amount of missing data due to reflective structures or glass, or too-oblique angles of planar structures. The brittle nature of the raw depth data further affects the process of estimating the dominant planes, determining the intervals and the labeling. Next we describe how to introduce some temporal consistency into the parsing process and obtain a locally consistent 3D layout. We will do this by incorporating the result of the previous labeling in the optimization $P({\bf x} | {\bf x'}, {\bf z})$ given the depth measurements ${\bf z}$, with ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x'}$ denoting the set of intervals and their labeling in the current and previous frame. The relative pose between two consecutive frames is estimated using visual odometry, which will be discussed in Section 4.1. Given the relative pose, walls in the previous frame are associated with those in the current one. Two walls are associated if they have the same orientation, and if their offset difference is below a threshold of 0.05 m. For a plane of the previous frame that does not have any associations, it is added to the set of labels of the current frame. A list of labels is created.
In the current frame, after all the intervals have been identified using the method described in Section 3.1, a set S of interval $\{p_0, ..., p_m\}$ is found. The layout produced for the previous scene yields a collection of intervals and endpoints, which is projected to the current frame, obtaining another set S’ of endpoints. Let S’ be $\{p'_0, ..., p'_n\}$ and $l'_i$ is the assigned label for the $i^{th}$ interval, $[p'_{i-1}, p'_i]$, taken from the previous layout. Now, the intervals formed by a union of the end points in S and S’ and a new set of labels is given by the union of the previous and current labels after plane association. Given a new set of endpoints and the intervals they induce, we now formulate the modified label costs taking into account the results of the optimal label assignment from the previous frame.
{width="50.00000%"}
Lets denote a new set of endpoints on the circle $\{s_0, ..., s_{k}\}$. When assigning label costs to a particular interval $[s_{j-1}, s_j]$, we need to consider several scenarios. First that there is an interval $[p'_{i-1}, p'_i]$ in the previous frame that completely covers it, with the previously assigned label $l_i$. The cost of assigning this label again should be lower, reflecting the increased confidence in the presence of the label in the current frame, given the previous frame. When parsing the video sequence we modify the cost function by introducing two additional costs; the fitting cost $c_2(x_i = l_j, {\bf z})$ and the temporal cost $c_3(x_i = l_j)$. The fitting cost $c_2(x_i = l_j, {\bf z})$ is the average residual for the depth measurements that lie inside the projected quadrilateral that has its best label as $l_j$. Let $\{X_1, ..., X_k\}$ be the set of these 3D points, and $l_j$ is the wall label characterized by parameters $(n_j, d_j)$. $$c_2(x_i = l_j, {\bf z}) =
\begin{cases}
min(\frac{\sum_{i} d(X_i, l_j)}{k}, 0.15), & \text{if} \: l_j \: \text{real wall} \\
0.5, & \text{virtual wall}
\end{cases}$$ where $d(X_i, l_j)$ is the 3D point to plane distance. This cost models the scenario where there may be more then one suitable plane model for the interval, but the plane fitting process has omitted the plane selection due to missing data or ambiguities. This plane label in question was however successfully detected and labeled in the previous frame and hence it is a good candidate for explaining the depth values in the interval. The suitability of the plane is measured by the average residual error.
For the temporal cost if $l_j$ is not the preferred label, a cost of 0.1 is added, otherwise there is no penalty $$c_3(x_i = l_j) =
\begin{cases}
0.1, & \text{if}\ l_j \text{is preferred} \\
0, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ The total cost to assign the label $l_j$ to the $i^{th}$ interval is: $$f_i(x_i = l_j, \textbf{z}) = c_1(x_i = l_j) + c_2(x_i = l_j, {\bf z}) + c_3(x_i = l_j).$$ Similarly as in the single view case, the final label cost of the interval is $f_i(x_i = l_j, \textbf{z})$ is weighted by the fraction of the FOV the interval $x_i$ subtends.
The pairwise cost is also modified to accommodate the temporal constraint. In the case that the proposed labeling introduces discontinuity of depth at the junction between the two intervals, the following penalty is applied: $$e_i(x_i = l_j, x_{i-1} = l_k, \textbf{z}) =
\begin{cases}
\delta, & \text{if } \: l_j \text{ is not preferred} \\
\frac{\delta}{3}, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ If there is no discontinuity induced from the proposed labeling, then $e_i(x_i = l_j, x_{i-1} = l_k, \textbf{z}) = 0$.
We used a discontinuity cost of $\delta = 0.03$ in our experiments. Given that our state space ${\bf x}$ is a linear 1D chain of intervals, the optimal labeling problem can now be solved using dynamic programming as described in [@TaylorRSS12]. The results of the optimal scene parsing using single view and temporal constraints is described in more detail in the experiments.
Visual Odometry
===============
As a result of a single view parsing we estimate the rotation of the camera with respect to the world coordinate frame $R^{cw}_i$. We omit the subscript $cw$ for clarity. Relative rotation between consecutive frames is estimated as $R_{i-1,i} = R_{i-1}^T R_{i}$. The relative translation is estimated using SIFT matching and RANSAC requiring only a single 3D point correspondence. In this work we assume that only the weak Manhattan constraint is available, i.e. that the environment can have multiple local Manhattan frames. This, for example, corresponds to the settings where corridors are not orthogonal to each other [@SaurerVICOMOR12]. We develop a simple but effective mechanism to detect these new frames in an online setting and adjust the process of estimation of the relative rotation $R_{i-1,i}$ accordingly.
We assume that the first view of the sequence determines the initial word reference Manhattan frame $R_w$. In subsequent frames the single view rotation estimates are composed together to yield the rotation estimate of the camera pose with respect to the world reference frame $R_i^{cw}$. In the case when the single RGB-D frame has multiple vertical walls which are not perpendicular to each other, we get several estimates of the local Manhattan frame for that view, lets denote them $R_i$ and $R'_i$. To determine the one which will yield the correct relative rotation $R_{i-1,i} = R_{i-1}^T R_{i}$ and $R_{i-1,i} = R_{i-1}^T R'_{i}$, we choose the one which yields smaller relative rotation as the motions between consecutive frames are small. We also store the angle between $R_i$ and $R'_i$ representing the alignment between two different Manhattan frames.
Graph SLAM and Loop Closure Detection
-------------------------------------
The visual odometry techniques described above yield very good rotation estimates even in the absence of features in the environment. When aligning the sequences for longer trajectories the system accumulates a small drift requiring global alignment step. We exploit the structures detected from single view reconstruction, such as walls, corners (the intersection between two walls) for the global alignment steps.
We use the commonly used global GRAPH SLAM [@GraphSLAMTutorial] optimization approach. Since the height of the camera is fixed and we can estimate the single view rotation, we can always assume that camera motion is planar. In this case the optimization is reduced to a 2D SLAM problem. The pose of the $i^{th}$ frame is denoted as **$g_i$** = $(x_i, y_i, \theta_i)^T$. This is the pose of the camera with respect to the Manhattan coordinate frame established by the first frame.
Under the weak Manhattan assumption, the rotation of the camera can be estimated with very high accuracy without drifting, thus it’s only necessary that the poses be optimized based on their locations $(x_i, y_i)^T$. Given two poses $g_i$ and $g_j$, and the observation $\hat{g}_{ij}$, the error is measured as $e_{ij}^T \Omega e_{ij}$ where $e_{ij} = g_i - g_j - \hat{g}_{ij}$ and $\Omega$ is the information matrix. The Jacobian matrices are simplified to:
$$\frac{\partial {e_{ij}}}{\partial {g_i}} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0\\0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \mbox{ and } \frac{\partial {e_{ij}}}{\partial {g_j}} = \begin{bmatrix} -1 & 0\\0 & -1 \end{bmatrix}$$
*Building the graph:* The pose of each frame is a node in the graph. An edge is added between any two consecutive nodes and filled with information provided by the relative translation estimated using visual odometry. This relative transformation is in the global coordinate system defined when the robot just starts. The graph optimization is done every time a loop closure is detected. At the end of the sequence, one more final optimization is performed.
*Pairwise constraint between consecutive frames:* Between consecutive frames, walls are associated using the joint compatibility branch and bound test [@jcbb]. The dominant walls that align with the local Manhattan frame are used to enhance the consistency between two consecutive poses. As shown in Figure \[fig:planar\_constraint\], the estimated translation between the $(i-1)^{th}$ and $i^{th}$ frames obtained from the visual odometry is $\mathbf{t_i} - \mathbf{t_{i-1}}$. With the tracking of the planes, the enhanced constraint for the graph optimization is: $((\mathbf{t_i} - \mathbf{t_{i-1}})^{T}\mathbf{u})\mathbf{u} + ((\mathbf{t_i} - \mathbf{h_i}) - (\mathbf{t_{i-1}} - \mathbf{h_{i-1}}))$, where $\bf{v}$ is the normal vector of plane $p_i$, $\bf{u} = \bf{n} \times \bf{v}$ with $\bf{n}$ be the normal vector of the floor. $\bf h_{i-1}$ and $\bf h_i$ are the orthogonal projection of $\bf{t_{i-1}}$ and $\bf{t_i}$ on $p_{i-1}$ and $p_i$ respectively. This is used as the pairwise constraint between the $(i-1)^{th}$ and $i^{th}$ nodes when the loop closure is performed. Intuitively, this pairwise constraint enforces the co-planarity between associated walls between two consecutive frames when loop closure is run.
*Loop Closure Detection:* The ability to recognize a place that the robot has previously visited, and then estimate the relative distance displacement of the robot between the two frames to add extra constraints to the graph is important to get a good pose optimization. In our work, the loop closure detection is done by using GIST features [@Oliva2001] at places marked as geometric signatures of the sequence. A frame is marked as a key frame if it contains at least one geometric signature, a pair of walls that are orthogonal to each other and connected. In general, geometric signatures are found at intersections, T-junctions, and corner turns. When such frame is detected, a matching process will be carried out to find out if it matches with any previously found key frames. For each match, an edge is added to the pose graph. The criteria for the matching is: the relative rotation between the two pairs is less than $10^o$, the distance between their locations is less than 5 meters, and finally the GIST score between the two scenes is less than 0.025. In case there’s a match, the relative displacement between the two frames is estimated using the matching pairs of orthogonal and connected walls as: $$\begin{aligned}
\bf (c - t) - (c' - t')
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf c} = [x_c, y_c]^T$ and ${\bf c}'=[x'_c, y'_c]^T$ are the matched corners. See Figure \[fig:corner\_constraint\].
Final Global Map Generation
---------------------------
When the globally refined poses are found, the locations of walls in each frame are updated. At the end of the sequence, walls are merged frame after frame to generate the global wall maps.
*Generate the coarse map:* First, big walls (those with a length of at least 2 meters) are merged to generate a coarse map. In Figures \[fig:map1\] and \[fig:map2\], the coarse map consists of the red lines that are 1 meter or longer. The criteria for merging are: the angle between two walls is less than $5^o$, distance between two walls, which is measured by the maximum distance between each endpoint to the other wall, is less than 0.25 meters, the sum of the absolute difference of the average color of the walls in three channels (hue, sat, value) is less than 30.
*Door detection:* To detect doors, we keep track of a set of corners detected in all the frames. These corners are the ends of the innermost walls in the left and the right of the camera, as shown in the bottom left part of Figure \[fig:door\_corner\], denoted with blue cross marks. A wall is a door candidate if it is not wider than 1 meter (we assume that door has a width of about 0.825 meters) and has at least 2 corners near each end (within 0.25 meters). Door candidates will be merged if the angle between them is less than $5^o$, the distance between two walls is less than 0.25 meters, and they overlap with the intersection over union score by at least 0.25. Once doors are extracted, they are added to the map. For the small walls that do not pass the door test, we merge them with the big walls in the coarse map.
![Top: RGB image and the corresponding single view reconstruction; Bottom: The left is the projection of the walls onto the ground floor, the blue marks are the locations of detected corners. The right is a superposition of walls (red lines) and corners (blue circles) of several frames.[]{data-label="fig:door_corner"}](singleview_a.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Top: RGB image and the corresponding single view reconstruction; Bottom: The left is the projection of the walls onto the ground floor, the blue marks are the locations of detected corners. The right is a superposition of walls (red lines) and corners (blue circles) of several frames.[]{data-label="fig:door_corner"}](singleview_b.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"}\
![Top: RGB image and the corresponding single view reconstruction; Bottom: The left is the projection of the walls onto the ground floor, the blue marks are the locations of detected corners. The right is a superposition of walls (red lines) and corners (blue circles) of several frames.[]{data-label="fig:door_corner"}](singleview_c2.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Top: RGB image and the corresponding single view reconstruction; Bottom: The left is the projection of the walls onto the ground floor, the blue marks are the locations of detected corners. The right is a superposition of walls (red lines) and corners (blue circles) of several frames.[]{data-label="fig:door_corner"}](singleview_d.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"}
Experiments
===========
We evaluate our algorithm on several RGB-D sequences of indoor scenes with minimal texture, that satisfy Manhattan or weak Manhattan constraints. One of the sequences is from the TUM RGB-D dataset [@sturm11rss-rgbd], *fr3/structure-notexture-far*, which is publicly available and comes with ground truth. Besides this, we collected two other sequences of large scale office corridors and tested them.
Temporal Parsing
----------------
Our experiments demonstrate that temporal parsing produced incrementally better results in scenarios where depth data was missing or noisy due to sensor limitations, or due to the difficult nature of data such as glass doors and glass walls. Our algorithm also consistently detected door planes once they had been picked up.
Qualitative results of temporal parsing for five different scenarios, each consisting of three consecutive frames, are shown in Figure \[fig:results\]. For each frame, the top row shows the RGB image on the left, and walls aligning with the dominant Manhattan frame on the right. The bottom row shows the result of single view parsing on the left, and that of temporal parsing on the right. The first frame of each scenario is the starting frame, so the results for the single view and temporal parsing are the same. Scenario 1 demonstrates that temporal parsing consistently picked up doors while single view parsing failed. Scenarios 2 and 5 shows that temporal parsing produced better results for small walls in complex scene. An enclave area was correctly parsed in Scenario 3. In Scenario 4, after picking up the first frame, temporal parsing could infer a plane for the glass area in consecutive frames, while single view parsing assigned a virtual plane for it.
Graph SLAM for weak Manhattan Indoor Environments
-------------------------------------------------
We show next that under the weak Manhattan assumption, graph SLAM optmization could be carried out on the positions of the cameras only as the estimated rotations were good and drift free. For each test sequence, a global map was generated. See Figures \[fig:map1\] and \[fig:map2\]. For comparison we selected DVO-RGBD SLAM [@dvo_slam] and ORB-RGBD SLAM [@orb_rgbd_slam] to demonstrate inferior results compared to our algorithm.
*TUM SLAM dataset:* Our algorithm focuses on SLAM for scenes with Manhattan/weak Manhattan structure without features. The sequence *fr3/structure-notexture-far* is a top candidate to demonstrate our approach as it meets most of these constraints. Besides, it comes with the ground truth that allows a comparison between our algorithm and other methods.
*Qualitative Result:* A densely reconstructed point cloud using the trajectory generated from our slam framework is shown in Figure \[fig:pl\_snf\].
*Quantitative Result:* With the availability of the ground truth, the root mean squared error (RMSE) can be computed. We ran our algorithm five times on the same sequence to obtain the average RMSE and the deviation. We also followed the same procedure for DVO-RGBD SLAM and ORB-RGBD SLAM. The comparison is shown in Table \[tab:1\]. Besides DVO-RGBD and ORB-RGBD, we also include the result of Pop-up Plane Slam (taken directly from their paper [@popupslam], which is not a RGB-D SLAM framework but it is relevant. The comparison is shown in Table \[tab:1\]. The difference between the trajectory generated by our algorithm and the provided ground truth is shown in Figure \[fig:gt\_vs\_our\].
RMSE (m)
------------------- -------------------
Pop-up Plane SLAM $0.18 \pm 0.07$
DVO-RGBD SLAM $0.097 \pm 0.000$
ORB-RGBD SLAM $0.016 \pm 0.002$
Ours $0.043 \pm 0.001$
: Results for TUM RGB-D Dataset[]{data-label="tab:1"}
*Large Scale Indoor Office:* We do not have the ground truth for these sequences, thus only qualitative comparison is possible. As the source code for Pop-up Plane SLAM is not available, we only compare our algorithm with DVO-RGBD SLAM and ORB-RGBD SLAM. DVO-RGBD SLAM produced a meaningless trajectory for both sequences, while ORB-RGBD SLAM kept losing the tracking and did not produce a complete trajectory for the sequences. Figure \[fig:slam\_1\] shows the result of our algorithm versus DVO-RGBD SLAM. Figures \[fig:map1\] and \[fig:map2\] show the point cloud reconstruction of the two sequences using our estimated poses.
![Left column: DVO SLAM trajectory for the sequences. Right column: our results.[]{data-label="fig:slam_1"}](PLOT_DVO_HW1.png "fig:"){width="22.00000%"} ![Left column: DVO SLAM trajectory for the sequences. Right column: our results.[]{data-label="fig:slam_1"}](PLOT_GMU_HW1.png "fig:"){width="22.00000%"}\
![Left column: DVO SLAM trajectory for the sequences. Right column: our results.[]{data-label="fig:slam_1"}](PLOT_DVO_HW3.png "fig:"){width="22.00000%"} ![Left column: DVO SLAM trajectory for the sequences. Right column: our results.[]{data-label="fig:slam_1"}](PLOT_GMU_HW3.png "fig:"){width="22.00000%"}
*Door detection:* A summary for the door detection is shown in Table \[tab:2\].
seq no doors detected correct detection missed
-------- ---------------- ------------------- --------
1 32 18 7
2 86 77 7
: []{data-label="tab:2"}
It is noticeable that DVO SLAM and ORB-RGBD SLAM work well for the TUM sequence, which does not have texture, but fails on our sequences. There is a major difference between the TUM sequence and ours. Even though the TUM sequence is textureless, many reliable point features can still be detected and tracked. For our indoor office sequences, the scene often consists just of blank walls and a few distinct feature points. For our case, as rotation is reliably estimated from the structure of the scene, only a few matching point features are needed to estimate the translation, which is not the case for DVO-SLAM and ORB-RGBD SLAM.
Conclusions
===========
We have presented a temporal parsing algorithm that yields better, temporally consistent results in challenging RGB-D sequences. The algorithm consistently and correctly parses meaningful structures in the scene such as door planes. This enables an efficient on-line method to detect doors which were not propagated to the final global map. We have also introduced an efficient visual odometry algorithm that works without rotation drift in a weak Manhattan world setting. Finally, pose optimization based on the locations of the camera and the constraints obtained by matching geometric signatures between key frames provides global refinement of poses. At the end of the pipeline, a global map for the sequence is generated.
![Global maps and reconstructed point cloud of the first sequence (scales are not the same).[]{data-label="fig:map1"}](hw1_maps_and_pointcloud.png){width="25.00000%"}
![Global maps and reconstructed point cloud of the second sequence (scales are not the same).[]{data-label="fig:map2"}](hw3_maps_and_pointcloud.png){width="40.00000%"}
![Each row has three blocks showing the result of three consecutive frames. For each block, the top left is the RGB image, the top right are the walls that align with the dominant Manhattan frame, the bottom left is the result of single view parsing, and the bottom right is the result of temporal parsing.[]{data-label="fig:results"}](results_1.png){width="50.00000%"}
[^1]: Department of Computer Science, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive MSN 4A5, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, USA [{ple13,kosecka}@gmu.edu]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
**Abstract**
We derive bounds on the electric and chromo-electric dipole moments of the charm quark. The second one turns out to be particularly strong, and we quantify its impact on models that allow for a sizeable flavour violation in the up quark sector, like flavour alignment and Generic $U(2)^3$. In particular we show how the bounds coming from the charm and up CEDMs constrain the size of new physics contributions to direct flavour violation in $D$ decays. We also specialize our analysis to the cases of Supersymmetry with split families and composite Higgs models. The results exposed in this paper motivate both an increase in experimental sensitivity to fundamental hadronic dipoles, and a further exploration of the SM contribution to flavour violating $D$ decays.
author:
- Filippo Sala
bibliography:
- 'Dipoles.bib'
---
(1,0)[188]{}\
Introduction {#sec1}
============
Electric dipole moments (EDMs) set stringent bounds on the CP structure of any new physics (NP) which becomes relevant at energies not far from the Fermi scale. An interesting question to ask is if and how one can exploit the current and foreseen experimental reach to constrain the flavour structure of such NP as well. This issue becomes particularly relevant when the NP energy scale associated to the third generation is much lower than the one associated with the first two. This situation is typical of models which aim at evading collider and precision bounds while keeping the Fermi scale as natural as possible. In this class of theories, the new degrees of freedom related to the third generation often mediate the dominant contributions to the dipole moments of the light quarks. For quarks of the first generation, this immediately translates in a contribution to the EDMs of nucleons and nuclei. In this case, the non-observation of those EDMs sets bounds on flavour violating parameters relating the first and the third generation. If also the second generation quarks were found to give relevant contributions to the EDMs of nucleons and/or nuclei, than one could also constrain flavour violation between the second and third generation. In this paper we show that this is actually possible, by computing the charm chromo-electric dipole moment (CEDM) contribution to the neutron EDM. We also show that the bound one derives in this way has interesting consequences for the flavour violating phenomenology of some models.
The current and foreseen experimental sensitivities to the electric dipole moments of the neutron, deuteron and mercury are summarized in Table \[tab:exp\_bounds\]. The quoted projection for $d_n$ is expected to be reached within a few years by more than one experiment, the one for $d_{\text{Hg}}$ by an upgrade of the same apparatus that sets the current bound. On the other hand, the experiment aiming at the measurement of $d_D$ is still in the proposal stage [^1].
Observable $d_n$ $d_D$ $d_{\text{Hg}}$
-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
Current bound $2.9 \times 10^{-26}$ [@Baker:2006ts] - $3.1 \times 10^{-29}$ [@Griffith:2009zz]
Future sensitivity $\sim 10^{-28}$ [@Bodek:2008gr; @Altarev:2009zz; @Baker:2010zza; @Beck:2011gw; @Altarev:2012uy] $\sim 10^{-29}$ [@bnl:gov] $\sim 10^{-30}$ [@Griffith:2009zz]
: Current bounds (90% C.L. for $d_n$, 95% C.L. for $d_{\text{Hg}}$) and expected sensitivities on the EDMs of the neutron, deuteron and mercury, in $e\,\text{cm}$.[]{data-label="tab:exp_bounds"}
In the SM all the EDMs and CEDMs vanish exactly at the two-loop level[@Shabalin:1978rs], the three-loop contributions have been evaluated in [@Khriplovich:1985jr; @Czarnecki:1997bu] and, e.g. for the down quark, yield the estimate $d_d \simeq 10^{-34} e\, \text{cm}$. The neutron EDM is however dominated by long distance effects, the most recent estimation of them [@Mannel:2012qk] resulting in $d_n \simeq 10^{-31} e\, \text{cm}$. This number is well below current and foreseen experimental sensitivities. Therefore $d_n$ remains a genuine probe of physics beyond the Standard Model.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:bounds\] we derive bounds on the electric and chromo-electric dipole moments of the charm quark. In Section \[sec:NP\_implications\] we discuss their implications for various NP models, both from an effective field theory (EFT) point of view (Sec. \[sec:EFT\]) and in the specific cases of Supersymmetry (Sec. \[sec:SUSY\]) and composite Higgs models (Sec. \[sec:CHM\]). We summarize and conclude in Section \[sec:Summary\].
Bounds on the charm quark dipole moments {#sec:bounds}
========================================
In terms of fundamental dipoles, the electric dipole moments (EDMs) of the neutron[@Pospelov:2000bw], deuteron [@Lebedev:2004va; @deVries:2011re; @deVries:2011an] and mercury [@Ellis:2008zy] read[^2]: $$\begin{aligned}
d_n = & (1 \pm 0.5) \big[1.4 (d_d - 0.25 d_u) + 1.1 e (\tilde{d}_d + 0.5 \tilde{d}_u) \big] \pm (22 \pm 10) \text{MeV}\,e\, w \,, \label{EDM_n}\\
d_D = & - e (\tilde{d}_u - \tilde{d}_d) \big[4^{+7}_{-2}+(0.6 \pm0.3)\big] - (0.2 \pm 0.1) e (\tilde{d}_u + \tilde{d}_d) + \label{EDM_D} \\
& + (0.5 \pm 0.3) (d_u + d_d) \pm e (22 \pm 10) \text{MeV}\, w \,, \nonumber \\
d_{\text{Hg}} = & 7.2^{+14.4}_{-3.6} \times 10^{-3} \,e (\tilde{d}_u-\tilde{d}_d) + 10^{-2} d_e\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $d_{u,d}, \tilde{d}_{u,d}$ are respectively the EDMs and CEDMs of the up and down quarks, $d_e$ is the electron EDM, and $w$ is the coefficient of the Weinberg operator. For $q = u,d,s,c,b,t$, they are defined via the following phenomenological Lagrangian $$\mathcal{L}_{\rm eff} = d_q \,\frac{1}{2} (\bar{q} \sigma_{\mu\nu} i \gamma_5 q) F^{\mu\nu} + \tilde{d}_q \,\frac{1}{2} (\bar{q} \sigma_{\mu\nu} T^a i \gamma_5 q) g_s G_a^{\mu\nu} + w \,\frac{1}{6} f^{abc} \epsilon^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho} G^a_{\mu\sigma} G^{b\,\sigma}_\nu G^c_{\lambda\rho}\,,
\label{dipoles_def}$$ where $\epsilon^{0123} = 1$. The expressions and assume a PQ symmetry to get rid of the $\theta$ term. Ignoring this assumption would not only introduce a strong dependence on $\theta$, but also modify the one on the CEDMs. The CEDMs linear combination affecting the EDMs would change, but not the order of magnitude of their impact [@Pospelov:2000bw]. In studying the implications of the $d_n$ bound, in the rest of this paper we will conservatively use the values $0.5$ and $12$ MeV, respectively, for the coefficients $(1 \pm 0.5)$ and $(22 \pm 10)$ MeV in Eq. .
The Weinberg operator in mixes via renormalization group (RG) evolution into the quarks EDMs and CEDMs, while the converse is not true. However, when in the running from high to low energies a quark $q$ is integrated out, its CEDM gives the following threshold correction to the Weinberg operator at one-loop level [@Chang:1990jv; @Boyd:1990bx; @Dine:1990pf] $$w = \frac{g_s^3}{32 \pi^2} \frac{\tilde{d}_q}{m_q}\,,
\label{Weinberg_threshold}$$ where all the parameters are evaluated at the mass of the quark. The uncertainty from going to higher loops in can be estimated to be at the level of $8 \, \alpha_s(m_q)/4 \pi$, about $25 \%$ for $q=c$, where 8 is a colour factor. The subsequent running makes also the lighter quarks dipole moments sensitive to $\tilde{d}_q$. In terms of the charm CEDM evaluated at the scale $m_c$, $w$ and the dipoles $d_{u,d}$, $\tilde{d}_{u,d}$ at the hadronic scale of 1 GeV read $$\begin{array}{ll}
\tilde{d}_u = 1.7 \times 10^{-6} \,\tilde{d}_c\,, \qquad \quad & d_u = -5.9 \times 10^{-8} e \,\tilde{d}_c \,,\\
\vspace{-.2 cm} & \\
\tilde{d}_d = 3.5 \times 10^{-6} \,\tilde{d}_c\,, \qquad \quad & d_d = 6.2 \times 10^{-8} e \,\tilde{d}_c \,,\\
\vspace{-.2 cm} & \\
w = 2.3 \times 10^{-2} \text{GeV}^{-1} \,\tilde{d}_c\,.&
\label{charm_CEDM_into}
\end{array}$$ In deriving we have used the running from [@Braaten:1990gq; @Degrassi:2005zd] at one-loop. The relevant running of the Weinberg operator at two-loops is, to our knowledge, unknown. Moreover, in the extraction of a bound for $\tilde{d}_c$, the impact of the up and down EDMs is subleading with respect to the one of $w$. This is evident by inserting into and , and makes the known two-loop running unnecessary.
The experimental bound on $d_n$ then implies $$|\tilde{d}_c| \lesssim 1.0 \times 10^{-22} \text{cm}\,,
\label{eq:CEDMc_bound}$$ or, equivalently, $m_c |\tilde{d}_c| \lesssim 6.7 \times 10^{-9}$. This is to be compared to the previous and only bound existing in the literature, $|\tilde{d}_c| \lesssim 3 \times 10^{-14}$ cm, obtained from $\psi^\prime \to \psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ at the Beijing spectrometer [@Kuang:2012wp]. As already said, the bound comes mainly from the direct contribution of $w$ to $d_n$. The mercury EDM bound thus yield a much weaker constraint on $\tilde{d}_c$, than the one set by $d_n$. An analysis analogous to the one we performed here can be carried out also for the bottom and top CEDMs, as was done in [@Chang:1990jv] and [@Kamenik:2011dk]. As a cross-check of our derivation, we verified that our procedure reproduces their results.
The indirect constraints on the charm EDM are weaker. They can be derived from both the mixing of $d_c$ into $d_d$ via electroweak running, and from the $d_c$ contribution to $B\to X_s \gamma$. In the first case, using [@CorderoCid:2007uc] for the running and the bound on $d_n$, one gets
$$|d_c| \lesssim 4.4 \times 10^{-17} e\, \text{cm} \,,
\label{eq:EDMc_bound_dn}$$
where again $d_c$ is evaluated at the charm mass scale. In the case of $B\to X_s \gamma$, the contribution of $d_c$ is relevant since it has the same loop and CKM suppressions of the Standard Model one ($|V_{cb}| \simeq |V_{ts}|$). To derive it, we use [@Hewett:1993em] for the charm dipole contribution to the Wilson coefficient $C_{7\gamma}$, and [@Buras:2011zb] for the dependence of BR$(B\to X_s \gamma)$ on $C_{7\gamma}$. In explicit models one generically expects a charm magnetic dipole moment, of size similar to $d_c$, to be generated. However the sensitivity of $C_7$ to it is more than one order of magnitude smaller than the one to $d_c$, and we ignore it here for simplicity, like we do with other possible NP contributions. We then obtain $$|d_c| \lesssim 3.4 \times 10^{-16} e\, \text{cm} \,,
\label{eq:EDMc_bound_Bsgamma}$$ where we have used the experimental world average [@Amhis:2012bh] BR$(B\to X_s\gamma) = (3.43 \pm 0.22) \times 10^{-4}$, and imposed the bound at 2$\sigma$ (where the uncertainty of the SM contribution BR$(B\to X_s\gamma)_{\rm SM} = (3.15\pm0.23) \times 10^{-4}$ [@Misiak:2006zs] has been added in quadrature).
Implications for New Physics {#sec:NP_implications}
============================
It can be convenient to express NP contributions to the EDM and CEDM of a given quark $q$ in terms of the following high scale effective Lagrangian $$\label{EDM}
\mathcal{L}_\text{dip} = \frac{m_t}{\Lambda^2} \,\xi_q \,\left[
c_q (\bar q_L\sigma_{\mu\nu} q_R) eF^{\mu\nu} +
\tilde c_q (\bar q_L\sigma_{\mu\nu}T^a q_R) g_s G^{\mu\nu}_a \right]
+\text{h.c.} \,,$$ where $c_q, \tilde c_q$ are coefficents of order one, and $\xi_q$ are suppression factors, all depending on the specific model and in principle complex. With these definitions, the quark EDMs and CEDMs read $$d_{q} = 2 e \, \frac{m_t}{\Lambda^2}\, \text{Im}(c_q \xi_q),\qquad \tilde d_q = 2 \, \frac{m_t}{\Lambda^2}\, \text{Im}(\tilde c_q \xi_q)\,,$$
Size of the bounds in EFT
-------------------------
Imposing $d_n < 2.9 \times 10^{-26}$ $e$ cm and considering one operator at a time in , for $\Lambda = 1$ TeV we find $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Im}(\tilde c_u \xi_u) &\lesssim 1.3 \times 10^{-8}, & \text{Im}(c_u \xi_u) \lesssim 3.3 \times 10^{-8},\label{EDMu_bounds}\\
\text{Im}(\tilde c_d \xi_d) &\lesssim 8.4 \times 10^{-9}, & \text{Im}(c_d \xi_d) \lesssim 6.5 \times 10^{-9},\\
\text{Im}(\tilde c_c \xi_c) &\lesssim 1.8 \times 10^{-5}, & \label{EDMc_bounds}\\
\text{Im}(\tilde c_b \xi_b) &\lesssim 1.7 \times 10^{-4}, & \label{EDMb_bounds}\\
\text{Im}(\tilde c_t \xi_t) &\lesssim 3.3 \times 10^{-2}, & \label{EDMt_bounds}\end{aligned}$$ where all the coefficients are evaluated at the scale $\Lambda = 1$ TeV.
Notice that the 4 fermion operator contributions to the EDMs [@Hisano:2012cc] have been ignored. Given the uncertainties present in casting the bounds, this approximation is justified in those models where such operators are not enhanced with respect to the dipole ones. This happens for example in Supersymmetry, where they arise at loop level, or in composite Higgs models with partial compositeness, where they appear at tree level but their coefficients are further suppressed, with respect to the dipole operators ones, by an extra light quark Yukawa coupling.
Interplay with bounds from flavour violating processes {#sec:EFT}
------------------------------------------------------
The new bound we derived can be relevant for models allowing for a sizeable flavour violation in the right-handed up quark sector, while at the same time providing a large splitting between the energy scales associated with the third and the first two generations of quarks. Such a scenario is favoured by naturalness arguments when combined with current direct NP searches, and consistent with data due to the fact that the stronger constraints in flavour violation come from processes involving down quarks. Explicit realizations are models of flavour alignment (see e.g. [@Nir:1993mx]), composite Higgs models (CHM) with an anarchic flavour structure, or Generic $U(2)^3$ [@Barbieri:2012bh]. In such models, measurements of CP asymmetries in processes like $D \to \pi \pi$ and $D \to K K$ are among the most stringent probes of flavour violation in the up quark sector. This is true in particular for chromo-magnetic dipole operators of both chiralities, that are instead less efficiently constrained by $D-\bar D$ mixing or $\epsilon^{\prime}_K$ [@Isidori:2011qw]. We write the high scale effective Lagrangian contributing to such processes as $$\mathcal{L}^{\Delta C=1}_\text{mag} = \frac{m_t}{\Lambda^2} \left[ c_D \xi_8 \mathcal{O}_8
+
c_D^\prime \xi_8^\prime \mathcal{O}_8'
\right] + \text{h.c.}\\
\label{eq:Leff_Ddecay}$$ where $$\mathcal{O}_8 = (\bar u_L\sigma_{\mu\nu}T^a c_R)g_s G^{\mu\nu}_a,\qquad \mathcal{O}_8' = (\bar u_R\sigma_{\mu\nu}T^a c_L)g_s G^{\mu\nu}_a,$$ $c_D, c_D^{\prime}$ are coefficients of order one, and $\xi_8, \xi_8^\prime$ are suppression factors, all depending on the model and in principle complex. The most recent measurement of the CP asymmetry in $D$ decays is[@Aaij:2013bra] $\Delta\rm A_{\rm CP} = \rm A_{\rm CP}(K^+K^-) - \rm A_{\rm CP}(\pi^+\pi^-) = \big( 4.9 \pm 3~(\rm stat) \pm 1.4 ~(\rm syst) \big) \times 10^{-3}$, yielding to the world average [@Amhis:2012bh] $\Delta\rm A_{\rm CP} = (-3.29 \pm 1.21) \times 10^{-3}$. The Standard Model contribution could possibly account for such a value, however its determination is still object of intensive discussion, see e.g.[@Pirtskhalava:2011va; @Cheng:2012wr; @Brod:2012ud; @Isidori:2012yx]. Our approach is therefore to require the NP contribution to be smaller than the average central value: following the analysis of [@Isidori:2011qw] and considering one operator at a time, we find that this implies, for $\Lambda = 1$ TeV, $$\label{eq:DAcp_bound}
\text{Im}(c_D^{(\prime)} \xi_8^{(\prime)}) < 3.8 \times 10^{-6}\, .$$ It is important to keep in mind that the above bound is plagued by $O(1)$ uncertainties due to the poor knowledge of the matrix elements of $\mathcal{O}_8$ and $\mathcal{O}_8'$.
As stated in the introduction, we are interested in models where the degrees of freedom associated with the third generation are those giving the dominant contribution to the operators in and . This translates in the assumptions $$\xi_8 = W^L_{u3} W^R_{3c}, \qquad\xi_8^{\prime} = W^L_{c3} W^R_{3u}\,,
\label{eq:xi_DeltaAcp}$$ and, for the dipole moments $$\xi_q = W^L_{q3} W^R_{3q}\,,
\label{eq:xi_EDMs}$$ where $W^L_{i3}$ and $W^R_{3i}$ are flavour violating parameters that quantify the communication between the i$^{\rm th}$ generation of quarks, and the new degrees of freedom associated with the third generation. For instance in Supersymmetry, if gluino contributions dominate, they are the matrices in flavour space in the gluino-quark-squark vertices. Notice that everywhere $\Lambda$ is the energy scale associated with the third generation quarks, and that the phases of the parameters in , are flavour violating ones.
- The first important observation is that $\xi_u \xi_c = \xi_8 \xi_8^{\prime}$. In the absence of a direct constraint on $\xi_c$, it was the bound from $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$ that allowed to set the stronger constraint on that combination of parameters. Now, as one can see by taking the product of and , and of with itself, the EDM of the neutron is already setting the stronger bound by a factor of $\sim 60$. This conclusion will be strengthened by the foreseen experimental sensitivities, in the absence of improvements in the understanding of the SM contribution to $\Delta$A$_{\text{CP}}$.
- The above generic situation can be specialized to the case of $W^L_{q3} \simeq V_{qb}$, with $V$ the CKM matrix, as typical of models of alignment . We now assume, for simplicity, maximal phases and all the $O(1)$ coefficients to be one. In this case, the bounds from $\Delta$A$_{\text{CP}}$ imply $$|W^R_{3c}| < 1.1 \times 10^{-3}, \qquad |W^R_{3u}| < 9.2 \times 10^{-5}\,,$$ and those from the charm and up CEDMs require, respectively, $$|W^R_{3c}| < 4.4 \times 10^{-4}, \qquad |W^R_{3u}| < 3.7 \times 10^{-6}\,.$$ where again we have chosen a NP scale $\Lambda = 1$ TeV, and considered one operator at a time. Without considering the contributions from the charm CEDM computed in this paper, one could have saturated the $\Delta$A$_{\text{CP}}$ measured value without being in conflict with the EDMs constraints, via requiring a very small $W^R_{3u}$, see e.g. [@Giudice:2012qq]. Now this possibility is challenged and, with the forseen experimental sensitivities, in these models the neutron EDM will become by far the most powerful observable to probe the flavour violating parameters in and . This conclusion would be strengthened by more than an order of magnitude (totalizing a $\sim 10^3$ better sensitivity to $|W^R_{3c}|$ with respect to $\Delta$A$_{\text{CP}}$) if the deuteron EDM will be measured with a precision of $\sim 10^{-29} e$ cm. We stress that all these bounds should be considered as $O(1)$ limits, barring finetunings of the unknown coefficients and overall phases in front of the operators considered here. This implies, for example, that formally there is the possibility to make the phases entering the CEDMs small so to be in agreement with the bounds and , while keeping larger the ones relevant to $\Delta$A$_{\text{CP}}$ and invalidate the above conclusion.
- In Generic $U(2)^3$ models, one has $$W^L_{q3} = V_{qb}, \quad W^R_{c3} = V_{cb} \epsilon_c, \quad W^R_{u3} = V_{ub} \epsilon_u\,,$$ where $\epsilon_u < \epsilon_c < 1$ are suppression parameters related to the breaking of $U(2)^3$ symmetry in the right quark sector.[^3] In the case of maximal phases and $O(1)$ coefficients equal to one, again considering one operator at a time, the bounds from $\Delta$A$_{\text{CP}}$ now imply $$\epsilon_c < 2.6 \times 10^{-2}, \qquad \epsilon_u < 2.6 \times 10^{-2}\,,$$ and those for the charm and up CEDMs require, respectively, $$\epsilon_c < 1.1 \times 10^{-2},\qquad \epsilon_u < 1.0 \times 10^{-3}\,.$$ Like before, the EDMs are starting to become more sensitive to the parameter $\epsilon_c$ than direct CP violation in charm decays, and will become the best observable to probe the amount of $U(2)^3$ breaking in the up-right quark sector. In this scenario, the flavour symmetry imposes the following relations among the $O(1)$ complex coefficients: $c_D = \tilde{c}_c$ and $c_D^\prime = \tilde{c}_u$ (see Appendix A.2 of [@Barbieri:2012bh]). Thus, contrary to the previous case, in Generic $U(2)^3$ it is not possible to play with the order one parameters and phases to avoid the above conclusions.
A remark is in order to avoid possible confusion. In [@Mannel:2012hb] direct CP violation in $D$ meson decays was related to the neutron EDM. The result was that the same $\Delta C = 1$ operators inducing $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$ at a level compatible with the measured value, also induce a contribution to $d_n$. This contribution is obtained by long distance effects at tree-level, in analogy with the dominant SM contribution by the same authors [@Mannel:2012qk], and its size is at most one order of magnitude below the current experimental sensitivity (and now even smaller, in light of the new $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$ measurement). Here we pursue a different analysis, namely we identify a class of models where a sizeable contribution to $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$ is accompained by flavour conserving CP-violating operators, and study the impact of the last ones on $d_n$, that was not considered in [@Mannel:2012hb]. The contribution to $d_n$ that we find, in these explicit models, is more than an order of magnitude larger than the model independent one obtained in [@Mannel:2012hb].
Supersymmetry with split families {#sec:SUSY}
---------------------------------
Split-families SUSY (often referred to as “Natural SUSY”) [@Dimopoulos:1995mi; @Cohen:1996vb; @Barbieri:2009ev; @Papucci:2011wy] is an explicit realization of the situation described in the previous section. The dominant contributions to the Wilson coefficients defined in and are induced by gluino-stop loops, and read $$\frac{c_D}{\Lambda^2} = \frac{c_D^\prime}{\Lambda^2} =\frac{\tilde c_c}{\Lambda^2} = \frac{\tilde c_u}{\Lambda^2}= \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \frac{1}{m_{\tilde g}^2} \frac{A_t - \mu \cot \beta}{m_{\tilde t}} \frac{5}{36}\, g_8(x_{gt})\,,
\label{SUSY_C8}$$ where $x_{gt} = \dfrac{m_{\tilde g}^2}{m_{\tilde t}^2}$ and $$g_8(x) = x^{\frac{3}{2}} \left(\frac{12}{5} \,\frac{11+x}{(x-1)^3} -\frac{6}{5}\,\frac{9+16 x-x^2}{(x-1)^4}\log{x}\right) \,,\qquad g_8(1) = 1\,.$$ In the suppression factors $\xi_8$, $\xi_8^\prime$ and $\xi_q$, the elements $W^{L(R)}_{q3}$ are those of the mixing matrices entering the gluino-quark-squark vertices of the respective chirality, which are responsible for the flavour violation. Fixing for illustrative purposes $m_{\tilde{g}} = 2 m_{\tilde{t}}$ and assuming maximal phases, the bounds from the CEDMs of the up and charm quarks read, respectively $$\begin{array}{ll}
\left| W_{tu}^R \dfrac{W_{tu}^L}{V_{ub}} \left( \dfrac{A_t - \mu/\tan\beta}{m_{\tilde{t}}}\right)\right| \left(\dfrac{1.5 \text{TeV}}{m_{\tilde{g}}} \right)^2 &\lesssim 6.5 \times 10^{-3}\,, \\
\vspace{-0.2 cm}& \\
\left| W_{tc}^R \dfrac{W_{tc}^L}{V_{cb}} \left( \dfrac{A_t - \mu/\tan\beta}{m_{\tilde{t}}}\right)\right| \left(\dfrac{1.5 \text{TeV}}{m_{\tilde{g}}} \right)^2 &\lesssim 0.77\,,
\label{eq:SUSY_CEDMS_bounds}
\end{array}$$ to be compared with the ones coming from $\Delta$A$_{CP}$ $$\begin{array}{ll}
\left| W_{tu}^R \dfrac{W_{tc}^L}{V_{cb}} \left( \dfrac{A_t - \mu/\tan\beta}{m_{\tilde{t}}}\right)\right| \left(\dfrac{1.5 \text{TeV}}{m_{\tilde{g}}} \right)^2 &\lesssim 0.16\,, \\
\vspace{-0.2 cm}& \\
\left| W_{tc}^R \dfrac{W_{tu}^L}{V_{ub}} \left( \dfrac{A_t - \mu/\tan\beta}{m_{\tilde{t}}}\right)\right| \left(\dfrac{1.5 \text{TeV}}{m_{\tilde{g}}} \right)^2 &\lesssim 1.9\,.
\label{eq:SUSY_DeltaAcp_bounds}
\end{array}$$ Choosing instead $m_{\tilde{t}} = m_{\tilde{g}}$ one would obtain bounds weaker by a factor of $\sim 1.3$.
In split-families SUSY one can improve the robustness of the previous bounds by taking into account all the dominant contributions to $d_n$. Under some assumptions that will be discussed, it is in fact sufficient to add to the previous picture the up electric dipole moment $d_u$. To see this, let us first consider the bounds on the top and bottom CEDMs, and . Again the Supersymmetric contribution to them is dominated by gluino-squark loops, and it reads as the one in Eq. , with the appropriate squark mass and mixing substitution for the bottom case. In addition, the suppression factor for the top case reads $W_{tt}^R W_{tt}^L$, the one for the bottom $y_b/y_t W_{bb}^R W_{bb}^L$. The bounds and then imply$$\begin{array}{ll}
\left|W_{bb}^R W_{bb}^L \left( \dfrac{A_b - \mu \tan\beta}{m_{\tilde{t}}}\right)\right| \left(\dfrac{1.5 \text{TeV}}{m_{\tilde{g}}} \right)^2 & < 18\,, \\
\vspace{-0.2 cm}& \\
\left|W_{tt}^R W_{tt}^L \left( \dfrac{A_t - \mu/\tan\beta}{m_{\tilde{t}}}\right)\right| \left(\dfrac{1.5 \text{TeV}}{m_{\tilde{g}}} \right)^2 & < 59\,.
\label{eq:SUSYbound_bottom_top}
\end{array}$$ Thus it is safe to neglect the top and bottom CEDMs contribution to $d_n$ for values of the matrix elements of order one. Let us now come to the contribution from the down quark EDM and CEDM. First notice that, with respect to the up quark (C)EDMs, they are suppressed by a bottom yukawa coupling, being proportional to $y_b/y_t W_{bd}^L W_{bd}^R$. Also, the $\epsilon_k$ parameter constrains the size of the combination $W_{bs}^L W_{bs}^R W_{bd}^L W_{bd}^R$ to be much smaller than the corresponding one in the up sector, if sbottom and stops have similar masses. In light of these observations, we assume a negligible down quark contribution to the neutron EDM. One is left then with $d_u$, $\tilde{d}_u$ and $\tilde{d}_c$ as dominant contributions to $d_n$. The coefficient of the up-quark electric dipole moment, in the notation of , reads $$\frac{c_u}{\Lambda^2} = \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \frac{1}{m_{\tilde g}^2} \frac{A_t - \mu \cot \beta}{m_{\tilde t}} \frac{1}{27}\, g_7(x_{gt})\,,$$ where $$g_7(x) = x^{\frac{3}{2}} \left(-6 \,\frac{1+5 x}{(x-1)^3} +12\,\frac{x (2+x)}{(x-1)^4}\log{x}\right) \,,\qquad g_7(1) = 1\,.$$ The neutron EDM can then be written in the compact form
$$\frac{d_n}{2.9 \cdot 10^{-26} e \text{cm}} = \left(130 \cdot |W_{tu}^R| \left|\dfrac{W_{tu}^L}{V_{ub}}\right| s_u + 1.3 \cdot |W_{tc}^R| \left|\dfrac{W_{tc}^L}{V_{cb}}\right| s_c\right)\left| \dfrac{A_t - \mu/\tan\beta}{m_{\tilde{t}}}\right| \left(\dfrac{1.5 \text{TeV}}{m_{\tilde{g}}} \right)^2,
\label{eq:EDMn_SUSY}$$
where $s_u$ and $s_c$ are the sines of the phases of $W_{tu}^R W_{tu}^L/V_{ub}$ and $W_{tc}^R W_{tc}^L/V_{cb}$ respectively. The sign ambiguity in the contribution of the Weinberg operator to $d_n$ can be reabsorbed in the sign of $s_c$. Assuming the same matrix elements for the operators $\mathcal{O}_8$ and $\mathcal{O}_8'$ for simplicity, one can cast $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$ in the analogous form $$\frac{\Delta\text{A}_{\rm CP}}{3.29 \cdot 10^{-3}} = \left(0.53 \cdot |W_{tc}^R| \left|\dfrac{W_{tu}^L}{V_{ub}}\right| s_8 + 6.17 \cdot |W_{tu}^R| \left|\dfrac{W_{tc}^L}{V_{cb}}\right| s_8^\prime\right) \left| \dfrac{A_t - \mu/\tan\beta}{m_{\tilde{t}}}\right| \left(\dfrac{1.5 \text{TeV}}{m_{\tilde{g}}} \right)^2,
\label{eq:DaCP_SUSY}$$ where $s_8$ and $s_8^\prime$ are the sines of the phases of $W_{tc}^R W_{tu}^L/V_{ub}$ and $W_{tu}^R W_{tc}^L/V_{cb}$ respectively. Also, the presence of a flavour blind phase in the mixing can easily be reabsorbed in the definitions of $s_{u,c}$, $s_8$ and $s_8^\prime$. In Figure \[fig:SUSY\_bounds\] we show the bounds on $d_n$ and $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$ in the $|W_{tc}^R|$–$|W_{tu}^R|$ plane, for $m_{\tilde{g}} = 2 m_{\tilde{t}} = 1.5$ TeV and $(A_t - \mu/\tan \beta)/m_{\tilde{t}} = 1$. For illustrative purposes we assume all the phases to be maximal, and the left rotation $W^L$ elements to be equal in magnitude to the respective CKM ones. The generalization to the case where there are deviations from these reference values is easily readable off Eqs and .
![The lines represent the experimental sensitivities to the flavour violating matrix elements in split-families SUSY, the shaded region are currently excluded. Dashed: current neutron EDM. Continuous: Direct CP asymmetry in $D$ decays. Dotted: projected neutron EDM.[]{data-label="fig:SUSY_bounds"}](Susy_bounds.pdf){width="9"}
At present, for the reference values of the parameters in Eqs. and , the right charm-stop mixing angle $\theta_{ct}^R$ ($W_{tc}^R \simeq \cos\theta_{ct}^R \sin\theta_{ct}^R$) is not strongly constrained. In particular, values of $|W_{tc}^R| \gtrsim 0.3$ would both weaken the experimental lower bounds on the stop mass and mildly reduce fine-tuning [@Blanke:2013uia]. The projected sensitivities to EDMs shown in Table \[tab:exp\_bounds\] allow one to infer the impact of near-future experimental searches. If flavour violating phases are not significantly suppressed, a negative result at those experiments would reduce the allowed range for the charm-stop mixing by roughly two order of magnitudes[^4]. One could wonder when contributions from the exchange of squarks of the first two generations could interfere with the above ones, and affect in this way the bounds we derived. Those contributions are suppressed by a factor $y_{u,c}/y_t$ evaluated at the high scale, but are at the same time CKM enhanced if one normalize consistently the left mixing matrices $W^L$. Because of this, and of the bound in , the contribution to $\tilde{d}_u$ by a scharm circulating in the loop is potentially the larger one. We checked that, for the reference values for $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $m_{\tilde{t}}$ that we chose, $m_{\tilde c} \gtrsim 5$ TeV is compatible with the bound on $\tilde{d}_u$ for Im$(W_{cu}^R)$ as large as 1. A smaller value of $m_{\tilde c}$ would imply a stronger bound on Im$(W_{cu}^R)$, and would in general affect the bound on $|W_{tu}^R|$ by $O(1)$. Thus it would affect the vertical axis of Fig \[fig:SUSY\_bounds\], but it will not change the impact, on this picture, of the newly derived bound on $\tilde{d}_c$. Its impact would of course be changed by a modification of the bound on $|W_{tc}^R|$. We checked that the same lower bound $m_{\tilde c} \gtrsim 5$ TeV implies that the contribution to $\tilde{d}_c$ is dominated by the third-generation diagram, until Im$(W_{tc}^R) \gtrsim 10^{-2} \text{Im}(W_{cc}^R)$. Thus, with these values of the masses, effects of the first two generation squarks would start to become relevant for the future reach of EDM experiments, if EDMs are still measured to be consistent with zero and if Im$(W_{cc}^R) \simeq 1$.
Finally notice that we have neglected the contribution that would come from CP violation in the Higgs and gaugino sectors, which in any case would also be constrained by the bound[@Baron:2013eja] on the electron EDM (see e.g. [@Barbieri:2014tja]).
Composite Higgs models {#sec:CHM}
----------------------
It is interesting to see how the new bound on the charm CEDM impacts on composite Higgs models [@Kaplan:1983fs; @Georgi:1984af; @Contino:2003ve; @Agashe:2004rs], as a concrete realization of a dynamical suppression of flavour violating processes. We will in fact stick to partial compositeness [@Kaplan:1991dc] as a way to give masses to the SM quarks and to suppress at the same time flavour-changing neutral currents. We will consider a simplified two-site picture, in the spirit of [@Contino:2006nn]. In particular we will include one composite resonance for each SM boson and fermion field. For the purpose of understanding the rest of this section, it is sufficient to define the following phenomenological Lagrangian for the strong sector[^5] $$\mathcal{L}_{\rm s} = \frac{M_*^2}{2} \rho_\mu^2 - m_F \bar{F} F - (Y_U \bar{Q} H U + Y_D \bar{Q} H^c D + \text{h.c.}) - V(H)\,,
\label{eq:L_CHM}$$ and for the mixing of the composite fermions $F$ with the elementary ones $f$ $$\mathcal{L}_{\rm mix} = \lambda_L \bar{q}_LQ + \lambda_{Ru} \bar{U}u_R + \lambda_{Ru} \bar{D}d_R + \text{h.c.}\,.
\label{eq:L_CHM_mix}$$ Here $H$ denotes the Higgs doublet, and $\rho_\mu$ the composite vectors. Indices in flavour space are understood for the mixings $\lambda_f$, as well as for the composite Yukawas and fermion masses $Y_F$ and $m_F$. A sum over all species of fermionic and gauge fields is also understood. The mixings can always be brought to diagonal form, and rotated away in order to obtain the SM fields $f_{\rm SM} = \cos \theta_f f + \sin \theta_f F$. The dominant contributions to chirality breaking operators come from one-loop diagrams involving a fermion resonance and either the Higgs boson or the longitudinal component of $W$ and $Z$. In fact diagrams with a vector and a fermion resonances running in the loop have the same flavour and CP structure of the SM Yukawa terms. Thus they will be diagonal in flavour space, as well as real, in the mass basis for the SM fields. On the contrary the presence of two additional vertices with the composite Higgs introduces two extra composite Yukawas, which are anarchic in flavour space, giving rise to operators that are generically not aligned with the mass basis. Notice that a semiperturbative composite Yukawa coupling is preferred both by the Higgs mass value and naturalness arguments [@Contino:2006qr; @Matsedonskyi:2012ym; @Redi:2012ha; @Pomarol:2012qf; @Marzocca:2012zn], as well as by precision constraints [@Barbieri:2012tu], and thus a loop expansion in this coupling is not inconsistent.
The contributions to the Wilson coefficients of the up and charm CEDMs and of $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$ are suppressed by $$\xi_{u,c} = \frac{y_{u,c}}{y_t} \, \big(Y^*_{u,c}\big)^2\,, \qquad \xi_8 = \lambda_C \, \frac{y_c}{y_t} \, \big(Y^*_8\big)^2\,, \qquad \xi_8^{\prime} = \frac{y_u}{y_t}\frac{1}{\lambda_C} \, \big(Y^*_{8^\prime}\big)^2\,,
\label{eq:CHM_supprCoeffs}$$ where $\lambda_C$ is the Cabibbo angle, and $Y^*_{u,c}$, $Y^*_{8,8^\prime}$ are linear combinations of elements of the anarchic composite Yukawa matrices of , which are in general complex. Notice that those linear combinations depend also on which generations of composite resonances are running in the loop.
To simplify the discussion, it is convenient to decouple the first two generations of composite fermions. Naturalness considerations and the measured value of the Higgs mass require only the third generation resonances to lie close to the Fermi scale, while the other ones could well be heavier[^6] [@Contino:2006qr]. This assumption implies the relation $Y^*_{8^\prime} Y^*_8 = Y^*_c Y^*_u$, and also that the order one coefficients of and are all equal. They can be obtained from Refs. [@Agashe:2008uz; @Vignaroli:2012si], where the one-loop contribution coming from a fermion resonance running in the loop together with the Higgs and the Goldstone bosons is computed. Neglecting terms further suppressed by $O(m_W^2/m_T^2)$, we find $$\frac{c_D}{\Lambda^2} = \frac{c_D^\prime}{\Lambda^2} =\frac{\tilde c_c}{\Lambda^2} = \frac{\tilde c_u}{\Lambda^2} \simeq \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \frac{9/8}{m_T^2}\,,
\label{eq:CHM_O1Coeffs}$$ where we assumed the partners of the left- and right-handed top and bottom quarks to have the same mass $m_T$. The bounds on the up and charm CEDMs then imply $$m_T \gtrsim 2.1 \,Y^*_u \;\text{TeV}, \qquad m_T \gtrsim 1.2 \, Y^*_c \;\text{TeV}\,,\label{CHM:dn_T}$$ to be compared with the ones coming from $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$ $$m_T \gtrsim 1.3 \,Y^*_8 \;\text{TeV}, \qquad m_T \gtrsim 0.26 \, Y^*_{8^\prime}\;\text{TeV}\,.\label{CHM:Dacp_T}$$ Currently one could still saturate the experimental upper limit on $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$ in such scenarios [@KerenZur:2012fr; @Delaunay:2012cz], without running into any conflict with the bounds from the neutron EDM (for example by taking $Y_8^*$ sufficiently larger than $Y_u^*$). With the foreseen improvement in experimental sensitivity this possibility will be strongly challenged, for semiperturbative values of the composite Yukawas. Notice also that the combination $Y^*_{8^\prime} Y^*_8 = Y^*_c Y^*_u$ is more constrained by the bounds from the CEDMs than from those coming from $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$.
An analysis of the total contribution to $d_n$, similar to the one performed in Section \[sec:SUSY\] for Supersymmetry, cannot be carried out in an analogously simple way for CHMs. This is due mainly to the presence of potentially unsuppressed contributions to $d_n$ from $d_d$ and $\tilde{d}_d$.
Summary and conclusions {#sec:Summary}
=======================
Measurements of CP violating observables are among the strongest indirect probes of high energy scales. It is therefore important to study their implications for our knowledge of physics beyond the SM. In this paper, we pursued a step in the above direction.
We derived bounds on the charm electric and chromo-electric dipole moments, $d_c$ and $\tilde{d}_c$. For $d_c$, we considered its possibile dangerous contributions to the neutron EDM, $d_n$, and to the branching ratio BR($B \to X_s \gamma$). In the first case we made use of the contribution of $d_c$ to $d_d$ from electroweak running, and derived the bound in Eq. . In the second case we considered the relevant loop process proportional to $d_c$, yielding to the bound in Eq. . However, the stronger bound was by far the one on the charm CEDM $\tilde{d}_c$. We obtained it via its threshold effect in the three gluon Weinberg operator. This operator in turn contributes to hadronic dipole moments, like the neutron and the deuteron ones, yielding to $\tilde{d}_c < 1.0 \times 10^{-22}\,e$ cm at 90% C.L. at the charm mass scale. This is one of the two main results of this paper.
We also pointed out the relevance of this bound for models allowing for a non-negligible flavour violation in the right-handed up quarks sector. These models are still largely unconstrained due to the weakness of the flavour and CP violating bounds compared to those for the down-quark sector. Explicit examples are models of flavour alignment and Generic $U(2)^3$. Before this work, the CP asymmetry in flavour violating $D$ decays, $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$, was setting the stronger constraints on the relevant flavour violating parameters in these models. We found that the current bound on $d_n$ is already sligthly more constraining than $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$. More importantly, the lack of a theoretical understanding of the SM contribution to $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$, combined with the expected improvement in experimental sensitivity to $d_n$, will make the neutron EDM the most sensitive probe for these flavour violating parameters, strengthening the current bounds by more than two orders of magnitude. We also specialized our analysis to various new physics models, such as split-families Supersymmetry, and composite Higgs models with partial compositeness. In particular in the first case, under some motivated assumptions, it was possible to find concise expressions for the total supersymmetric contribution to both $d_n$ and $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$. We think that these results constitute a further motivation to increase the experimental sensitivities to $d_n$ and $\Delta$A$_{\rm CP}$, and to continue the effort to achieve a better theoretical control of the latter.
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
We thank Michele Papucci for many precious discussions and for comments on the manuscript. We also thank Jordy de Vries and Emanuele Mereghetti for useful discussions, and Martin Gorbahn and Ulrich Haisch for spotting an error (now corrected) in Eq. . This work is supported in part by the European Programme “Unification in the LHC Era", contract PITN-GA-2009-237920 (UNILHC), by MIUR under the contract 2010YJ2NYW-010, and by the European Research Council (ERC) under the EU Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / [Erc]{} Starting Grant (agreement n. 278234 - ‘[NewDark]{}’ project).
[^1]: For a more thorough discussion of future prospects see Section 7 of [@Hewett:2012ns] and references therein.
[^2]: A recent reevaluation of the neutron EDM [@Fuyuto:2012yf] sets a value which is smaller than the one used here, namely $ d_n = 0.79 d_d - 0.20 d_u + e (0.59 \tilde{d}_d + 0.30 \tilde{d}_u)$ (PQ-symmetric case, $w$ contribution ignored). The difference stems from having evaluated a parameter with the lattice instead of using QCD sum rules. For the mercury EDM, see also the recent error estimate of [@Jung:2013hka], which makes the quark CEDMs impact compatible with zero.
[^3]: In terms of the notation of Ref. [@Barbieri:2012bh], $\epsilon_u = \dfrac{s_R^u}{s_L^u} \dfrac{\epsilon_R^u}{\epsilon_L}$ and $\epsilon_c = \dfrac{\epsilon_R^u}{\epsilon_L}$.
[^4]: A study of future collider sensitivity to $|W_{tc}^R|$ goes beyond the purposes of this work, see Ref. [@Blanke:2013uia] for an explorative analysis.
[^5]: We understand canonically normalized kinetic terms. Details about the parameters depend on the specific representation of the resonances, see [@Contino:2006nn] and, e.g., [@Barbieri:2012tu].
[^6]: Unlike in Supersymmetry, direct collider bounds are not an additional motivation to choose such a spectrum, see e.g. [@Redi:2013eaa].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
‘=11 makefntext\#1[ to 3.2pt [-.9pt $^{{\eightrm\@thefnmark}}$]{}\#1]{} makefnmark[to 0pt[$^{\@thefnmark}$]{}]{} PS. @myheadings[mkbothgobbletwo oddhead[ ]{} oddfootevenheadevenfoot \#\#1\#\#1]{}
=5truein =7.56truein
refcitex\[\#1\]\#2[@fileswauxout citearefcite[forciteb:=\#2]{}[\#1]{}]{} refcite\#1\#2[[\[[\#1]{}\]@tempswa [WSPC warning: optional citation argument ignored: ‘\#2’]{} ]{}]{} \#1\#2 \#1\#2
**MOTION OF A VECTOR PARTICLE IN A CURVED SPACE-TIME.**
**I. LAGRANGIAN APPROACH.**
ZAFAR TURAKULOV[^1]
*Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics,*
*Post Bag 4, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411007, India*
MARGARITA SAFONOVA[^2]
*Department of Physics and Astrophysics, University of Delhi*
*New Delhi–7, India*
Introduction
============
According to the equivalence principle (EP) of the general theory of relativity (GR), motion of structureless test particles in a gravitational background is determined only by the spacetime geometry: particle worldlines are the geodesics of the spacetime. Things become more complicated for test particles which are not structureless and carry, for example, a non-vanishing charge or spin. In such cases, the worldline of a particle, in general, is no longer a geodesic, but is modified by electromagnetic and/or spin-gravity forces (for, e.g., and references therein). The problem of the motion of [*classical*]{} spinning particle in external fields has occupied scientists for nearly all of the last century. Covariant equations of motion for a relativistic particle in an electromagnetic field were first written more than 70 years ago by Frenkel [@Frenkel]. For the case of a gravitational field, Mathisson [@Mathisson] and Papapetrou [@Papapetrou] found the energy-momentum and angular momentum propagation equations for a rotating test body (“pole-dipole particle") according to the Einstein’s GR. Tulczyjew [@Tulczyjew], Beiglboeck [@Beiglboeck] and Madore [@Madore] developed these into laws of motion by adding a definition of a centre-of-mass world line. Later, Dixon [@Dixon] generalized these treatments and made them more rigorous. All theses works dealt with the motion of extended rigid bodies or tops. It is far from obvious whether one can observe in practice the spin corrections to the equations of motion of elementary particles. However, the problem of influence of the spin on the trajectory of a particle in an external field is not of only theoretical interest. Spin-dependent corrections certainly exist in differential cross sections of scattering processes. It was proposed long ago to separate charged particles of different polarizations through the spin interaction with external fields in a storage ring of accelerator [@Niinikoski]. Though this proposal is being discussed rather actively now (see a review in Ref. ) it is not yet clear whether it is feasible technically. The EP can be put to test in an astrophysical setting, a recent proposal being based on the analysis of the differential time delay between the arrival of left and right-handed circularly polarized (LCP and RCP) signals from the millisecond pulsar PSR 1937+214 [@Biplab]. However, far few papers exist on the theoretical foundations of possible deviations of the photon motion from geodesics (see, e.g., Ref. ). Here we report yet another approach to this long-standing problem. If an appropriate Lagrangian density is taken into account, then the photon equation of motion (modified geodesic equation) can be found from the Euler-Lagrange equations.
Formalism
=========
The generalized concept exists that classical particles follow the path of the least spacetime distance between the endpoints, even when space is curved by gravity. Thus, in (pseudo-) Riemannian spaces the geodesic equation is found from the variation of an action $S$, identified with the parameter $s$ of a curve interpreted as its length. The same method has been used to find the geodesic equation of light where, however, one technical problem arises: photon’s worldline has no length. One way to avoid this difficulty is to consider the motion of a massive vector particle and, if the obtained equation does not contain mass explicitly, simply put the mass to zero; with one further condition that the four velocity of a particle be a null vector. This method has been widely used for scalar particles and is known to give the equation of geodesic regardless of mass. In this work we apply this approach, which makes it possible to use the length parameter of the action principle.
Usually in order to describe the behavior of a field in a given gravitational background, one solves the corresponding field equations for a given metric. If the goal is to describe waves, one can take the corresponding wave solution. In a spherically symmetric spacetime the solutions contain factors expressed in terms of spherical harmonics. This method works well when the wavelength is comparable to the scales under consideration. It is not so in the case of light propagating in the vicinity of a massive object and, to describe the propagation of light as an electromagnetic field, one would have to employ the spherical harmonics of a very high order. The corresponding solution would look too complicated and tell little about the behavior of light.
Many efforts have been spent in the last decades to work out a simple approach to this problem that would give a satisfactory approximation to the wave as some curves that could be called “rays" and, at the same time, would take into account the polarization of light. In the present work we try to work out a simple approximation of this type. Our idea consists of the following: we consider a massive vector field obeying the Proca equation, describing the propagation of this field, in some restricted domain of the spacetime. The shape of the domain can be chosen as that of some world-tube transverse to the wave, with the cross-section comparable to the wavelength, or, say, not greater than two orders of magnitude. As this tube is timelike there must exist a timelike curve ${\Lambda}$ in its interior, which specifies a local coordinate system as the time axis. And if the tube is not too wide, this coordinate system would cover the entire interior. If $s$ is the proper time on the curve ${\Lambda}$, the curve can be chosen in such a way that the field equation reduces to +m\^2A\_i = 0, the same way as it happens in standard Cartesian coordinates for Minkowskian spacetime. Correspondingly, the field Lagrangian is $-\dot{\bf
A}^2 + m^2{\bf
A}^2$, where dot stands for the covariant derivative on $s$, if and only if the curve ${\Lambda}$ is chosen properly. This Lagrangian should contain one more term responsible for the shape of ${\Lambda}$, yielding the geodesic equation when we switch off the field. The form of this term is well known: $1/2 m\dot
{\bf
x}^2$, thus our final Lagrangian is 2L = m \^2 - \^2 + m\^2 [**A**]{}\^2 , \[eq:lagrangian\] and coupling between the field and the shape of the curve ${\Lambda}$ is incorporated in the form of a covariant derivative $\dot A$, which contains the product of connection, velocity $\dot
x$ and the field.
The derivation of the conservation laws is more convenient in orthonormal frames. In what follows, $e^a_i$ will denote the components of an orthonormal 1-form frame field, \^a = e\^a\_i(x)dx\^i, and $e_a^i$ the components of its dual vector frame field, \_a=e\^i\_a(x). \[eq:e\^i\_a\] Here frame indices are always $a,b,c,...$; coordinate indices are $i,j,k,...$. The metric tensor can be expressed as g=g\_[ij]{}dx\^i dx\^j=\_[ab]{}\^a \^b. The connection 1-form for these frames may be introduced through the first structure equation: d\^a=ø\_b\^[a]{} \^b,ø\_[ab]{}+ø\_[ba]{}=0 \[eq:cartan1\] and the connection coefficients ${\gamma}_{abc}$ are that of the expansion of this 1-form in the local frames $\left\{{\theta}^a\right\}$: ø\_b\^[c]{} =\_[ab]{}\^[c]{}\^a. Thus, A\^a = + \_[bc]{}\^[a]{}A\^c or $\dot
A^a$ is a covariant derivative in orthonormal frame on a curve $x^i(s)$ with $\gamma_{bc}^{\;\;\;a}$ being a spin connection.
Equations of Motion
===================
Each generalized coordinate has its conjugate generalized momentum: p\_a = m \_[ab]{} x\^b - \_[db]{} A\^b A\^c \_[ac]{}\^[d]{} . and E\_a = -A\^b \_[ab]{}, \[eq:E\_a\] Corresponding to them the Euler-Lagrange equations are p\_a = \[eq:p\_a\] and E\_a = . \[eq:eulerforE\_a\] Let us first consider equations for the $E_a$ (\[eq:eulerforE\_a\]). Right hand side of this equation is: = -A\^c \_[bc]{} \_[ca]{}\^[b]{}x\^c + m\^2 A\^c\_[ac]{}. And Euler-Lagrange equations for $E_a$ will be: (E\_a -E\_a \_[ca]{}\^[b]{} x\^c )- m\^2 A\^c\_[ac]{} = 0, where we used Eq. \[eq:E\_a\]. Expression in the brackets is a covariant derivative for $E_a$, thus, we obtain: E\_a - m\^2 A\^c\_[ac]{} = 0. Again using Eq. \[eq:E\_a\], we finally obtain: A\^b \_[ab]{} + m\^2 A\^b \_[ab]{} = 0 , which, as we can see, reduces to Proca equation for the four-vector field $A_{\mu}(x)$ [@QFTbook]: ( +m\^2) A\_ =0. \[eq:proca\]
We describe spin of the particle in this model directly by a tensor of spin $S_{ab}$: mS\_[ab]{} = (A\_b A\_a - A\_a A\_b ). \[eq:spin\_def\] To obtain the equation of motion for spin, we write m = . Due to (\[eq:proca\]) all partial derivatives of $A$ vanish and we are left with: & & m = x\^a (e\^i\_[d]{} e\^j\_[b]{}) =\
& & x\^c(\_[cd]{}\^[a]{} + \_[cb]{}\^[a]{} ). Here $e^i_a$ is the matrix introduced in the equation (\[eq:e\^i\_a\]) and derivatives $\left(e^i_{b}\right)_{,a}$ are obtained from the first structure equation (\[eq:cartan1\]).
Using our definition of a spin tensor (Eq. \[eq:spin\_def\]), we obtain: = x\^c (\_[cd]{}\^[a]{} S\_[ab]{} + \_[cb]{}\^[a]{} S\_[ad]{} ), or = 0 . \[eq:spin0\] Thus, spin is transported parallel to itself along the worldline.
To derive Euler-Lagrange equations for generalized momentum, we return to the coordinate basis. In this case Lagrangian (Eq. \[eq:lagrangian\]) will take a form[^3]: 2L=mg\_[ij]{}x\^i x\^j - g\_[ij]{}( + \^i\_[kl]{} x\^k A\^l) ( + \^j\_[kl]{} x\^k A\^l) + m\^2g\_[ij]{}A\^iA\^j, where ${\Gamma}^j_{kl}$ now are Christoffel symbols. Generalized momentum from here is: p\_i = m g\_[ij]{}x\^j - \^m\_[il]{} A\^l A\_m.
In coordinate basis Eq. \[eq:p\_a\] becomes: p\_i = .
LHS of this equation is: = m g\_[ij]{} + m x\^j x\^k \_k g\_[ij]{} - x\^j A\^l A\_m \_j \^m\_[il]{} - \^m\_[il]{}(A\_m + A\^l ) , \[eq:LHS\] where derivatives ${\partial}_i$ are defined as ${\partial}_i={\frac{\partial}{\partial {x^i}}}$. RHS is: = m \_i g\_[jk]{} x\^j x\^k + \_ig\_[mn]{} (-A\^m A\^n + m\^2 A\^m A\^n ) - g\_[mn]{} x\^k A\^l A\^n \_i \^m\_[kl]{} . \[eq:RHS\] Subtracting (\[eq:RHS\]) from (\[eq:LHS\]), we obtain: & & m g\_[ij]{} + m x\^j x\^k \_k g\_[ij]{} - m \_i g\_[jk]{} x\^j x\^k - \_ig\_[mn]{} m\^2 A\^mA\^n - \^m\_[il]{} A\^l +\
& & \_i g\_[mn]{} A\^m A\^n - \^m\_[il]{}A\_m - x\^j A\^l A\_m\_j \^m\_[il]{} + g\_[mn]{}x\^k A\^l A\^n \_i \^[m]{}\_[kl]{} = 0 . \[eq:E\_L1\] Using \_i g\_[mn]{}= (g\_[kn]{}\^k\_[mi]{} +g\_[km]{}\^k\_[in]{}), \[eq:del\_g\] and some algebra, we obtain from (\[eq:E\_L1\]) & & mg\_[ij]{} -( m\^2 \^k\_[mi]{}A\^m A\_k + \^m\_[il]{} A\^l A\_m ) - \^m\_[il]{}\^k\_[mj]{} x\^j A\^l A\_k + \^n\_[mi]{}A\^m A\_n -\
& & \^m\_[il]{}A\^l A\_m + x\^j A\^n A\_m \^m\_[il]{}\^l\_[jn]{} - x\^j A\^l A\_m \_j \^m\_[il]{} + x\^k A\^l A\_m \_i\^m\_[kl]{}=0. We may notice that terms in the brackets are zero due to the Proca equation (\[eq:proca\]) and terms containing $\dot
A\dot A$ cancel; the remaining terms g\_[ij]{}m = x\^j A\^lA\_k (\_j\^k\_[il]{} -\_i\^k\_[jl]{} + \^k\_[im]{}\^m\_[jl]{} - \^k\_[mj]{}\^m\_[il]{} ). With the definitions of the curvature tensor and spin tensor (\[eq:spin\_def\]), the equation takes the evidently covariant form: g\_[ij]{} = R\^[k]{}\_[jil]{} x\^j S\_k\^[l]{} . \[eq:pap1\] This equation coincides with the Papapetrou equation [@Papapetrou]. It must be pointed out that in case of a zero spin this equation becomes a geodesic. If we reparametrise the curve with some new parameter ${\lambda}$ in such a way that g\_[ij]{} =0, we can rewrite Eq. \[eq:pap1\] as g\_[ij]{} = R\^[k]{}\_[jil]{} x\^j S\_k\^[l]{} . This equation is valid for the massless particles with spin as well, since mass does not enter the equation explicitly.
Acknowledgments
===============
ZT wishes to thank ICTP, Trieste for a travel grant NET-53. MS is supported by an ICCR scholarship (Indo-Russian Exchange programme) and authors thank the hospitality of IUCAA, Pune, where this work has been carried out.
References
==========
[99]{}
A. A. Pomeranskiǐ, R. A. Sen’kov, and I. B. Khriplovitch, [*Physics–Uspekhi*]{}, [43]{} (10), 1055 (2000).
A. Balakin, J. W. van Holten, and R. Kerner, [Class. Quantum Grav.]{}, [17]{}, 5009 (2000).
J. Frenkel, [Z. Physik]{}, [37]{}, 243 (1926).
M. Mathisson, [Acta Phys. Pol.]{}, [6]{}, 163 (1937).
A. Papapetrou, [Proc. R. Soc. London A]{}, [209]{}, 248 (1951).
W. Tulczyjew, [Acta Phys. Pol.]{}, [ 18]{}, 393 (1959).
W. Beiglböck, [Commun. Math. Phys.]{}, [5]{}, 106 (1967).
J. Madore, [C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris]{}, [ 263]{}, 746 (1966).
W. G. Dixon, [Proc. R. Soc. London A]{}, [ 314]{}, 499 (1970); [319]{}, 509 (1970); [Gen. Relativ. Gravit.]{}, [4]{}, 199 (1973).
T. O. Niinikoski and R. Rosmanith, [Nucl. Instrum. Methods A]{}, [225]{}, 460 (1987).
K. Heinemann, Preprint DESY 96-229; phys/9611001.
B. Bhawal, H. S. Mani, and C. V. Vishveshwara, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, [44]{}, 1323 (1991).
S. Mohanty and A. R. Prasanna, [Nucl. Phys. B.]{}, [526]{}, 501 (1998).
C. Itzykson and J.-B. Zuber, [Quantum Field Theory]{}, (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1980), p. 135.
[^1]: Institute of Nuclear Physics, Ulugbek, Tashkent 702132, Uzbekistan.
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: It must be noted that while Eq. 2 represents a non-relativistic Lagrangian of the free mass point when we remove the field part, here we use the relativistic form; in this case both forms are actually equivalent. When we are considering relativistic kinematics (free motion of a mass point, for example), the trajectory will be a geodesic regardless of what form a Lagrangian we take.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Here we investigate specifically the transient of a synchronizing system, considering synchronization as a relaxation phenomenon. The stepwise establishment of synchronization is studied in the system of dynamically coupled maps introduced by Ito & Kaneko (2001 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **88** 028701, 2003 *Phys. Rev. E* **67** 046226), where the plasticity of dynamical couplings might be relevant in the context of neuroscience. We show the occurrence of logarithmically slow dynamics in the transient of a fully deterministic dynamical system.'
address:
- |
Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Imperial College London,\
53 Prince’s Gate, South Kensington Campus, SW7 2PG, London, UK\
and
- |
Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London,\
South Kensington Campus, SW7 2AZ, London, UK
author:
- 'Gil Benk[ö]{} and Henrik Jeldtoft Jensen'
bibliography:
- 'recordk.bib'
title: Logarithmically slow onset of synchronization
---
Introduction
============
The importance of transients in the dynamics of complex systems is manifold : for example, the transient state can be more relevant than the equilibrium state if most or more of the time is spent in the former. Also, relaxation dynamics can inform on the underlying energy, fitness, or cost landscape of a system [@Wales2004], and thus help to understand it better as a whole.
In this paper we are interested in studying synchronization, a dynamical property of networks that is widely observed in fields such as optics, chemistry, biology and ecology, for instance in the brain [@Gray1989; @Varela2001] or in fireflies. Synchronization has been analysed for many physical systems [@Pecora1997; @Pikovsky2001]. The onset of synchronization is of general relevance. Similarity with relaxation, for example in spin glasses, or in superconductors, can be used to study synchronization. Transients can be used to probe the properties of synchronizing systems [@Arenas2006]. However, there has been little research so far on synchronization as a relaxation phenomenon [@Abramson2000; @Manrubia2000]. The aim of this paper is to systematically study the transient of a synchronizing system.
A specific form of relaxation dynamics are glassy dynamics, when the transient is extremely long [@Jensen2007]. Furthermore, in a number of systems with glassy dynamics the special case of logarithmically slow dynamics has been observed. However, so far all of these systems were stochastically driven. Here we show the occurrence of logarithmically slow dynamics in the transient of a fully deterministic dynamical system. In the first part of the paper we explain the model, a globally coupled map (GCM), with adaptive coupling which is inspired by the plasticity of synapses. We then study characteristics of its transients for a range of parameters. Finally we show that for some parameters the transient is logarithmically slow and that it can be explained by a simple model.
The Ito-Kaneko model of synchronization
=======================================
The Ito-Kaneko model [@Ito2001; @Ito2003] is a globally coupled map (GCM), a coupled simultaneous system of $N$ logistic equations. The individual maps or units $x^i$ are defined and coupled as follows :
$$\begin{aligned}
\eqalign{
x^i_{t+1} & = \left(1-c\right) f(x^i_t) + c \sum^N_{j=1} w^{ij}_t f(x^j_t) \label{eq:gcm1} \\
f(x) & = a x \left(1-x\right) \\
w^{ij}_{t+1} & = \frac{[ 1 + \delta g(x^i_t,x^j_t) ] w^{ij}_t}
{\sum^N_{j=1} [ 1 + \delta g(x^i_t,x^j_t) ] w^{ij}_t} \\
g(x,y) & = 1 - 2 \left|x-y\right| \,,}\end{aligned}$$
where $a$ is the logistic equation parameter and $c$ is the coupling parameter. The coupling is further tuned by weights $w^{ij}$, which are dynamical variables as well. The function $g$, scaled by a parameter $\delta$, defines a Hebbian update of the connection weights, by reinforcing the connections between similar units. This Hebbian plasticity of the couplings is inspired by the synaptic plasticity which enables nervous systems to learn [@Antonov2003].
\
The system exhibits three different long-term behaviours which can be classified into three phases, depending on the parameters. In the coherent phase $C$, all units synchronize, forming one synchronized cluster containing all units. In the ordered phase $O$, the set of units is partitioned into subsets or clusters $C_k$ within which there is synchronization or which contain single units not synchronized with any other unit. In the following, in line with [@Ito2001; @Ito2003; @Manrubia2000], we will call the number of parts in this partition the cluster number. Finally, in the disordered phase $D$, no synchronization at all is achieved, forming a partition with a cluster number of value $N$. The phase diagram in shows the boundaries between predominant phases in a part of the parameter space.
Synchronization transients
==========================
It has been found previously that in a static links version of the Ito-Kaneko model its transient is exponential in the ordered regime $O$ and that its length diverges when the border $O/D$ between the ordered and disordered regimes is approached [@Abramson2000; @Manrubia2000]. Stretched exponential decay of correlation functions has been found in a similar system [@Katzav2005].
In the following we study the transient in detail, and focus on the way events during the transient are simulated and detected. The system was simulated numerically, each initial $x^i$ being randomly chosen in the interval $[0,1]$. The initial $w^{ij}$ are set to $1/(N-1)$. A higher precision simulation method similar to Pikovsky *et al.* [@Pikovsky2001a] was used in order to avoid synchronization artifacts due to limited numerical precision. Two units $x^i$ and $x^j$ were considered to be synchronized if $|x^i - x^j| < 10^{-270}$. Due to the resulting increased computation times we focused on a part of the parameter space, shown in . During each run of a simulation, the time steps $t_k$ at which two units synchronized were recorded. We term these $t_k$ synchronization events. As the successive synchronization is analyzed in analogy to the investigation of avalanches and quakes in [@Anderson2004], where a set of events is considered as one quake, here any synchronization events less than $\Delta t=10$ time steps apart are considered together as a single synchronization event.
In (a) we show as an example the time evolution of the number of synchronized clusters for a single simulation run. The number of clusters drops stepwise from $N = 100$ during a long transient. We note $N_{\textrm{sync}}(t)$ the number of synchronization events until time step $t$. If, after a synchronization event at time step $t_k$, no further synchronization events happened for a duration of $4 t_k$, the simulation was stopped. We define the synchronization transient as the time from the beginning of the simulation until the last synchronization event.
![(Top) Divergence of transient length as the border to the disordered region is approached, with $a = 3.9$. Shown are the time of the first synchronization event $t_1$ (solid black), of the 25th synchronization event $t_{25}$ (dark gray), and of the last synchronization event $t_\infty$ (light gray), and $t_w$ (dotted black when $w$ converges in all realizations, dash-dotted otherwise). (Bottom) Corresponding number of synchronization clusters (averaged over 25 simulation runs).[]{data-label="fig:firstrec"}](figure2.eps "fig:"){width=".9\textwidth"}\
The dependence of the transient on the parameters $a$ and $c$ is shown in (b) and (c). The main feature is that the length of the transient, and also the time until the connection weights $w^{ij}$ stabilize, increases as the the overall coupling $c$ decreases. shows again in detail how the length of transient diverges as $c$ diminishes, with the parameter of the logistic function $a = 3.9$ constant. This makes intuitively sense as the system changes from a regime with some synchronization (ordered) to a regime with no synchronization at all (disordered). For the rest of this paper, $a$ is fixed to 3.9.
A theoretical value for the coupling $c_{O/D}$ at which the length of the transient diverges can be analytically derived for a system in which the weights $w^{ij}$ stabilize, see [@Ito2001; @Ito2003]. The divergence of the transient corresponds to the border between the ordered and disordered regimes and can thus be calculated by studying the stability of the ordered state, using the transversal Lyapunov exponent. At the considered border the system only forms synchronization clusters of size up to 2, i.e. only isolated pairs of synchronized units are formed. The transversal Lyapunov exponent for a system in which the weights stabilize is then [@Ito2001; @Ito2003]: $$\label{eq:transexp}
\Lambda_\bot = \ln|1 - 2c| + \Lambda_f \,,$$ where $\Lambda_f$ is the Lyapunov exponent of $f(x)$, the logistic function. For $a = 3.9$, the Lyapunov exponent of the logistic function calculated by simulation is $\Lambda_f \approx 0.73$ and we obtain a theoretical value $c \approx 0.26$. In our system the weights $w^{ij}$ do not stabilize, which seems to enable synchronization at lower $c$ values, as the border lies at $c_{O/D} \approx 0.15$.
\
We studied the transient in a logarithmic timescale for $c$ values close to and far from $c_{O/D}$. In we plotted $N_{\textrm{sync}}(t_\infty)-N_{\textrm{sync}}(t)$ against time in order to detect exponential transients of the form $N_{\textrm{sync}}(t_\infty)-N_{\textrm{sync}}(t) \propto \rme^{-\beta t}$, as described in [@Abramson2000; @Manrubia2000]. For $c = 0.28$, shown in , the transient is indeed exponential. However, as $c$ decreases, the transient turns more irregular, see ($c = 0.22$). Eventually, for $c = 0.158$, very close to $c_{O/D}$, the transient is extremely long and settles into the stretched exponential shape shown in . Stretched exponential relaxation has been observed in related systems [@Katzav2005]. Also the evolution of the variance of the considered quantity is different depending on whether $c$ away and very close to the border. The difference in the shape of the transient and its variance indicates that a different process is underlying the system at the border $O/D$. In the following we study further the transient statistics at the border $O/D$.
Logarithmically slow transients
===============================
We are especially interested in the unusual dynamics at the border $O/D$. Also, this border separates ordered from disordered behaviour and is interesting because of the relevance of computation at the edge of chaos in neural nets [@Natschlaeger2005]. The transient at the border is characterized by its extreme length.
Extremely long transients have also been observed in other many component systems with glassy dynamics [@Jensen2007]. There, the time span needed to reach a steady, time independent state is often far beyond experimentally accessible time scales. For example, when melted alloys are cooled down they typically retain the amorphous arrangement characteristic of the liquid high temperature phase while the molecular mobility decreases many orders of magnitude, rendering it near impossible to reach thermodynamic equilibrium. However, over short time scales the system properties may appear to be time independent as in thermal equilibrium. Only when several orders of magnitude of time scales are covered the slow change of macroscopic characteristic properties with time can be resolved directly.
![Synchronization transient near the border $O/D$, with $c = 0.158$. (a-insert) Time dependence of the number of synchronization clusters for a single simulation run. (b) Time dependence of the number of synchronization events for 25 simulation runs (thin lines) and corresponding variance (dashed), a linear fit and a fit of the simple model described by (thick lines).[]{data-label="fig:nbvst"}](figure4a_4b.eps "fig:"){width=".9\textwidth"}\
(b)\
A superposition of 25 simulations runs for $c = 0.158$ close to $c_{O/D}$ covering the whole very long transient up to $t = 10^7$ is shown in . Due to computational complexity no value closer to $c_{O/D}$ was used. Interestingly, the transient is linear on a logarithmic timescale for intermediate times. In the following we describe an approach to modeling the transient.
A simple model would be to assume that the rate of synchronization events is proportional to the rate at which any two units have close values by chance, i.e. ’collide’. However, at low overall coupling $c$, units $x^i$ can only synchronize with a single additional unit and form pairs. Thus units that are already paired up are not available anymore to synchronize with other units. So simplifying further, if we note the number of synchronization events $N_{\textrm{sync}}(t)$, and the number of unsynchronized units is approximately $N - N_{\textrm{sync}}(t)$, we obtain: $$\frac{\rmd N_{\textrm{sync}}(t)}{\rmd t} = k (N - N_{\textrm{sync}}(t))^2$$ and $$N_{\textrm{sync}}(t) = N - \frac{1}{\frac{1}{N}+k t}\,.
\label{eq:synctr}$$ We further assume that only an effectual subset of the $N$ units can actually synchronize due to the low overall coupling $c$, so we replace $N$ by an effectual, i.e. actually operating number of units $N_\textrm{eff}$ in the above formula. The predicted $N_{\textrm{sync}}(t)$ agrees well with the simulated data for $N_\textrm{eff} = 24.5$ and $k = 6\cdot10^{-7}$, see (b). However, it is not possible to find a reasonable fit of the simulated $N_{\textrm{sync}}(t)$ to for higher values of $c$.
We also observed that $N_{\textrm{sync}}(t)$ is linear on a logarithmic timescale for intermediate times. This might be related to the log-time dependence that has been previously obtained for non-homogeneous Poisson processes in logarithmic time (log-Poisson). The hypothesized mechanism behind these processes is inspired by intermittency studies of fluctuations in glassy systems, that have demonstrated that large intermittent fluctuations are responsible for the deviations from equilibrium statistics [@Buisson2003]. It was suggested that abrupt and irreversible moves from one metastable configuration to another, so-called quakes, are a result of record sized fluctuations. The assumption that the metastable attractors typically selected by the glassy dynamics have marginally increasing stability means that a fluctuation bigger than any previously occurred fluctuation, i.e. a record-sized fluctuation, can induce a quake [@Sibani2003; @Sibani1993]. Quakes lead to entrenchment into gradually more stable configurations, and carry the average drift of the dynamics. The quakes have a similar effect on a logarithmic time scale, which might be modeled by a Poisson process in logarithmic time.
Log-Poisson processes have been observed in the NK model of evolution [@Sibani99], charge-density waves [@Sibani1993], and further in spin glasses, supercooled magnet relaxation, and the Tangled Nature evolution model [@Anderson2004]. While in a Poisson process the probabilities for events $t_k$ are characterized by [@vanKampen2007]: $$P[ N(t+\tau) - N(t) = k ] =
\frac{\rme^{-\lambda\tau}(\lambda\tau)^k}{k!}$$ and $$P[ t_k - t_{k-1} < x ] = 1 - \rme^{-\lambda x}\,,$$ in analogy, in a log-Poisson process we have [@Sibani2003]: $$P[ N(t+\tau) - N(t) = k ] =
\frac{1}{k!}\left(\frac{t+\tau}{t}\right)^{-\lambda}\left(\lambda\frac{t+\tau}{t}\right)^k$$ $$P[ \ln( t_k/t_{k-1} ) < x ] = 1 - \rme^{-\lambda x} \,.
\label{eq:cdtt}$$ In both cases, it is easy to show that the PDF of the number of events $N(t)$ and its variance are equal. Thus in $N_{\textrm{sync}}(t_\infty)-N_{\textrm{sync}}(t)$ and its variance should be symmetric, which is observed indeed only up to some error on the border $O/D$ () while away from the border ((a) and (b)) $N_{\textrm{sync}}(t_\infty)-N_{\textrm{sync}}(t)$ and its variance seem unrelated.
\
Thus the process described by seems to be an alternative way to obtain log-time dependence in an intermediate time regime. We can further corroborate this finding by studying the cumulative distribution of $({t_k-t_{k-1}})/{t_{k-1}}$, see . For a static Poisson process, this distribution would be a step function. Instead, it agrees well with the theoretic distribution for a log-Poisson process, $P(({t_k-t_{k-1}})/{t_{k-1}} < x) = 1-(1+x)^{-\lambda}$ with $\lambda = 3.5$. The support for the distribution at low $({t_k-t_{k-1}})/{t_{k-1}}$ comes from the initial phase of the transient, where the initial conditions dominate, which might explain the discrepancy between the theoretical and simulated distribution there. Also, as shown in , the value of $({t_k-t_{k-1}})/{t_{k-1}}$ stays within a relatively small range over a range of orders of magnitude of $t_k$, while it would quickly drop to zero in a static Poisson process. In we show the cumulative distribution of $t_k/t_{k-1}$. This distribution also agrees well with the theoretical cumulative distribution for a log-Poisson process with $\lambda = 3.5$ and seems to corroborate that the synchronization process in this model is an alternative way to obtain logarithmically slow relaxation dynamics.
\
System size can be relevant to the shape of the transient of a system. A superposition of the transients for different system sizes, normalized by the final number of synchronization events, and for $c=0.158$ close to $c_{O/D}$ and $c=0.18$, is shown in (a) and (b). Due to computational complexity, the sampling size is small, especially for $N=200$. The simulations show that the system size dependence close to $c_{O/D}$ seems to be a shifting of the transient to faster synchronization. The shifting is close to what suggests. Also, for $c=0.18$, further away from $c_{O/D}$, the transients are almost equivalent for different system sizes when normalized by the final number of synchronization events. Thus also here the system synchronizes faster for bigger system sizes. The faster synchronization for increasing system size can be rationalized using the same idea that led to , as follows: since the values of the units $x^i$ are constrained to the interval $[0,1]$ of the logistic map, increasing the system size increases the number of units in $[0,1]$ and therefore increases the number of collisions, i.e. the speed of synchronization.
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, we have studied synchronization as a relaxation phenomenon. The transient of synchronization in a coupled map model was found to drastically depend on the amount of overall coupling. For an overall coupling at the border to disorder, the transient was found to be logarithmically slow at intermediate times. This behaviour has been found in other systems exhibiting record statistics, where the dynamics is termed log-Poisson and arises because record fluctuations become increasingly rare. In the model of the present system the dynamics may arise by an alternative way : it can be simply explained by (for intermediate times) it getting more and more difficult to find a new synchronization partner and actually synchronize as the system ages. Interestingly, this kind of dynamics has been found otherwise in noise-driven systems. The coupled map model used in this paper has no noise term, however, it uses the logistic map, which has been studied as a noise generator since Ulam & Neumann [@Ulam1947]. Thus the use of the logistic map might be an ingredient for the appearance of logarithmically slow dynamics. In a similar system it was shown that a coupled map lattice is equivalent to a system of stochastic PDE [@Katzav2005].
One example for the relevance of the synchronization observed in GCM is neural networks. The speed of synchronization in neural networks is important [@Kopell2004], as it presumably is related to the response time of the brain. Namely, if we assume, along with Varela *et al.* [@Varela2001], that the state of the brain is given by its state of synchronization, then the time to swap from one synchronization pattern to another seems to determine how fast the brain can react. Also, the behaviour at the edge between partial synchronization and disorder is especially interesting because of the relevance of computation at the edge of chaos [@Natschlaeger2005].
Fruitful comments by Paolo Sibani, discussions with Adele Peel, computer support by Andy Thomas and the use of the Imperial College High Performance Computing Service are gratefully acknowledged.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'If $f$ is a symmetric complex-valued function on the $m$-fold Cartesian product of the set of reals and $A$ is a with eigenvalues $\eigj$, we set $f(A)\defeq f(\eige,\dotsc,\eigm)$. It is shown that if $\mat{f(\Aab)}$ is whenever $\mat{\Aab}$ is a matrix with entries $\Aab$, then $f$ has a power series expansion with positive coefficients.'
author:
- Lutz Klotz
- Conrad Mädler
bibliography:
- 'neccond\_arxiv.bib'
title: 'A necessary condition for certain functions to preserve positive semi-definiteness on partitioned matrices'
---
Keywords
: Positive semi-definite matrix, symmetric function, matrix function
AMS Classification
: 15A15, 15B57
The symbols , , , , and stand for the set of positive integers, integers, real, real and complex numbers, resp. Let $m,n\in\N$. If $S$ is a subset of the algebra of all with complex entries, let denote the set of all with entries from $S$ and the set of all matrices of $\csme{n}{S}$. If $S=\csm{1}=\C$, we shall write and . For a matrix $A\in\csmm$, let , $j\in\mn{1}{m}$, denote the eigenvalues of $A$ counted according to their algebraic multiplicity and its determinant. The vectors of $\Cm$ are written as row vectors. If $\mat{z_1,\dotsc,z_m}\in\Cm$, denote by the diagonal matrix with elements $z_1,\dotsc,z_m$ on its principal diagonal. The symbol stands for the unit matrix of $\csmm$
If $f\colon\Cm\to\C$ is a symmetric function, if $f(z_1,\dotsc,z_m)=f(z_{\pi(1)},\dotsc,z_{\pi(m)})$ for all $\mat{z_1,\dotsc,z_m}\in\Cm$ and all permutations $\pi$ of the set $\mn{1}{m}$, we define , $A\in\csmm$, according to the paper . The function $f$ is called if $\mat{f(\Aab)}\in\psdn$ whenever $\mat{\Aab}\in\psde{n}{S}$. It seems to be a difficult problem to characterize all functions preserving on $\psdb{n}{m}$ for given $n>2$. If $f$ is a polynomial, it was solved in . On the other hand, it is not hard to describe all functions preserving on $\psdb{2}{m}$, . As its consequence we can state the following result.
Let $f\colon\Rpm\to\C$ be a symmetric function which preserves on $\psddb{2}{m}$. Then $f$ is , increases with respect to each variable and is continuous.
The first two properties of $f$ can be obtained easily. Since $f$ satisfies the inequality $f(x_1y_1,\dotsc,x_my_m)^2\leq f(x_1,\dotsc,x_m)f(y_1,\dotsc,y_m)$ for all $\mat{x_1,\dotsc,x_m},\mat{y_1,\dotsc,y_m}\in\Rpm$, , its continuity can be shown by a straightforward modification of the proof of the conclusion (a)$\Rightarrow$(b) of .
We shall say that a symmetric function $f\colon\Rpm\to\C$ if it preserves on $\psddb{n}{m}$ for all $n\in\N$. In the case $m=1$, the problem to describe all functions preserving and some related problems have a long history and were completely solved by several authors applying different methods, . A well known result is stated in .
\[T2\] A function $f\colon\Rp\to\C$ preserves if and only if it has a power series expansion $f(x)=\sum_{j=0}^\infty a_jx^j$, $x\in\Rp$, where $a_j\in\Rp$, $j\in\Zp$.
Our below generalizes the “only-if” part of the preceding theorem to arbitrary $m\in\N$.
For $p\in\Zp$, denote by the set of all $\mat{p_1,\dotsc,p_m}\in\Zpm$ such that $\sum_{\alpha=1}^mp_\alpha\leq p$. If $\mat{p_1,\dotsc,p_m}\in\Conp$ and $a_{\alpha\beta}$, $\alpha\in\mn{1}{m}$, $\beta\in\mn{1}{n}$, are positive real numbers, let be a vector of $\Rpm$, whose $\beta$-th entry equals $\prod_{\alpha=1}^ma_{\alpha\beta}^{p_\alpha}$.
\[L3\] Let $m\in\N$, $p\in\Zp$, and $n\defeq\rk{p+2}^m$. There exist positive real numbers $a_{\alpha\beta}$, $\alpha\in\mn{1}{m}$, $\beta\in\mn{1}{n}$, such that the corresponding vectors $\pvpm$, $\mat{p_1,\dotsc,p_m}\in\Conp$, are linearly independent.
For $n=\rk{p+2}^m$, let $a_{1\beta}$ be $n$ pairwise different positive real numbers and $a_{\alpha\beta}\defeq a_{1\beta}^{\rk{p+2}^{\alpha-1}}$, $\alpha\in\mn{1}{m}$, $\beta\in\mn{1}{n}$. It is easy to see that for $\mat{p_1,\dotsc,p_m}\in\Conp$, the transpose of the corresponding vector $\pvpm$ is a column vector of the Vandermonde matrix $\mat{a_{1\beta}^{\gamma-1}}_{\beta,\gamma=1,\dotsc,n}$. To finish the proof it is enough to show that $\pvpm\neq\pvqm$ if $\mat{p_1,\dotsc,p_m}\neq\mat{q_1,\dotsc,q_m}$, $\mat{p_1,\dotsc,p_m},\mat{q_1,\dotsc,q_m}\in\Conp$. However, the equality $\mat{p_1,\dotsc,p_m}=\mat{q_1,\dotsc,q_m}$ would imply that $p+2$ is a zero of the polynomial $P$: $P(z)=\sum_{\alpha=1}^m\rk{p_\alpha-q_\alpha}z^\alpha$, $z\in\C$, which is a contradiction to the estimate $\abs{z_0}\leq\max\setaa{1+\abs{p_\alpha-q_\alpha}}{\alpha\in\mn{1}{m}}$ for any zero $z_0$ of $P$, .
In the case $m=1$ the result of the next lemma was proved by Horn, the first part of the proof of . In 1979 Vasudeva published a simplified proof, which can be easily adapted to the case that $m$ is an arbitrary positive integer.
\[L4\] Let $f\colon\Rpm\to\Rp$ be a symmetric function, which has continuous partial derivatives of arbitrary order. If $f$ preserves , then all its partial derivatives are .
Let $\mat{x_1,\dotsc,x_m}\in\Rpm$ and $n\in\N$. If $\aab$ are positive real numbers and $t_\alpha\in\Rpn$, $\alpha\in\mn{1}{m}$, $\beta\in\mn{1}{n}$, the matrix $\mat{\diag\rk{x_1+t_1a_{1\beta}a_{1\gamma},\dotsc, x_m+t_ma_{m\beta}a_{m\gamma}}}_{\beta,\gamma=1,\dotsc,n}$ belongs to $\psddb{n}{m}$. From the assumption on $f$ it follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E1}
\sum_{\beta,\gamma=1}^n\ko{z_\beta}z_\gamma f\rk{x_1+t_1a_{1\beta}a_{1\gamma},\dotsc, x_m+t_ma_{m\beta}a_{m\gamma}}&\geq0,&\mat{z_1,\dotsc,z_m}&\in\Cm.\end{aligned}$$ Expanding the function $g_{\beta\gamma}\colon\Rpm\to\Rp$, $g_{\beta\gamma}(t_1,\dotsc,t_m)\defeq f\rk{x_1+t_1a_{1\beta}a_{1\gamma},\dotsc, x_m+t_ma_{m\beta}a_{m\gamma}}$ into a Taylor polynomial of degree $p-1$, from we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{E2}
\sum_{\beta,\gamma=1}^n\ko{z_\beta}z_\gamma\Biggl\{\sum_{\mat{p_1,\dotsc,p_m}\in\Con{p-1}}\prod_{\alpha=1}^m\frac{1}{p_\alpha!}\rk{t_\alpha a_{\alpha\beta}a_{\alpha\gamma}}^{p_\alpha}\frac{\partial^{p_1+\dotsb+p_m}}{\partial t_1^{p_1}\dotsm\partial t_m^{p_m}}g_{\beta\gamma}(t_1,\dotsc,t_m)\\
+\sum_{\mat{p_1,\dotsc,p_m}\in\Con{p}\setminus\Con{p-1}}\prod_{\alpha=1}^m\frac{1}{p_\alpha!}\rk{t_\alpha a_{\alpha\beta}a_{\alpha\gamma}}^{p_\alpha}\\
\times\frac{\partial^{p_1+\dotsb+p_m}}{\partial t_1^{p_1}\dotsm\partial t_m^{p_m}}f\rk{x_1+\theta_{\beta\gamma}t_1a_{1\beta}a_{1\gamma},\dotsc, x_m+\theta_{\beta\gamma}t_ma_{m\beta}a_{m\gamma}}\Biggr\}
\geq0,\end{gathered}$$ where $\theta_{\beta\gamma}\in[0,1]$, $\beta,\gamma\in\mn{1}{n}$. Let $\mat{q_1,\dotsc,q_m}$ be an arbitrary element of $\Con{p}\setminus\Con{p-1}$. From it follows that for $n=\rk{p+2}^m$, the positive numbers $\aab$ can be chosen in such a way that there exist real numbers $z_\beta$ satisfying the system of linear equations $\sum_{\beta=1}^n\prod_{\alpha=1}^m\aab^{p_\alpha}z_\beta=0$ for $\mat{p_1,\dotsc,p_m}\in\Conp\setminus\set{\mat{q_1,\dotsc,q_m}}$ and $\sum_{\beta=1}^n\prod_{\alpha=1}^m\aab^{q_\alpha}z_\beta=1$. Therefore, implies that $$\begin{gathered}
\prod_{\alpha=1}^m\frac{1}{q_\alpha!}\rk{t_\alpha}^{q_\alpha}\sum_{\beta,\gamma=1}^n\prod_{\alpha'=1}^m\ko{z_\beta}z_\gamma\rk{a_{\alpha'\beta}a_{\alpha'\gamma}}^{q_{\alpha'}}\\
\times\frac{\partial^{q_1+\dotsb+q_m}}{\partial t_1^{q_1}\dotsm\partial t_m^{q_m}}f\rk{x_1+\theta_{\beta\gamma}t_1a_{1\beta}a_{1\gamma},\dotsc, x_m+\theta_{\beta\gamma}t_ma_{m\beta}a_{m\gamma}}\geq0,
\end{gathered}$$ which yields $\frac{\partial^{q_1+\dotsb+q_m}}{\partial x_1^{q_1}\dotsm\partial x_m^{q_m}}f\rk{x_1,\dotsc,x_m}\geq0$ by letting $\mat{t_1,\dotsc,t_m}$ tend to $\mat{0,\dotsc,0}$.
\[T5\] Let $f\colon\Rpm\to\Rp$ be a symmetric function preserving . Then $f$ has a power series expansion $$\begin{gathered}
\label{E3}
f\rk{x_1,\dotsc,x_m}
=\sum_{\mat{p_1,\dotsc,p_m}\in\Zpm}a_{p_1,\dotsc,p_m}x_1^{p_1}\dotsm x_m^{p_m},\\
\mat{x_1,\dotsc,x_m}\in\Rpm,a_{p_1,\dotsc,p_m}\in\Rp,\mat{p_1,\dotsc,p_m}\in\Zpm.\end{gathered}$$
Let $\psi\colon\R\to\Rp$ have support on $(-1,0)$, continuous partial derivatives of arbitrary order and satisfy $\int_\R\psi(t)\dif t=1$. Define $\phi\rk{t_1,\dotsc,t_m}\defeq\prod_{j=1}^m\psi(t_j)$, $\mat{t_1,\dotsc,t_m}\in\Rm$, and then for arbitrary $\epsilon\in(0,\infty)$ the functions $\phi_\epsilon(\bft)\defeq\phi(\bft/\epsilon)$, $\bft\in\Rm$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E4}
f_\epsilon(\bfx)
&\defeq\frac{1}{\epsilon^m}\int_{\Rm}f(\bft)\phi_\epsilon(\bfx-\bft)\dif\bft
=\int_{(-1,0)^m}f(\bfx-\epsilon\bft)\phi_\epsilon(\bft)\dif\bft,&
\bfx&\in\Rm.\end{aligned}$$ The function $f_\epsilon$ is symmetric, , and has continuous partial derivatives of arbitrary order. The integral at the right-hand side of is the limit of the integral sums of the form $\sum_{j=1}^{r-1}f\rk{x_1-\epsilon\xi_j,\dotsc, x_m-\epsilon\xi_j}\phi(\xi_j)\rk{t_{j+1}-t_j}^m$, where $-1=t_1<t_2<\dotsb<t_r=0$ is a partition of the interval $[-1,0]$ and $\xi_j\in[t_j,t_{j+1}]$, $j\in\mn{1}{r-1}$. If $\mat{\Aab}\in\psddb{n}{m}$, then $\mat{\Aab-\epsilon\xi_j\Iu{m}}\in\psddb{n}{m}$ and $\eigk(\Aab-\epsilon\xi_j\Iu{m})=\eigk(\Aab)-\epsilon\xi_j$, hence $\mat{\sum_{j=1}^{r-1}f\rk{\eige(\Aab)-\epsilon\xi_j,\dotsc,\eigm(\Aab)-\epsilon\xi_j}}_{\alpha,\beta=1,\dotsc,n}$ belongs to $\psdn$ by assumption on $f$, $j\in\mn{1}{r-1}$. It follows $\mat{f_\epsilon(\Aab)}\in\psdn$, and from we can conclude that all finite differences of $f_\epsilon$ are , . Since $f$ is the pointwise limit of $f_\epsilon$ if $\epsilon$ tends to $0$, all finite differences of $f$ are . By the representation follows.
We conclude our paper with an application of the preceding result.
Let $f\colon\Rpm\to\C$ be a symmetric function. The following assertions are equivalent:
[0]{} The function $f$ has a power series expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E5}
f\rk{x_1,\dotsc,x_m}&=\sum_{j=0}^\infty b_j\rk{x_1\dotsm x_m}^j,&\mat{x_1,\dotsc,x_m}&\in\Rpm,b_j\in\Rp,j\in\Zp.\end{aligned}$$ For all $n\in\N$ and all $\mat{\Aab},\mat{B_\ab}\in\psdb{n}{m}$ such that $\mat{\Aab B_\ab}\in\csme{n}{\psd{m}}$, the matrix $\mat{f(\Aab B_\ab)}$ is .
[T6.i]{}[T6.ii]{} Assume that $f$ has the form . Then $f(\Aab B_\ab)=\sum_{j=0}^\infty b_j\rk{\det\Aab\det B_\ab}^j$ and the assertion \[T6.ii\] is a simple consequence of Schur’s theorem and the well-known fact that $\mat{\det\Aab}\in\psd{n}$ if $\Aab\in\psdb{n}{m}$.
[T6.ii]{}[T6.i]{} Let $B_\ab\defeq\Iu{m}$, $\alpha,\beta\in\mn{1}{n}$. Since $\mat{B_\ab}\in\psdb{n}{m}$ and $\mat{f(\Aab B_\ab)}=\mat{f(\Aab)}$, from it follows that $f$ has a power series expansion . Therefore, to prove \[T6.i\] it is enough to show that $f\rk{x_1,\dotsc,x_{m-1},0}=f\rk{0,\dotsc,0}$ for all $\mat{x_1,\dotsc,x_{m-1}}\in\Rpo{m-1}$. We can assume that $f$ is not a constant function. Let $r\in\mn{1}{m}$ be the smallest number such that there exists $\mat{x_1,\dotsc,x_r}\in\Rpo{r}$ satisfying $f(x_1^2,\dotsc,x_r^2,0,\dotsc,0)\neq f\rk{0,\dotsc,0}$. Since the coefficients of the power series expansion are , we get f(x\_1\^2,,x\_r\^2,0,,0) >f. For $\epsilon\in(0,\infty)$, define $A_{11}^{(\epsilon)}=B_{22}^{(\epsilon)}\defeq\diag(x_1,\dotsc,x_r,\epsilon,\dotsc,\epsilon)$, $A_{22}^{(\epsilon)}=B_{11}^{(\epsilon)}\defeq\diag(\epsilon,\dotsc,\epsilon,x_r,\dotsc,x_1)$, $A_{12}^{(\epsilon)}=B_{21}^{(\epsilon)}\defeq\diag(x_1,\dotsc,x_r,\epsilon,\dotsc,\epsilon)J$, $A_{21}^{(\epsilon)}=B_{12}^{(\epsilon)}\defeq\diag(\epsilon,\dotsc,\epsilon,x_r,\dotsc,x_1)$, where $J\defeq\smat{0&&1\\&\iddots&\\1&&0}$. Then $\mat{\Aab^{(\epsilon)}},\mat{B_\ab^{(\epsilon)}}\in\psdb{2}{m}$. If $1\leq r\leq m/2$, we obtain $f\rk{A_{11}^{(\epsilon)}B_{11}^{(\epsilon)}}=f\rk{A_{22}^{(\epsilon)}B_{22}^{(\epsilon)}}=f\rk{\epsilon x_1,\dotsc,\epsilon x_r,\epsilon x_r,\dotsc,\epsilon x_1,0,\dotsc,0}$ and $f\rk{A_{12}^{(\epsilon)}B_{12}^{(\epsilon)}}=f\rk{A_{21}^{(\epsilon)}B_{21}^{(\epsilon)}}=f\rk{x_1^2,\dotsc,x_r^2,\epsilon^2,\dotsc,\epsilon^2}$. If $\epsilon$ is small enough, from and the continuity of $f$ it follows $\det\mat{f\rk{\Aab^{(\epsilon)}B_\ab^{(\epsilon)}}}<0$ contradicting \[T6.ii\]. If $m/2< r\leq m-1$, one obtains $f\rk{A_{11}^{(\epsilon)}B_{11}^{(\epsilon)}}=f\rk{A_{22}^{(\epsilon)}B_{22}^{(\epsilon)}}=f\rk{x_{m-r+1}x_r,\dotsc,x_rx_{m-r+1},\epsilon x_1,\dotsc,\epsilon x_{m-r},\epsilon x_{m-r},\dotsc,\epsilon x_1}$ and $f\rk{A_{12}^{(\epsilon)}B_{12}^{(\epsilon)}}=f\rk{A_{21}^{(\epsilon)}B_{21}^{(\epsilon)}}=f\rk{x_1^2,\dotsc,x_r^2,\epsilon^2,\dotsc,\epsilon^2}$. Since $r\leq m-1$ yields $2r-m\leq r-1$ and $f\rk{y_1,\dotsc,y_{r-1},0,\dotsc,0}=f\rk{0,\dotsc,0}$ for all $\mat{y_1,\dotsc,y_{r-1}}\in\Rpo{r-1}$, it follows $f\rk{x_{m-r+1}x_r,\dotsc,x_rx_{m-r+1},0,\dotsc,0}=f\rk{0,\dotsc,0}$ and we again arrive at the contradiction $\det\mat{f\rk{\Aab^{(\epsilon)}B_\ab^{(\epsilon)}}}<0$ if $\epsilon$ is small enough.
#### Acknowledgement
We are exceptionally grateful to Professor Fuzhen Zhang for pointing out Vasudeva’s paper to us.
Universität Leipzig\
Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik\
PF 10 09 20\
D-04009 Leipzig
` [email protected] [email protected] `
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Nathan O. Lambert^1^, Farhan Toddywala^1^, Brian Liao^1^, Eric Zhu^1^, Lydia Lee^1^, and Kristofer S. J. Pister^1^ [^1][^2]'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: '**Learning for Microrobot Exploration: Model-based Locomotion, Sparse-robust Navigation, and Low-power Deep Classification** '
---
ACKNOWLEDGMENT {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The authors thank the Berkeley Sensor & Actuator Center.
[^1]: Corresponding author: Nathan O. Lambert, <[email protected]>
[^2]: ^1^Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the results of a simple numerical model with phenomenological cloud growth and explosive disruption processes, and with fountain launched ballistic motions of disrupted cloud fragments out of the disk. These processes generate an effective scattering of gas elements over much larger distances than noncircular impulses in the plane, which are quickly damped. The result is evolution of the global cloud density profile to an exponential form on a roughly Gyr timescale. This is consistent with our previous results on the effects of star scattering off massive clumps in young disks, and gas holes in dwarf galaxies. However, in those cases the scattering processes generated thick, warm/hot stellar disks. Here we find that the exponential gas disks remain cold. Star formation in this gas would produce a thin exponential stellar disk.'
author:
- 'Curtis Struck, Bruce G. Elmegreen'
title: Cold Exponential Disks from Interstellar Fountains
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The origin of the exponential radial profile in galaxy disks is not well understood. Profiles close to exponential can result from galaxy formation, with [@aumer13; @martig14; @herpich15; @rathaus16] or without [@mestel63; @freeman70] specific angular momentum conservation, and two gassy disks can adjust after a merger to be an exponential [@athan16; @borlaff14]. However, young galaxies are observed to be highly irregular [@elmegreen05; @conselice06] and subsequent mass accretion can be irregular too [e.g., @ceverino16b]. This makes the extreme regularity and smoothness of radial profiles in today’s old stellar disks somewhat puzzling. Such regularity seems to require constant re-adjustments to smooth out environmental perturbations and remake the exponential shape.
We have proposed that stellar scattering from clouds [@bour07; @es13 hereafter Paper I] and interstellar holes [@se17 hereafter Paper II] in galaxy disks can maintain and even make an exponential from some very different initial structure. Purely random scattering with a slight inward radial bias can make an exponential as stars migrate around the disk [@es16]. Such a bias might arise from angular momentum perturbations of initially circular orbits with energy-conserving collisions such as those between stars and massive clouds. Cloud-like scattering is favored over spiral-arm scattering in dwarf irregular galaxies which have exponential profiles without spirals or bars [@herrmann13]. Cloud scattering might also be preferred over viscous evolution [@lin87] because dwarfs have little shear.
Stellar scattering from midplane clouds and holes tends to be self-limiting (Papers I, II). The stars scatter both parallel and perpendicular to the disk and those with high scale heights do not interact with clouds as much [@la84]. The velocity dispersion can get large, however, and this can be a problem for the scattering model if a major radial readjustment is necessary before the exponential forms.
Here we show that exponentials also form in dissipative gas that explodes out of the disk and falls back down to mix with other disk gas. Examples of observed exponential gas profiles are in e.g., @wong02, @leroy09, and @gallagher18, and for high redshift profiles see @fujimoto18. For recent models of widespread disk outflows, see e.g., @ceverino16a [@martizzi16]. This dissipative process does not lead to large velocity dispersions even when the disk is rearranged completely. A process like this that forms exponentials in gas might be preferred to purely stellar scattering because the gas is more fundamental than stars in building a disk. Even in the present universe this process can be efficient, since a significant amount of gas is lofted out of disks with strong star formation; e.g., roughly $10 - 20 \%$ of the total HI mass in some cases (see @Vargas17 on NGC 4559 and references therein to other HALOGAS studies). Star formation in this reconfigured gas would then produce the stellar exponential, although with a slightly different scale length in proportional to the power of the non-linear Kennicutt-Schmidt relation.
In what follows, section \[models\] describes the basic model, section \[results\] presents the results, and section \[concl\] gives the conclusions.
Models
======
The effects of gas mixing on radial profiles is isolated by using an idealized model of a disk of clouds with a fixed potential for rotational motions and no other torques that might also re-arrange the disk. The clouds are test particles initially in circular orbits, and the rotational potential is a power-law in radius (see Paper I). The acceleration is given by,
$$\label{eqa}
g(r) = \frac{-GM_H}{H^2}
\left(\frac{r + 0.2}{H} \right) ^{-\gamma},$$
where $r$ is the central radius in three dimensions, and the 0.2 term is an arbitrary softening constant. In this potential the disc has a circular velocity that increases gradually as $R^\frac{1- \gamma}{2}$, where $R$ is the projected radius within the disc. The gravitational mass within a radius $r$ is $M(r) = M_H (r/H)^{2-\gamma}$.
In the direction perpendicular to the disk, there is a vertical component of the total gravity implicit in equation (1), plus a vertical gravity from the disk mass itself. To consider the second component, we use an effective gravity in the vertical direction to help hold the disk in place,
$$\label{eqaa}
g_z(r) = \frac{-0.3GM_H}{H^2}
\left( \frac{z}{H} \right).$$
This acceleration is linear in $z$, and with a moderate magnitude, allows the formation of a thick disk if the vertical dispersion is high.
We use dimensionless units, i.e, $H = 1,\ T = H/V_H,\ V_H^2 = GM_H/H$, with $GM_H
= 1.0$. We will use two representative scalings for a normal and dwarf type disk, respectively. For the normal disk these are: $H = 1$ kpc, $V_H = 50$ km s$^{-1}$, $T = 20$ Myr, and $M_H = 2.9 \times 10^{7}\; M_{\odot}$. Then, the rotation periods at $R = 2$ and $10$ kpc for a flat rotation curve of magnitude 6 velocity units are $56$ and $303$ Myr, respectively. For the dwarf disk these are: $H = 0.5$ kpc, $V_H = 25$ km s$^{-1}$, $T = 20$ Myr, and $M_H = 7.2 \times 10^{7}\;M_{\odot}$.
The particles are initialized with a mass of one unit, but build up in the merging phase (see below). These mass units are arbitrary, since there are no gravitational interactions between the clouds. In each computational cycle, particles with masses of three units or more have a finite probability of being broken up by feedback effects, thereby “exploding”. This probability is set to 0.1 for particles of mass 3.0 units, and it increases by 0.05 for each increase of particle mass by one unit, up to 1 for masses greater than or equal to 22 units. Other values of these parameters have been tested, and found to not change the results qualitatively.
The computational cycle has three parts: 1) an explosion phase representing star formation feedback in the interstellar medium; 2) a phase of particle ballistic motion in the fixed galaxy potential, and 3) a phase of merging of adjacent particles to make bigger clouds. In each stage all particles are affected simultaneously. In the explosion phase, all selected particles of mass $N$ units are divided into $N$ particles, and each is given additional random velocity impulses in the x, y, and z directions. The average magnitude of these velocity increments ranges from 0.3-4.0 code units, where peak circular velocities are typically 6-10 code units.
In the second phase, we adopt a picture like that of [@marasco12] who assumed that clouds were launched from superbubbles onto nearly ballistic orbits, despite their interaction with coronal gas. We also neglect this interaction. The assumption of nearly ballistic orbits allows gas clouds to scatter across significant parts of the disk over time. The duration of the ballistic phase is generally taken equal to 2.0 time units. The exact value is not important as long as there is enough time for significant (non-circular) motions of the component particles.
In the merging phase, a grid is imposed on the disk and all particles in each grid cell are merged as expected from cloud collisions and local gravitational instabilities. This merging phase is where the dissipation occurs, and it tends to maintain circular motions in the gas. The velocity components of the merged particle are computed as mass weighted averages of the components of the constituent particles. In most runs, the cell sizes are 0.1 units in radius and $4^\circ$ in azimuth. Particles farther than 2.0 units from the mid-plane of the disk are not merged, but continue on ballistic trajectories. Since the disks remain relatively thin, this constraint has little effect other than contributing to the disk thickness. With these cell sizes, the particles can sometimes merge into relatively massive clouds containing several tens of mass units, especially if the randomness of the explosions allows them to survive for several explosion phases. Eventually each cloud is broken up in some explosion phase, depending on the probabilities, and after redistribution of their constituent particles through ballistic trajectories in the halo, other clouds take their place.
Angular momentum and energy are explicitly conserved in the ballistic phase, i.e., particles that scatter outward and fall back at larger radii will have lower azimuthal speeds than those they meet in the disk.
Results and Discussion {#results}
======================
The algorithm of the previous section was run with a wide range of parameters to determine the evolution of surface density profiles in different regimes (see below). An example is shown in Figure 1 where the disk begins with a flat radial profile and evolves to an exponential. The halo potential corresponds to a slowly rising rotation curve typical of a low mass galaxy, $v_{cir} \sim r^{0.3}$ [@persic96]. The upper panels show the particle distribution at the end of the run ($100\ time\ units$), and after the feedback/exploding and ballistic travel phases. After the merging phase all particles would be located at the centers of adopted grid elements. The particle distribution is smooth and the disk appears moderately thick. A large majority of the particles lie in a quite thin disk. A negligible fraction ($8/14040 = 0.057\%$) of the material has been pushed to more than $2$ spatial units out of the disk, where it temporarily does not participate in the merging and exploding phases.
The panel in the lower left shows the surface density profile at the initial and final times. The latter is close to an exponential form.
The lower right panel shows the initial rotation curve as a solid line, the final azimuthal rotation speed as open triangles, and the radial and vertical ($z$) velocity dispersions as asterisks and circles. The azimuthal velocity lags behind the initial circular rotation curve because of the random motions. The ratio of the velocity dispersion to the azimuthal velocity is substantially lower with this cloud scattering than it is in models with stellar scattering off interstellar clumps and holes (Papers I, II). The dissipation in the merging phase is responsible. The final time shown corresponds to about $2.0$ Gyr in this dwarf scaling, and the exponential starts to appear in about half of that time.
In the model of Fig. 1, the average magnitude of the velocity impulse given to each fragment in each coordinate direction is 1.5 units, or a total average magnitude of $1.5 \times 3^{0.5}$ units. This value equals $57$ km s$^{-1}$ in the dwarf scaling given above and is reasonable or even conservative for shell and supershell ejections off the plane. For example, @relano07 find expansion velocities of $50-100$ km s$^{-1}$ in the H$\alpha$ shells around OB associations in local galaxies.
Fig. 2 shows a case with a flat rotation curve and a small average relative feedback velocity of 0.45 units, corresponding to an explosion velocity of $39$ km s$^{-1}$ in the disk scaling above. The figure shows that this small feedback yields a very thin disk, and an average dispersion to azimuthal velocity ratio of less than a tenth. The surface density profile in this case is a Type II form by the final time, which corresponds to about $4.0$ Gyr in the disk scaling. Slow explosion velocities take longer to form the exponential.
The half-mass height in Fig. 1, the thicker case, is 0.13 units. Taking the radius to be about 10 units we get a ratio of height to radius equal to 0.013. This is smaller than in NGC 891, a vigorously star-forming, edge-on disk galaxy. According to [@bocchio16], the dust scale height of N891 is $1.44\pm0.12$ kpc, and the galaxy radius in NED[^1] is 6.75 arcmin, which is 17.8 kpc with the scaling of 2.64 kpc per arcmin. Thus the ratio of the dust scale height to radius in NGC 891 is $0.081$, a factor of 6 larger than in the figure. In the case shown in Fig. 2, the half-mass height to radius ratio is 0.0022, much smaller than in Fig. 1, as we might expect in this very mild case.
Fig. 3 is for a case with a flat rotation curve and a larger average relative feedback velocity of 0.75 units, corresponding to an explosion velocity of $65$ km s$^{-1}$ in the disk scaling above. In addition, this model also had the merger grid cell sizes decreased by a factor of two in both radial and azimuthal directions. The particle number was also increased by more than a factor of four (to 58,560), so that the clouds are more like giant clouds in present-day disks than very massive clouds in young disks. However, this change had little effect on the profile evolution when compared to a comparable model with the original grid and particle number. The radial profile evolves more rapidly in this case, and generates larger velocity dispersions and a somewhat thicker disk than in Fig. 2. The exponential form starts to appear at a time of a little over $1.0$ Gyr. By the late time shown in the figure the profile has nearly a single exponential form. Despite the larger explosion velocity input (using the disk scaling), this flat rotation curve model retains a thin disk. Indeed, compared to recent cosmological galaxy formation models, the feedback seems quite modest (e.g., @christensen16, @hopkins18). In our models increased feedback magnitude leads to thicker disks, but this is not necessarily the case in self-consistent cooling models.
We have also done another run like that in Fig. 3, but with the initial particle mass further reduced by a factor of 5, the cell size reduced by 10% and the feedback magnitude increased by 20%. The results are essentially the same as Fig. 3. These results emphasize a couple of points: 1) a slightly increased feedback magnitude can significantly decrease the profile change timescale, and 2) smaller, but more numerous star-forming clouds can have the same effect as a smaller population of more massive clouds.
In sum, these models show that fountain feedback scattering can generate exponential or Sérsic type density profiles, with Sérsic index close to 1.0 in the latter case. We have carried out many more runs with different model parameter values, and found that this is a general result as long as the explosive input velocities of the feedback phase are sufficient to propel some gas elements over significant radial excursions, though generally over a modest fraction of their initial radii (see upper right panel in Fig. 3 for examples). Specifically, we have carried out models with: 1) rotation curves ranging from nearly Keplerian to nearly solid body, 2) explosive impulse velocities ranging over an order of magnitude, 3) ballistic phase timescales ranging over a factor of a few, and 4) particle numbers and cell sizes ranging over a factor of a few. All of these models tend toward exponential profiles, albeit on timescales that depend on the parameter values. It appears that this is essentially a diffusion process, which is not sensitive to the details of individual scattering events. For reasonable values of the feedback velocity input these gas disks can also be quite cold.
Conclusions {#concl}
===========
As discussed in the Introduction, exponential disks have been a persistent mystery. Their universality suggests a common, robust generation mechanism associated with galaxy formation, but disruptions from global disturbances like interactions and accretions also suggest a second mechanism involving disk restoration that works relatively rapidly. In a series of papers, we have demonstrated that stellar scattering off massive clumps and holes in the interstellar medium can generate stellar exponential profiles on timescales typically less than a Gyr. However, these stellar processes generally yield thick disks, not cold, thin exponentials. Radial migration from spirals [@se02] could, in principle, form an exponential-like profile while maintaining near-circular orbits, but recent work by @daniel18 suggests that too few stars would migrate over large enough radial distances to rearrange the density profile on the required timescale.
In the previous sections we have shown how scattering of clouds in supershells and local fountains can drive the gas towards an exponential profile in about a Gyr. Profile change is a diffusive process averaged over many such events. While star-clump scattering tends to produce thick stellar disks, gas scattering alone is dissipative and can produce thin disks. Depending on parameter values, it can do so on short timescales, facilitating the reformation of disturbed exponential thin disks.
In addition there is an evolutionary sequence in both the models above and the previous stellar scattering models (Papers I, II). Initially scattering processes, in flat-to-moderately rising rotation curve potentials, throw particles to larger radii, even to twice the initial radius with strong scattering. This extended disk usually has a steep exponential (Type II) profile. The evolution of the rest of the initial disk to an exponential profile is much slower, so a shallow exponential is present there for a long time (see Fig. 2). In the models here the break in the slope between the two exponentials marks the initial outer radius. Eventually, the scattering works to produce a single exponential (Fig. 3).
These models suggest a two-part solution to disk maintenance. Star-forming disks generate exponential gas profiles through cloud scattering by feedback while stars formed in these clouds inherit the profiles. Plus, stellar scattering by clumps and holes operates at the same time, also forming an exponential, but without needing to do all of the rearrangement by itself. In this way, the velocity dispersion of the stars stays reasonably low and the disk maintains an exponential on sub-Gyr timescales.
Acknowledgements
================
We are grateful to an anonymous referee for helpful comments that significantly clarified the presentation.
Athanassoula, E., Rodionov, S.A., Peschken, N. & Lambert, J.C. 2016, ApJ, 821, 90
Aumer, M. & White, S.D.M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1055
Bocchio, M., Bianchi, S., Hunk, L. K., & Schneider, R. 2016, A&A, 586, A8
Borlaff, A., Carmen Eliche-Moral, M., Rodríguez-Pérez, C., Querejeta, M., Tapia, T., Pérez-González, P.G., Zamorano, J., Gallego, J., & John Beckman, J. 2014, A&A 570, A103
Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M., ApJ, 670, 237
Ceverino, D., Arribas, S., Colina, L., Rodríguez Del Pino, B., Dekel, A. & Primack, J. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2731
Ceverino, D., Jorge Sánchez Almeida, J., Muñoz-Tuñón, C., Dekel, A., Elmegreen, B.G., Elmegreen, D.M., & Primack, J. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2605
Christensen, C. R., Davé, R., Governato, F., Pontzen, A., Brooks, A., Munshi, F., Quinn, T., & Wadsley, J. 2016, ApJ, 824, 57
Conselice, C.J. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1389
Daniel, K. J., & Wyse, R. F. G. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1561
Elmegreen, B.G., & Elmegreen, D.M 2005, ApJ, 627, 632
Elmegreen, B.G., & Struck, C., 2013, ApJL, 775, L35 (Paper I)
Elmegreen, B.G., & Struck, C., 2016, ApJ, 830, 115
Elmegreen, B.G., Struck, C., & Hunter, D. A. 2016, ApJ, 796, 110
Freeman, K. C. 1970, ApJ, 160, 811
Fujimoto, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 7
Gallagher, M. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858:90
Herpich, J., Stinson, G.S., Dutton, A.A., Rix, H.-W., Martig, M., Roškar, R., Macciò, A.V., Quinn, T.R., & Wadsley, J. 2015, MNRAS, 448, L99
Herrmann, K.A., Hunter, D.A., & Elmegreen, B.G. 2013, AJ, 146, 104
Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800
Lacey, C. G. 1984, MNRAS, 208, 687
Lin D. N. C., & Pringle J. E., 1987, ApJL, 320, L87
Leroy, A. K., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4670
Marasco, A., Fraternali, F., & Binney, J. J., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1107
Martig, M., Minchev, I. & Flynn, C. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2474
Martizzi, D., Fielding, D., Faucher-Giguère, & Quataert, E. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 2311
Mestel L. 1963, MNRAS, 126, 553
Persic, M., Salucci, P., & Stel, F. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 27
Rathaus, B., & Sternberg, A. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3168
Relaño, M., Beckman, J. E., Daigle, O., & Carignan, C. 2007, A&A, 467, 1117
Sellwood, J. A.., & Binney, J. J. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 785
Struck, C. & Elmegreen, B.G. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1157 (Paper II)
Vargas, C. J., Heald, G., Walterbos, R. A. M., Fraternali, F., Patterson, M. T., Rand, R. J., Jozsa, G. I. G., Gentile, G., & Serra, P. 2017, ApJ, 839, 118
Wong, T., & Blitz, L. 2002, ApJ, 569, 157
[^1]: NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'State-of-the-art methods for handwriting recognition are based on Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks (RNN), which now provides very impressive character recognition performance. The character recognition is generally coupled with a lexicon driven decoding process which integrates dictionaries. Unfortunately these dictionaries are limited to hundred of thousands words for the best systems, which prevent from having a good language coverage, and therefore limit the global recognition performance. In this article, we propose an alternative to the lexicon driven decoding process based on a *lexicon verification* process, coupled with an original cascade architecture. The cascade is made of a large number of complementary networks extracted from a single training (called cohort), making the learning process very light. The proposed method achieves new state-of-the art word recognition performance on the Rimes and IAM datasets. Dealing with gigantic lexicon of 3 millions words, the methods also demonstrates interesting performance with a fast decision stage.'
address: 'Normandie Univ, UNIROUEN, UNIHAVRE, INSA Rouen, LITIS, 76000 Rouen, France'
author:
- Bruno STUNER
- Clément CHATELAIN
- Thierry PAQUET
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Handwriting recognition using Cohort of LSTM and lexicon verification with extremely large lexicon
---
Handwriting Recognition; Lexicon Verification; Cohort; Very Large Vocabulary; Recurrent Neural Network; Cascade of LSTM
Introduction
============
Handwriting recognition is the numeric process of translating handwritten text images into strings of characters. The handwriting recognition process traditionally involves two steps [@plamondon2000online]: optical character recognition and linguistic processing. Optical character recognition is a hard task due to the variability of shapes in handwritten texts, since every human has his own personal writing style. Therefore, even when using state of the art classifiers like deep neural networks to recognize characters [@graves2009offline], a considerable amount of errors would occur by considering only the optical model. Linguistic processing aims at combining the characters hypotheses together so as to provide the most likely sequence of words in accordance with some high level linguistic rules. There are two types of linguistic knowledge: lexicons and language models. A language model is a probabilistic modelization of a language which generally provides word sequence likelihood, allowing to rank the recognition hypothesis provided by the optical model. Nowadays, the use of linguistic knowledge is an open problem. Lexicon driven approaches aim at recognizing words thanks to the use of a lexicon. They search for the most likely word that belongs to the working lexicon, by concatenating the character hypotheses. There is currently no efficient alternative to the use of lexicon driven recognition methods either for isolated words or for text recognition. Which lexicon resource should be used, which corpora should be selected for training the language model ? These choices directly affect the recognition performance. In the case of lexicon driven methods, where the characters are aligned on the lexicon words, too small lexicons fail to cover the test dataset, thus missing solutions. However, using a large lexicon (1000 words and more) requires many computations and generally produces precision loss [@koerich2003large]. To the best of our knowledge, the largest lexicon used in the literature was composed of 200K words [@hamdani2014rwth] (60K words for [@bluche2014a2ia]), and there could still occur out of vocabulary words (named entity, numbers, etc).
During the last years, significant progress in handwriting recognition and especially in optical models have been made thanks to deep learning advances [@lecun2015deep], namely with the Long Short Term Memories (LSTM) Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) [@hochreiter1997long]. The LSTM recurrent neural networks achieve state of the art performance in various applications involving sequence recognition, such as speech recognition [@graves2005framewise], protein predictions [@thireou2007bidirectional], machine translation [@sutskever2014sequence], and optical character recognition [@grosicki2009icdar; @menasri2012a2ia]. Performance of complete systems including both LSTM networks and linguistic resources [@pham2014dropout] is due to the very high raw performance of the optical model (i.e. without using additional linguistic resource). For example, the raw performance of the optical model is about 35% WER on the RIMES dataset when using a BLSTM optical model solely. The contribution of the language model is then to penalize the wrong hypotheses produced by the optical model, so as to favor the most likely word sequences from the language model point of view. We believe that the raw performance of the LSTM based optical models provide hints that such networks should be used in a more specific way, and not only as a character classifier using a lexicon directed recognition approach, as it is the case in most of the actual studies reported in the literature.
Breaking the standard use of LSTM RNN as a simple classifier introduced in a lexicon driven decoding scheme, this work proposes a new recognition paradigm that improves handwriting recognition state of the art performance. This new paradigm is based on word classifiers combination using an efficient decision rule operating at word level, which consists in lexicon verification. Lexicon verification consists in accepting a word recognition hypothesis if it belongs to the lexicon, and rejecting it otherwise. The underlying idea is that it is very unlikely that a wrong word recognition hypothesis belongs to the lexicon. The major advantage of this strategy is that it constitutes an extremely fast decision process, especially when compared to the tedious lexicon-driven decoding process which generally consists in a Viterbi beam search [@fissore1988strategies]. Classifier combination is introduced using a cascade framework for combining multiple word classifiers. It is based on two key points: i) a lexicon verification decision process ii) a pool of complementary recognizers. We introduce a very efficient way to produce hundreds of complementary word recognizers in a very reasonable training time. Following the recent theoretical results in deep learning[@choromanska2015loss], we observed that multiple complementary networks can be obtained during a single training stage. We exploit this theoretical result to produce hundreds of complementary LSTM networks using a single training. We show that the proposed strategy reaches very high performance regardless the size of the lexicon. As a consequence, the approach has no limitation regarding the lexicon size, as demonstrated by the results obtained using a gigantic lexicon of more than 3 million words.
This article starts by a review of the state of the art of handwriting recognition highlighting the latest results obtained with BLSTM networks and Hidden Markov Models. In the second part, we present our approach made of a cascade of LSTM recurrent neural networks. We show how to get complementary LSTM RNN during training. In the third part of the paper, the implementation of the method is described. Finally the results are presented on the Rimes and IAM datasets, and then discussed before concluding.
Related works
=============
Handwriting recognition
-----------------------
Handwriting recognition models can be classified according to the character segmentation approach which can be either explicit (an algorithm specifically segments characters prior to their recognition), or implicit (characters are classified without prior segmentation)[@plamondon2000online]. Handwriting models can also be classified according to the character recognition method (discriminant classifiers for hybrid approaches [@senior1996forward] or generative approaches for Hidden Markov Models (HMM) [@el1999hmm]). The common point of these approaches is that they all rely on a lexicon driven decoding stage. Indeed, since character recognition is not perfect, the efficient word recognition strategy is to postpone the character decision process until the end of the sequence recognition process, where the best character sequence hypothesis being a valid sequence is finally selected. This traditional scheme is represented in Figure \[HWRprocs1\].
![The standard handwriting recognition paradigm.[]{data-label="HWRprocs1"}](HWRprocess2.pdf){width="12cm"}
In the literature, isolated handwritten word recognition is the process of recognizing words that belong to a known lexicon which defines a closed vocabulary setting. The lexicon driven decoding methods used in this process are mainly based on Markov Models [@plotz2009markov; @hamdani2013open; @kozielski2013open; @poznanski2016cnn]. In this context, every well performing method, even those which use BLSTM networks, are based on lexicon driven decoding using either a lexicon or a character language model. Their main strength is the segmentation free design, thus letting the decoding process provides the segmentation.
The large vocabulary problem
----------------------------
When using lexicon driven decoding, the character classification decisions are postponed until the end of the word so as to decide of the most probable word belonging to the working lexicon. On the one hand, lexicon directed approaches allow to correct character recognition errors. But on the other hand, they require using large lexicons in order to get high word coverage rates, and minimize Out Of Vocabulary (OOV) words. However, using very large lexicons requires pruning during the recognition phase, in order to get acceptable processing time. In [@grosicki2009icdar] the authors relate the results of the RIMES 2009 competition for isolated word recognition, in which most of the participants have implemented HMM based approaches for which we can observe a neat difference of the recognition rate between small, medium and large lexicon size with a maximum size of 5334 words. The lexicon’s size has also a major role in the use of these methods in real applications where the lexicon is linked to a language that can contain hundreds of thousands of words. In specific cases, using such linguistic resources to improve recognition is not anymore compatible with real time constraints.
The large vocabulary problem is well known, as described in [@koerich2003large], where a vocabulary of 1000 words is considered to be a large lexicon. Today larger lexicons are considered. In [@pham2014dropout] the authors used 50k, 12k and 95k word lexicons for the IAM, Rimes and OpenHaRT dataset respectively, but none of these lexicons are fully covering the evaluation set. To the best of our knowledge, the largest lexicon ever used is composed of 200 000 words [@hamdani2014rwth] (60K words for [@bluche2014a2ia]) using a n-gram model. But this is still generating problems as out of vocabulary words still remain. Moreover general purpose applications require unrestricted lexicons which may be composed of hundreds of thousands words (e.g. French Gutenberg dictionary has 336k words) to reach an acceptable coverage rate, but still without covering named entities, numbers, etc.
To overcome these limitations, solutions have been investigated: Pruning [@madhvanath1996holistic; @madhvanath2001syntactic; @gilloux1998reduction], lexicon free decoding using character language models as an alternate solution to using a lexicon [@brakensiek2002handwritten; @bharath2012hmm; @shridhar1997handwritten; @Cha06e; @Cha06c], sub lexical units driven recognition [@brakensiek2002handwritten; @hamdani2013open; @poznanski2016cnn]. Pruning methods exhibit problems such as excessive pruning, leading to increasing errors. Some methods[@brakensiek2002handwritten; @bharath2012hmm] using hidden Markov models with other techniques like bag of symbols allow a lexicon free decoding , but they still have not reached the performance of the lexicon driven approaches. Note that such approaches have also been used for numerical field recognition without lexicon [@shridhar1997handwritten; @Cha06e; @Cha06c], but digits are simpler to recognize than characters since they are generally isolated, and there are only 10 classes. Finally, in [@brakensiek2002handwritten; @hamdani2013open; @kozielski2013open; @poznanski2016cnn] the authors proposed a lexicon decomposition into prefix and suffix of the word’s lexicon, modeled by n-grams. These methods are based on statistics extracted from a training corpus. The n-grams models reach state of the art performance when dealing with out of lexicon word [@hamdani2013open; @kozielski2013open].
As reviewed in this paragraph, the very large vocabulary problem is still an open question. With the current fast progress in deep learning, many architectures are studied. Regarding handwriting and speech recognition, it is currently lead by the Long Short Term Memory recurrent neural networks.
Recurrent Neural Networks {#sec:lstm}
-------------------------
Recurrent neural Networks (RNN), proposed more than 30 years ago with Hopfield networks [@hopfield1982neural], get their efficiency from their ability to process sequences, thanks to recurrent connections bringing information about the previous inputs or states in the sequence to the current position. However, for a long period of time, training recurrent neural networks suffered from the vanishing gradient problem [@hochreiter1998vanishing]. As a consequence, long term dependencies can not be learned. Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) cells have thus been designed by Hochreiter et al. [@hochreiter1997long] in order to overtake this limitation. Many improvements still have been proposed on LSTM [@gers2000learning; @gers2003learning] adding a gate and peepholes.Recently Gated Recurrent Units [@chung2014empirical] have been proposed as an alternative to LSTM units, requiring less computation but with almost similar performance. In this paper we focus on LSTM cells.
LSTM cells enable to learn long or short term dependencies while processing sequences thanks to the introduction of gates (input, forget and output gates) followed by a sigmoid function, which controls the internal memory cell update (updating, resetting, expressing) by introducing a multiplier cell at each gate. RNN operate by processing the sequence in a particular direction, that is why bi-directionality has been introduced in RNN [@schuster1997bidirectional]. Then this idea has been extended to LSTM networks [@graves2005framewise] to create bidirectional LSTM recurrent neural networks (BLSTM). However key applications like handwriting recognition are based on images which have two dimensions. In order to process images, multidimensional LSTM recurrent neural networks (MDLSTM) have been introduced [@graves2009offline].
LSTM networks only became popular once a new learning strategy was introduced, the Connectionist Temporal Classification (CTC)[@CTC], which is a neural variant of the well known Forward Backward algorithm used for training HMM. CTC greatly helps training such networks by allowing embedded training of character models from the word or sentence label without the need for knowing the location of each character. This is working especially well thanks to the introduction of a “joker” class between characters, which allows the network to postpone the decision until sufficient information is gathered along the sequence, so as to output the character hypothesis at one particular position in the input stream.
Today, LSTM recurrent neural networks are the state of the art method for numerous sequence analysis applications, including optical character recognition [@grosicki2009icdar; @el2009icdar]. LSTM networks provide nearly binary posterior probabilities. One example of LSTM network outputs for the French word “demander” is given in Figure \[ctcpeak\], for readability of the legend, only lowercase characters are shown, with the correct characters highlighted with colors. Such an output profile allows to apply a simple decoding scheme without lexicon, known as “Best path decoding” [@graves2012supervised]. It takes the maximum a posteriori probability of the character class at each frame, and by removing every successive repetitions of each class (joker included), then the joker. The raw performance at the end of this lexicon free decoding scheme on a recognition task, although below state of the art, are very high. For example, on the Rimes word isolated recognition task, standard MDLSTM-RNN [@pham2014dropout] recognize 67% of the words, by using this simple best path decoding strategy.
![LSTM network outputs at the end of a CTC training. The outputs form peaks for every character recognized.[]{data-label="ctcpeak"}](picCTC+mot01551_L_3_2.png){width="8cm"}
The LSTM RNN high performance shows that contribution to the recognition mostly comes from LSTM RNN (see Fig. \[HWRproc\]). From these observations and considering the aforementioned problems inherent to the use of lexicon driven recognition, in this paper we explore a new paradigm for isolated handwritten word recognition. The following section is devoted to the presentation of this new strategy which is based on combining multiple character classifiers using a word lexicon verification rule of the sequence’s hypotheses.
Proposed Approach {#sec:proposedapproach}
=================
This paper proposes a new recognition paradigm which provides an efficient alternative to lexicon driven decoding. This strategy is based on cascading complementary neural networks, combined with a reliable rejection stage based on lexicon verification (see Figure \[HWRprocO\]). This section describes the overall cascade architecture (Section \[sec:cascade\]), the proposed rejection stage (Section \[sec:verif\]) and how complementary classifiers are generated (Section \[sec:train\])
The cascade framework {#sec:cascade}
---------------------
The first element of our lexicon driven decoding free approach is the cascade framework. Cascade of classifiers is a combination method that sequentially combines classifiers decisions by exploiting the complementary behavior of the classifiers, in order to progressively refine recognition decisions along the cascade. The most famous contribution on cascade of classifiers is from Viola and Jones [@viola2001rapid], who applied their framework to face detection. The authors present a cascade based on a large ensemble of diverse and weak classifiers, which enable a fast decision process by sequentially introducing reliable decision stages. The performance of each classifier may be low but it must be associated to a high confidence decision stage that accepts or rejects the decision. In [@zhang2013reliable] and [@zhang2007novel], an alternative cascade scheme is proposed by combining strong classifiers with different architecture and different input features. The strong classifier recognizes an important number of objects with a low error rate, while relying on a decision stage allowing to transfer rejects to the next classifiers.
This brief literature review shows that for both strategies, using either strong or weak classifiers, the strength of a cascade scheme comes from the reliability of the decision stage introduced after each classifier. In this paper we use the strong classifier approach, where we combine hundreds of LSTM RNN. Classifiers are ordered by increasing error (i.e. by decreasing reliability) and a reliable decision stage is introduced based on a lexicon verification operator (see Figure \[schemaCascade\]). When the lexicon verification operator accepts an hypothesis, the classification process stops thus avoiding to use the whole set of classifiers most of the time. This decision mechanism is essential to control the performance of the cascade while enabling to significantly speed up the process, when many classifiers are involved.
![The proposed BLSTM Cascade. Each classifier process the rejects from the previous layer.[]{data-label="schemaCascade"}](cascadeLSTMnewModel.pdf){width="12cm"}
The second important element of a cascade is the classifiers complementarity. Indeed, classifiers with similar behavior would not allow to refine the decision along the cascade. In this paper, we take benefit of the deep neural networks properties to get complementary classifiers during training of a single RNN, as discussed in section \[sec:train\].
We now discuss the decision reliability of our lexicon verification operator.
Lexicon verification operator reliability {#sec:verif}
-----------------------------------------
The decision stage is made of a lexicon verification rule which consists in accepting a character string hypothesis if it belongs to the lexicon, or rejecting it otherwise. Such simple verification stage can serve as a decision in the cascade only if it provides reliable decisions and has a very low false acceptance rate.
A False Acceptance (FA) of our lexicon verification rule occurs when a wrong character string hypothesis produced by the recognizer matches one entry of the lexicon. The probability of false acceptance $P_{FA}$ for a given recognizer can be expressed as described in equation (1) where $W$ is a word hypothesis, $L$ a lexicon, and $Reco$ a recognizer. “$W\text{ \textbf{is} erroneous}$” is $true$ when the word hypothesis $W$ is wrong, and “$W\in{} L$” is $true$ when the word hypothesis $W$ belongs to the lexicon.
$$P_{FA} = P(W\text{ \textbf{is}~erroneous~} \wedge{} W \in{} L \mid{}Reco)$$
Figure \[Pwmisc\] shows the estimated probability $P_{FA}$ of a single recognizer with respect to word length $n$. The probability was estimated by taking the results of one network trained on the Rimes dataset. One can observe that the probability $P_{FA}$ (blue curve) is high for short words (less than 4 characters) and therefore that the verification rule is not reliable enough. That is why we introduce the Minimum Number of Decision Agreement (MNDA), that allows to drastically reduce the probability of false acceptance to a very acceptable level. This MNDA is the minimum number of classifiers that must take the same classification decision, among the classifiers that have been activated in the cascade. As can be observed on magenta and cyan curves from Figure \[Pwmisc\], using a MNDA of 2 and 3 leads to a very low estimated probability (below half a percent), even for short words.
![Estimated $P_{FA}$ over the length of word $n$ for a given LSTM recognizer trained on the Rimes dataset with and without Minimum Number of Decision Agreement. The estimated probability decreases significantly with the MNDA.[]{data-label="Pwmisc"}](courbesProbaErreurMot.pdf){width="10cm"}
Let us now analyze the effect of the lexicon verification solely (MNDA = 0) on a word recognition task. In this respect, Table \[ExpePrelBis\] shows the performance obtained on the Rimes dataset using a lexicon free BLSTM recognizer, with and without the simple verification rule. We see that adding the verification rule to the BLSTM makes the Word Error Rate (WER) dramatically decreases by 93%, from $33.63\%$ to only $2.25\%$. By looking at the remaining confusions, most of the errors are type case, accents and plural errors. This first experiment demonstrates the strength of a verification strategy in combination with BLSTM classifiers.
-------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
**Network &**WRR &**WER &**WJR\
BLSTM & 66.37 & 33.63 & 0\
BLSTM + verification & 66.37 & **2.25** & 31.38\
********
-------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
: Word Recognition Rate (WRR), Word Error Rate (WER) and Word rejection Rate (WJR) of a lexicon-free BLSTM recognizer on the Rimes dataset, with and without the lexicon verification strategy. Most of recognition errors are rejected thanks to the verification, strongly reducing the Word Error Rate.[]{data-label="ExpePrelBis"}
We have shown that Lexicon Verification can significantly reduce recognition errors, and that the number of False Acceptance can be reduced by adding a Minimum Number of Decision Agreement. In the design of a cascade we introduce a rejection rule by combining a lexicon verification operator with Minimum Number of Decision Agreement. Such an operator will serve as an efficient rule to control the decisions at each stage of the cascade. In the next section, we investigate how to easily generate complementary LSTM RNN.
Generation of complementary LSTM RNN {#sec:train}
------------------------------------
There are many ways to generate complementary LSTM neural networks. The first one is by using different architectures (BLSTM vs MDLSTM, changing the number of layers or neurons, etc.) or using different input features (pixels, Histogram of Gradients, etc.). However these modifications are costly in terms of design, training time, and limited in number.
Some previous experiments have shown that similar LSTM recurrent neural networks trained with different initial weights can be combined with success [@menasri2012a2ia]. These networks have similar recognition rates, but the connection weights are different and therefore they have some complementarity properties which allow to combine them with success. However training many networks starting with different initializations is slow as it takes up to a week to train a single network.
In order to get as much complementary networks as possible with a limited effort considering both time in design and training, the idea lies in controlling the training phase of deep neural networks, and is inspired by the work of Choromanska et al. in [@choromanska2015loss]. This work makes a parallel between fully-connected neural networks loss function and high degree random polynomials which have a huge number of local minima of same order of magnitude. The authors conclude that when training a large neural network, reaching a local minimum is nearly similar to reaching the global optimum. As a consequence, exploring these local minima may be a simple but relevant strategy to obtain a large amount of complementary networks that perform equally well, but with different local properties. We call the ensemble of networks obtained by this strategy a cohort, and we use the obtained cohort to feed a cascade.
![Word Error Rate over epoch of a network trained on the Rimes dataset with learning rate: fixed at $10^{-4}$ (blue), at $10^{-4}$ then $10^{-5}$ at epoch 96 (magenta) and at $10^{-3}$ (cyan). On the blue curves there are local fluctuations on the error, when decreasing learn rate on the purple curves fluctuations decrease. On cyan curve the learn rate is too high and training is not converging well.[]{data-label="curvErr"}](courbesLR.png){width="11cm"}
However, this easy and fast strategy to get many complementary networks requires some attention on the training parameters in order to get the desired property. Indeed training must avoid to be trapped in one local minimum in order to get complementary classifiers. Training a neural network using steepest gradient descent is controlled by three important parameters which are the learning rate, the momentum value and dataset shuffling. Momentum is the factor that control the weights update and thus the convergence of the training procedure. We use a fixed momentum of 0.9, which is commonly used in the literature, in order to help escaping local minima. When training networks, the examples are shuffled between each epoch in order to get a better convergence by preventing cycles. As training examples are randomly shuffled between epochs, we can consider that the state of the network (the weights’ value) is randomly reached from one epoch to another. The last and maybe most important parameter is the learning rate. It is the weight associated to the value of the gradient that serve as the update rule of the network weights. Figure \[curvErr\] shows the impact of the learning rate on training a BLSTM network defined in \[sec:archi\] on the Rimes dataset (see \[sec:dataEval\]). A large learning rate does not allow convergence of the network, as shown on Figure \[curvErr\] (cyan curve) where the network does not converge properly with a learning rate of $10^{-3}$. A too small learning rate leads to very small changes of the weights values and does not allow reaching another local minimum, and as a consequence gives no complementary networks between epochs. As shown on Figure \[curvErr\] on the magenta curves decreasing the learning rate to $10^{-5}$ at the epoch 96 (taken arbitrarily but any other epoch at this stage would have been suited) produces less fluctuation of the WER leading to less variability and then nearly no complementarity. The desired behavior is obtained for a learning rate set to $10^{-4}$.
By choosing these parameters, the networks extracted at each epoch of one single complete training phase can constitute a cohort. The red rectangle on Figure \[curvErr\] shows the region where the networks can be selected, where training has converged to reach a region with no overall significant decrease of the WER, but with small fluctuations that highlight the various local minima reached, thus providing networks with different local properties. The proposed training strategy although simple is very effective to get complementary networks. Some experimental analysis are presented in section \[sec:analComp\] to evaluate the network complementarity within a cohort.
At this stage, we have proposed a lexicon verification rule that can serve as an effective reliable rejection rule, and an easy mean to get hundreds of complementary LSTMM RNN during a single training session. Let us now describe the implementation details of the cascade.
Implementation and Results
==========================
Based on the methodological principles established in the previous section, we now detail our implementation and present the results achieving state of the art performance. We also analyze the method regarding both the complementarity between networks and the lexicon verification stage in terms of performance.
Dataset and Evaluation {#sec:dataEval}
----------------------
The experiments have been carried out on the Rimes[@grosicki2009icdar] and IAM [@marti2002iam] isolated words datasets and using the official splits and lexicons provided with these datasets. The character sets contain upper and lower case characters of the Latin alphabet, symbols that may occur in a word like “**’**” or “**-**”, and many others. For the Rimes dataset there is also accented characters, and the evaluation is made on lower case as in [@menasri2012a2ia] for comparison purpose, and also because of some ground truth ambiguity [^1].
The lexicons for both datasets are composed of all the words of the training, validation and test sets, as used in the competitions and related papers, giving lexicons size of 5744 and 12202 words for Rimes and IAM respectively. For the Rimes dataset, a smaller lexicon composed of test words (1692) is used in order to evaluate lexicon sensitivity. Notice that for every experiment, the lexicons have a 100% coverage rate as it is the case for every evaluation conducted for related word recognition in the literature.
We also propose to evaluate the performance of our approach on very large lexicons that better represent what can be found in industrial applications (e.g. It exists millions of named entities for addresses : countries, regions, towns, street names, names,...). For that, we have collected by ourselves two extremely large lexicons for each dataset[^2]:
- The first one is an union of the words from the french Wikipedia, Wiktionnaire, French dictionary Gutemberg and the Rimes dataset, leading to French lexicon of **3,276,994** words;
- The second one is the union of the words found in the one billion word data [@chelba2013one] and the IAM dataset, leading to an English lexicon of **2,439,432** words.
For all the experiments, we measure the performance with the Character Error Rate (CER), calculated with the Levenshtein distance, and the Word Error Rate (WER). We also measure the Word Recognition Rate (WRR) and the Word Rejection Rate (WJR). In the classifier cascade only, character errors of rejected words are not considered in the CER.
Architecture {#sec:archi}
------------
Two well established LSTM RNN architectures have been used for the experimentations:
The first is a BLSTM architecture identical to the one used in [@mioulet2015exploring]: it is a two layers network composed respectively of 70 and 120 LSTM blocks, separated by a subsampling layer of 100 hidden neurons without bias, and with an hyperbolic tangent activation function. The network also has two layers to reduce the sequence length. The first one concatenates the input vectors in pairs, while the second one concatenates the output vectors of the first layer in pairs. For example, a sequence composed of 12 frames of 1 pixel width is transformed into a sequence of length 3 corresponding to 3 frames of 4 pixels width. As input features, we use histogram of oriented gradients (HOG) [@dalal2005histograms] that have demonstrated their efficiency for handwriting recognition [@Bid15]. Images are normalized to 64 pixels height. A sliding window of 8 pixel width extracts the HOG features at a 1 pixel pace. This architecture has been selected for its balanced characteristics, both performing slightly better than the reference architecture (presented below) [@graves2009offline] and allowing a fast decoding, 15 milliseconds per word on average (intel i7-3740QM CPU). The second architecture is a MDLSTM architecture similar to the reference in [@graves2009offline]. This architecture is composed of three layers of respectively 2, 10 and 50 LSTM cells, and two subsampling layers of 6 and 20 neurons. Raw images are normalized and directly fed to the network. The decoding time is 10 milliseconds per word on average (on an intel i7-3740QM CPU).
For both architectures we use a lexicon free “Best path decoding” algorithm [@graves2012supervised] described in (\[sec:lstm\]) to retrieve the characters string. Training and decoding have been performed with RNNLIB [@graves2013rnnlib].
Generating a cohort of LSTM RNN {#sec:cohorts}
-------------------------------
To get a cohort of complementary LSTM RNN, the three following strategies are followed: (i) Our training trick described in section \[sec:train\], for which we get one network per epoch ; (ii) Different starting initialization ; (iii) Two different architectures BLSTM and MDLSTM.
Moreover, we use a common trick to improve performance of neural networks by performing transformations over the training set, in order to increase the size of the training set. By using rotations and warping, we multiply the size of the training set by 3, and as shown in Figure \[curvErrDef\] the word error rate improves. Beside providing a lower error, we observe that the transformations also bring more fluctuations during training by adding more training samples between two epoch, thus increasing the number of weight updates and the potential local differences between two network between two epochs.
![Comparisons of Word Error Rate over of two networks with and without transformations with learn rate fixed at $10^{-4}$. The error fluctuates at a higher amplitude for the network with transformations.[]{data-label="curvErrDef"}](courbesLRdef.pdf){width="11cm"}
2100 different networks are collected from only ten different trainings on the Rimes dataset with different random initializations:
- 2 BLSTM trainings;
- 1 MDLSTM training;
- 4 BLSTM trainings with transformations;
- 3 MDLSTM trainings with transformations.
Training these 10 networks with 3 computers on CPU only took 10 days, while training 2100 networks with different initialization would have taken 2 years and 9 months.
Regarding the IAM dataset, we also trained two networks with transformations (tripling the size of train set), two BLSTM and two MDLSTM, leading to a total of 1039 networks for this task.
The purpose of doing several training is threefold, it allows us to: i) get more networks with training run in parallel, (ii) check successfully that the method doesn’t depend on the initial weights or architecture selected, and (iii) improve performance thanks to the two architectures and using different features.
Results
-------
### Performance of cascades built from a single cohort
In this section, cascades are built using networks from a single cohort of RNN.
Cascade from single cohort of BLSTM, BLSTM with transformations, and MDLSTM are considered. We select 100 networks to form each cohort and combine each cohort in a cascade, using the lexicon verification operator.
When combining hundreds of networks into a cascade, the performance depends on ordering the classifiers in the cascade, and on the value of the Minimum Number of Decision Agreements (MNDA) in the decision stage. Ordering the classifiers in the cascade is made according to the deletion error criterion (deletion is the rate of characters omitted by the network) on the validation set. Tuning the MNDA parameter was carried out by considering long words and short words.
As previously seen in Figure \[Pwmisc\], we observe that short words are more prone to mistakes, justifying the fact that short and long words will be considered differently in the rejection stage of the cascade. In these experiments we have chosen a MNDA of 3 for long words and 10 for short words, however, small deviations from the values do not affect the results much. For example when using MNDA in the range 2 to 10 for long words, and MNDA in the range 5 to 40, we observe no modification in the CER, while WER is modified by 0.25% only. It is also possible to optimize these parameters regarding the validation set.
In Table \[tab:resOneCohort\], the first line is a recall of the performance of a single BLSTM obtained in our preliminary experiments (See section \[sec:verif\] ). A Word Recognition Rate of 66% is obtained. When using transformations, this score improves to 71% Combining 100 networks highly improves the WRR up to 84.5%, while the same experiment with transformations and 100 BLSTM improves the WRR to 89.56%. Finally, it appears that improvement does not depend on the type of network nor on the input features, as we observe using MDLSTM a significant improvement of the WRR, on the last line of the Table \[tab:resOneCohort\].
We now analyze the results for cascades made of classifiers from multiple cohorts, in the hope to further increase the complementarity within the cascade.
### Performance of cascades with multiple cohorts
We evaluate the cascade of cohorts of LSTM for the Rimes and IAM datasets. First we report the results on the Rimes dataset. By gathering the 10 cohorts described in section \[sec:cohorts\], 2100 networks are combined in the cascade. As shown in Table \[tab:resRimes\], we achieve state of the art performance for a 5744 words lexicon on the Rimes dataset. To compare the results with others, which have no reject, we use a Viterbi lexicon decoding on the rejected words at the end of the cascade. For doing so, character posterior probabilities are the average class posterior probabilities of ten LSTM networks randomly picked among the cohort, before running the Viterbi decoder. Averaging the output probabilities from different networks improves the performance (in comparison to taking the output of only one network). Notice that the number of networks randomly selected has a very low impact on the performance above a certain threshold. Selecting 5, 10, 20 or 40 networks yields nearly similar results. The gap between this study and the results presented in [@poznanski2016cnn], both in terms of CER and WER is significant with an absolute decrease of 0.56 (29%) of the CER and 0.42 (11%) of the WER.
The recognition difference between small (1692 words) and large (5744 words) lexicons is very small ($\simeq$ 0.48 points) compared to the traditional performance drop observed. The difference between the large (5744 words) and gigantic (> 3M words) lexicon is more important, however it is still rather limited with a difference of 5.71%. Both results prove the low sensitivity of the method to the size of the lexicon.
Regarding the gigantic lexicon, the system provides very interesting recognition rate (90.14%) as the lexicon is nearly 600 times larger than the Rimes lexicon. Such lexicon size opens new perspectives for processing named entities or multilingual documents for example. Notice that we have no comparison with any other study since to the best of our knowledge, there is no other reference in the literature using such lexicon size.
The results on the IAM dataset are presented in Table \[tab:resIam\]. Both CER and WER are better than state of the art ones by respectively 0.66 (19% decrease) and 0.52 (8% decrease). The result for the gigantic lexicon is also impressive with 85% of words recognized with a lexicon 200 times larger than the initial one.
[|M[3.5cm]{}|M[2.2cm]{}|M[1cm]{}|M[1cm]{}|M[1cm]{}|M[1cm]{}|]{} **System** & **Lexicon size** & **WRR** & **WER** & **WJR** & **CER** This work & *12202* & 92.46 & **5.04** & 2.50 & 2.08 This work & *2 439 432* & 85.51 & 13.30 & 1.19 & 4.77 This work + Viterbi & *12202* & **94.07** & 5.93 & - & **2.78** Poznanski et al. [@poznanski2016cnn] & *12202* & 93.55 & 6.45 & - & 3.44
Analysis of the networks complementarity {#sec:analComp}
----------------------------------------
In this subsection, we analyze the complementarity of the classifiers selected in the cascades. For this purpose, we estimate the Word Classifier Similarity Outputs (WCSO) of every networks during the training phase. WCSO measures the percentage of identical answers at word level between two classifiers. We compute the WCSO for 100 networks taken during the epochs as shown on Figure \[curvErr\]. The results are presented on Figure \[curvSim\].
![Word Classifier Similarity Outputs over the epoch of training (blue dots) with the mean WCSO (green curve) and the linear regression of WCSO (red curve). []{data-label="curvSim"}](courbesSim.pdf){width="11cm"}
We measured an average similarity of 67% between two networks with a standard deviation of only 0.009, proving the complementarity of the networks selected by the proposed procedure(whereas for a learning rate of $10^{-5}$ the mean similarity is 90%). As shown on Figure \[curvSim\], the linear regression of the WCSO is decreasing, meaning that the complementarity between networks is increasing with the number of epochs.
To further assess the complementarity of the networks, we compute the percentage of having at least one correct hypothesis among the cohort. Figure \[curvWr0\] shows this recognition over the number of networks and has been computed for three different cohort from a BLSTM, a MDLSTM and a second BLSTM with transformations (the same trainings that were presented in Table \[tab:resOneCohort\]). For one BLSTM network (blue curve) this percentage is around 66% whereas for 10 networks it is around 83% and for the 100 BLSTM it is about 90%. The positive evolution of the word recognition rate without any stabilization on Figure \[curvWr0\] for each cohort shows that the more networks from a cohort, the more likely the right solution can be found.
![Evolution of the optimal theoretical recognition over the number of networks for three different cohort. The theoretical optimal recognition is improving with the cohort size.[]{data-label="curvWr0"}](courbesWR0.pdf){width="11cm"}
Moreover, Figure \[curvWr0\] also shows the results for the networks from the BLSTM cohort using two simple decision rules: a majority vote and a majority vote with lexicon verification. The majority vote selects the most frequent word hypothesis, whereas the majority vote with lexicon verification selects the most frequent word hypothesis that belongs to a lexicon. Figure \[curvWr0\] shows that the simple majority vote provides limited word recognition rate, whereas when the lexicon verification improves the performance of more than 10%. This illustrates the interesting capacities of the lexicon verification and its reliability.
Processing time
---------------
We analyze now one potential drawback of the approach, which requires many networks and thus a large amount of processing time. However, the cascade architecture is very effective regarding computation cost, because once a candidate is accepted by the verification stage, it does not pass through the rest of the cascade. Regarding the processing time due to the lexicon verification, it is below one microsecond, even considering the gigantic lexicons presented in the previous section. Finally, when considering our system with 2100 networks, the mean processing time per word is 729 milliseconds. 80% of the words are processed in less than 0.175s, after 14 networks or less, and 90% in less than half a second (after 41 networks or less)[^3]. As our code has not been optimized nor parallelized, we believe that there is room for strong improvements.
Considering memory issues, the networks involved in these experiments do not require a lot of memory space, as the whole set 2100 networks fit into 6GB, even with double precision encoding (64 bits).
Above timing consideration, one would ask whether the whole cohort of networks is necessary, or if a subset of them would perform similarly, which in this case would also alleviate the processing time. This point is addressed in the next section.
Pruning classifiers from the cohort
-----------------------------------
The aim of the selection is to decimate the cohort of classifiers so as to keep the most efficient reduced set of classifiers. This has been achieved by simply removing the networks providing the poorest performance on the validation dataset. Networks which don’t recognize new words, or which yield too much false acceptance are removed. By doing so, we manage to reduce the number of networks from 2100 to 118. As shown in Table \[tab:resPruning\], we observed a very acceptable performance drop compared to the cohort of 2100 networks. Nearly similar results are obtained when using Viterbi decoding of the rejects: the WER is **3.64%** (previously 3.48%) and the CER is **1.49%** (previously 1.34%). Note that this reduced architecture still improves state of the art. The mean processing time of this pruned cohort is decreased to 197 milliseconds (previously 729ms).
[|M[3.5cm]{}|M[2.2cm]{}|M[1cm]{}|M[1cm]{}|M[1cm]{}|M[1cm]{}|]{} **System** & **Lexicon size** & **WRR** & **WER** & **WJR** & **CER** This work & *5744* & 92.96 & 2.28 & 4.76 & 0.69 This work & *3 276 994* & 88.82 & 8.04 & 3.14 & 2.20 This work + Viterbi & *5744* & 96.36 & 3.64 & - & 1.49
Conclusion
==========
This works presents a new recognition paradigm that substitute the traditional lexicon directed recognition by a lexicon verification procedure. It is exploited in a cascade framework involving hundreds of LSTM recurrent neural networks. The networks are obtained during a single training procedure, therefore not requiring many parameter optimization and a limited training duration. By analyzing the Word Classifier Similarity Outputs on the Rimes datasets, we prove that complementarity can be obtained by this procedure and is decreasing with epochs.
Another important part of the success of the cascade combination is due to the lexicon verification operator including both the lexicon verification and the Minimum Number of Decision Agreement. The combination shows a low probability of false acceptance, and has also very low sensitivity to lexicon size. Besides, our method allows to process gigantic lexicons without extra processing time, which has never been done before. Even if the performance decreases with the lexicon size, MNDA could be increased with the lexicon size in order to reduce the generated confusions. We successfully achieve state of the art results for both Rimes and IAM datasets, with nearly no parameters to tune. Moreover, the system can be customized for application’s needs.
One interesting perspective to this work is to extend the idea at line level by using both the cohort and the lexicon verification with a line level suited combination framework as ROVER. As the lexicon size is not an issue anymore, it also opens new perspectives for large lexicon applications such as the processing of multilingual documents, or named entity recognition.
From a methodological point of view, it would be interesting to investigate the genericity of the cohort generation, and especially to analyze its efficiency using alternative architectures like convolutional neural networks or adversarial neural networks.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: Namely on certain upper case characters, especially for letter “**j**” in the word “**je**” or “**j’**” where many ground truth errors occur in the dataset.
[^2]: These lexicons are available on request.
[^3]: This timing has been evaluated on an Intel CPU i7-3740QM.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a natural new inflationary model in broken supergravity based on an $R$ symmetry. The model predicts a concrete relation between the amplitude of primordial density fluctuations and the scale of supersymmetry breaking. The observed value of the density fluctuations is obtained for the gravitino mass of order the weak scale along with a power-law spectral index considerably less than one, which may be tested in future observations.'
author:
- |
Izawa K.-I. and T. Yanagida\
\
[*Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113, Japan*]{}
date: 'August, 1996'
title: |
UT-757
Natural New Inflation in Broken Supergravity
---
c ł u v Ł ¶ §
ø
Introduction
============
Low-energy supersymmetry has attracted much attention in particle physics, since it provides a conceivable solution to the hierarchy problem [@A; @Nil]. Supersymmetric theories naturally accommodate gravity in the form of supergravity [@Nil], which may give us a consistent description of physics below the Planck scale. However, supergravity generically allows a constant term in a superpotential. Thus we expect a negative cosmological constant of order the Planck scale, which yields an anti de Sitter universe. This leads us to seek a further symmetry which avoids such a disastrous situation.
Supersymmetric field theories admit a peculiar symmetry called $R$ symmetry [@Nil]. It is unique in that it can forbid a constant term in a superpotential and thus restrict a cosmological constant in supergravity. It is also ubiquitous in phenomenological models with supersymmetry. Indeed it is a generic ingredient for causing dynamical supersymmetry breaking [@Nel]. These considerations lead us to impose an $R$ symmetry in the framework of supergravity.
In this paper, we consider an $R$-invariant model of an inflaton where spontaneous breakdown of the $R$ symmetry naturally generates an inflationary universe. The vanishing cosmological constant in the present vacuum implies that the contributions of inflaton potential and supersymmetry breaking sector to the vacuum energy cancel out between each other provided the other contributions are negligible. [^1] Then we obtain a concrete relation between the amplitude of primordial density fluctuations and the scale of supersymmetry breaking in our universe. We see that the value of primordial density fluctuations predicted for the gravitino mass of order the weak scale is just around that obtained in the observational analyses. The prediction of the spectral index tends to be considerably less than one for the observed value of the density fluctuations, which may be tested in future observations.
The model
=========
Let us introduce an inflaton superfield $\f$ with $R$ charge $2/(n+1)$, where $n$ denotes a positive integer of order one. Namely, it transforms as $$\f(\h) \rightarrow e^{i{2 \o n+1}\a} \f(e^{-i\a}\h).$$ This charge assignment allows a tree-level superpotential $$W_0 = - {g \o n+1} \f^{n+1},$$ where $g$ is a coupling constant of order one. Here and henceforth, we set the gravitational scale $M \simeq 2.4 \times 10^{18}$ GeV equal to unity and regard it as a plausible cutoff in supergravity. Note that the superpotential $W_0$ by itself yields a fairly flat potential for $n \geq 3$, which is desirable for a slow-roll inflationary scenario. We further assume the presence of a (composite) superfield [^2] with $R$ charge $2 - 2/(n+1)$ which condenses to give a tiny scale $v^2 \ll 1$. This condensation breaks the $U(1)_R$ symmetry [^3] down to a discrete $R$ symmetry $Z_{2n}$ [@Kum]. Then we expect an effective superpotential $$W = v^2 \f - {g \o n+1} \f^{n+1}.
\label{ADDEQ}$$ The $R$-invariant effective Kähler potential is given by $$K = |\f|^2 + {k \o 4}|\f|^4 + \cdots,$$ where $k$ is naturally of order one and assumed to be positive. The ellipsis denotes higher-order terms, which we may ignore in the following analysis.
The effective potential for the field $\f$ in supergravity is given by [@Nil] $$V = e^K
\left\{ \left( {\q^2 K \o \q \f \q \f^*} \right)^{-1} |DW|^2
- 3|W|^2 \right\},
\label{EPOT}$$ where we have defined $$DW = {\q W \o \q \f} + {\q K \o \q \f}W.$$ This indicates that the vacua [^4] with $|\f| < 1$ satisfy the condition [@Wei] $$DW \simeq v^2 - g \f^n = 0,$$ which yields a vacuum $$\langle \f \rangle \simeq \left({v^2 \o g}\right)^{1 \o n}.$$ The potential at the vacuum is given by $$\langle V \rangle = -3 e^{\langle K \rangle} |\langle W \rangle|^2
\simeq -3\left({n \o n+1}\right)^2v^4|\langle \f \rangle|^2,
\label{VAC}$$ whose magnitude is much smaller than the inflation scale $V(0) = v^4$.
We propose a scenario that the negative vacuum energy Eq.(\[VAC\]) is canceled out by a supersymmetry-breaking effect which gives a positive contribution $\L^4$ to the cosmological constant: $$-3\left({n \o n+1}\right)^2v^4\left|{v^2 \o g}\right|^{2 \o n} + \L^4 = 0.
\label{VCC}$$ This cancellation results in our flat vacuum. [^5] We note that $\L^2 \ll v^2$ for $v^2 \ll 1$. In the hidden sector models of supersymmetry breaking, the scale $\L$ is chosen so as to give a mass of the weak scale to the gravitino: $$m_{3/2} \simeq {\L^2 \o \sqrt{3}} \simeq 10^{-16}-10^{-15}.
\label{GRA}$$
The inflaton mass $m_\f$ in the vacuum is given by $$m_\f \simeq n|g|^{1 \o n}v^{2-{2 \o n}}.
\label{IM}$$ The inflaton $\f$ may have the following $R$-invariant interactions with the ordinary light fields $\p_i$ in the Kähler potential: $$K(\f, \p_i) = \sum_i \l_i |\f|^2 |\p_i|^2 + \cdots,
\label{DI}$$ where $\l_i$ is a coupling constant of order one. The decay width $\G_\f$ of the inflaton is then estimated as $$\G_\f \simeq \sum_i \l_i^2 |\langle \f \rangle|^2 m_\f^3.
\label{DW}$$ This decay results in a reheating temperature $$T_R \simeq g_*^{-{1 \o 4}}\sqrt{\G_\f},
\label{RT}$$ where $g_*$ is the relativistic degrees of freedom at the temperature $T_R$. Hence we get $$T_R \simeq n^{3 \o 2} |g|^{2 \o n+1} m_{3/2}^{3n-1 \o 2(n+1)}.
\label{RHT}$$
Inflationary Dynamics
=====================
Let us investigate the inflationary dynamics of the above model by means of a slow-roll approximation [@Kol].
We may set $g > 0$ and $\langle \f \rangle > 0$ without loss of generality and describe the system approximately in terms of the inflaton field $\v$ $(\geq 0)$ which is $\sqrt{2}$ times the real part of the field $\f$. Then the potential for the inflaton reads $$V(\v) \simeq v^4 - {k \o 2}v^4\v^2
- {g \o 2^{{n \o 2}-1}}v^2\v^n + {g^2 \o 2^n}\v^{2n}
\label{POT}$$ for $\v < \langle \v \rangle = \sqrt{2} \langle \f \rangle$. The $k$-independent contribution of $\v^2$ term in $e^K|DW|^2$ is exactly canceled by that in $-3|W|^2$, as was noted in Ref.[@Kum].
The slow-roll inflationary regime is determined by the condition [@Kol] $$\e(\v) = {1 \o 2} \left({V'(\v) \o V(\v)} \right)^2 \leq 1,
\quad |\y(\v)| \leq 1,
\label{COND}$$ where $$\y(\v) = {V''(\v) \o V(\v)}.$$ For the potential Eq.(\[POT\]), we obtain $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
\e(\v) \simeq {1 \o 2}
\left({-kv^4\v - {g \o 2^{{n \o 2}-1}}nv^2\v^{n-1} \o v^4}\right)^2
= {\v^2 \o 2}(k + {g^2 \o 2^{n-1}}nv^{-2}\v^{n-2})^2, \\
\noalign{\vskip 2ex}
\displaystyle
\y(\v) \simeq {-kv^4 - {g \o 2^{{n \o 2}-1}}n(n-1)v^2\v^{n-2} \o v^4}
= -k - {g \o 2^{{n \o 2}-1}}n(n-1)v^{-2}\v^{n-2}.
\end{array}$$ The slow-roll condition Eq.(\[COND\]) is satisfied for $k \leq 1$ and $\v \leq \v_f$ where $$\v_f \simeq \sqrt{2} \left({(1-k)v^2 \o gn(n-1)}\right)^{1 \o n-2},$$ which provides the value of the inflaton field at the end of inflation. [^6] This value is smaller than the vacuum expectation value $\langle \v \rangle$ due to $v^2 \ll 1$, which is consistent with the approximation Eq.(\[POT\]) of the inflaton potential for discussing the inflationary dynamics. The Hubble parameter during the inflation ($0 < \v \leq \v_f$) is given by $$H \simeq \sqrt{V(0) \o 3} \simeq {v^2 \o \sqrt{3}}.
\label{HBL}$$
Let us turn to consideration on the horizon of the present universe. The $e$-fold number $N$ of the present horizon is given by [@Kol] $$N \simeq 67 + {1 \o 3}\ln H + {1 \o 3}\ln T_R
\simeq 67 + {1 \o 3}\ln(n^{3 \o 2} m_{3/2}^{5n-1 \o 2(n+1)}).
\label{EFLD}$$
Let $\v_N$ be the value of the field $\v$ when the observable universe crossed the horizon during the inflation. Then the $e$-fold number $N$ is also given by $$N = \int_{\v_f}^{\v_N} \! d\v \, {V(\v) \o V'(\v)}.$$ $(i)$ For $1/n \leq k < 1$, we obtain $$N \simeq \int_{\v_f}^{\v_N} \! d\v \, {v^4 \o -kv^4\v}
= {1 \o k}\ln({\v_f \o \v_N}).$$ That is, $$\v_N \simeq \v_f e^{-kN}.$$ $(ii)$ For $1/N \leq k < 1/n$, we obtain $$N \simeq \int_{\bar \v}^{\v_N} \! d\v \, {v^4 \o -kv^4\v}
+ \int_{\v_f}^{\bar \v} \! d\v \, {v^4 \o -{g \o 2^{{n \o 2}-1}}nv^2\v^{n-1}}
= {1 \o k}\ln({{\bar \v} \o \v_N}) + {1-nk \o (n-2)k(1-k)},$$ where $\bar \v$ is determined by $$kv^4{\bar \v} = {g \o 2^{{n \o 2}-1}}nv^2{\bar \v}^{n-1}.$$ That is, $$\v_N \simeq {\bar \v} e^{-k{\bar N}},$$ where $${\bar \v} = \sqrt{2} \left({kv^2 \o gn}\right)^{1 \o n-2}, \quad
{\bar N} = N - {1-nk \o (n-2)k(1-k)}.$$ $(iii)$ We do not consider the region $k < 1/N$ since the coupling $k$ seems unnaturally small for $N$ of several decades. [^7]
The value $\v_N$ should exceed the amplitude of quantum fluctuations of the inflaton field in the de Sitter universe [@Kol]: $$\D \v \simeq {H \o 2\pi} \simeq {v^2 \o 2\pi \sqrt{3}}.$$ For $n = 3$, we obtain $N \simeq 47$ from Eq.(\[GRA\]) and Eq.(\[EFLD\]). The condition $$\v_N \simeq {\sqrt{2} k v^2 \o 3g} \exp(-kN + {1-3k \o 1-k}) > \D \v$$ implies that $k$ seems too small to be natural for $g$ of order one. Hence we discard this possibility and restrict ourselves to $n \geq 4$, where the condition $\v_N > \D \v$ is satisfied for a natural range of the parameter $k$.
The Density Fluctuations and Spectral Index
===========================================
In the above inflationary model, the amplitude of primordial density fluctuations $\d \r / \r$, which arises from quantum fluctuations $\D \v$ of the inflaton field, is given by [@Kol] $${\d \r \o \r} \simeq {3 \o 5 \pi}{H^3 \o |V'(\v_N)|}
\simeq {1 \o 5\sqrt{3}\pi}{V^{3 \o 2}(\v_N) \o |V'(\v_N)|}$$ and the spectral index $n_s$ of the density fluctuations is given by [@Kol] $$\label{X}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
n_s \simeq 1 - 6\e(\v_N) + 2\y(\v_N) \\
\noalign{\vskip 1ex}
\displaystyle
\ \quad
\simeq 1 - 2k\left\{1+(n-1)\exp\left[-k(n-2)N+{1-nk \o 1-k}\right]\right\}.
\end{array}$$ For $1/N \ll k < 1$, we obtain $n_s \simeq 1-2k$. The lower bound of the tilt allowed by observations implies $n_s > 0.6 $ [@COBE; @ST], which is realized for $k < 0.2$. Thus we adopt the range $1/N \leq k < 0.2$ and evaluate the density fluctuations by means of an input Eq.(\[GRA\]). ([*a*]{}) For $n = 4$, we obtain $$N \simeq 45,$$ which gives $$8 \times 10^{-6} g^{3 \o 5} \leq 2 \times 10 g^{3 \o 5} m_{3/2}^{2 \o 5}
\leq {\d \r \o \r} < 5 \times 10^3 g^{3 \o 5} m_{3/2}^{2 \o 5}
\leq 5 \times 10^{-3} g^{3 \o 5}.$$ The lower and upper bounds correspond to the cases of $k=1/45$, $m_{3/2}=10^{-16}$ and $k=0.2$, $m_{3/2}=10^{-15}$, respectively. ([*b*]{}) For $n \geq 5$, we obtain $$0 < {\d \r \o \r} < 2 \times 10^3 g^{4 \o 9} m_{3/2}^{5 \o 9}
\leq 1 \times 10^{-5} g^{4 \o 9}.$$
The observational data yield $\d \r / \r \simeq 2 \times 10^{-5}$ [@COBE; @ST], which implies that a realistic inflationary model is given [^8] in the case of $n=4$. Then the required amplitude of the density fluctuations is obtained for $k \simeq 0.03 - 0.13$ and $g$ of order one, which results in the spectral index $n_s \simeq 0.91 - 0.74$. This tilted power spectrum of the primordial density fluctuations may be adequate for structure formation in our universe [@ST].
Conclusion
==========
Let us summarize the model with $n=4$. For the gravitino mass Eq.(\[GRA\]) of the weak scale, we obtain the inflation scale $v \simeq 10^{-6}$ and the Hubble parameter during the inflation $H \simeq 10^{-12}$ from Eq.(\[VCC\]) and Eq.(\[HBL\]). The inflaton mass Eq.(\[IM\]) and the reheating temperature Eq.(\[RHT\]) turn out to be $$m_\f \simeq 10^{-9}, \quad T_R \simeq 10^{-16}.$$ For the coupling $k \simeq 0.1$ in the Kähler potential, we get the amplitude $\d \r/\r \simeq 10^{-5}$. The model with the observed amplitude $\d \r/\r \simeq 2 \times 10^{-5}$ predicts a tilted power spectrum of the primordial density fluctuations with the index $n_s \simeq 0.8$.
If the mass of some right-handed neutrino is less than $m_\f/2$, the inflaton can decay to a pair of the neutrinos through the interaction Eq.(\[DI\]). In that case, baryogenesis may be followed by leptogenesis from decay of the right-handed neutrino [@Fuk] since $T_R$ is of order the weak scale in the above model. The right-handed neutrino with the mass of this order induces, through the seesaw mechanism [@Yan], a tiny mass of a left-handed neutrino in an interesting range for the solution to the solar neutrino problem [@F]. We note that the reheating temperature is possibly higher than the weak scale when the inflaton field is involved in a stronger interaction than the one in Eq.(\[DI\]) [@Kum].
Let us comment on the supersymmetry breaking sector. The $\L^4$ contribution to the vacuum energy in Eq.(\[VAC\]) is obtained, for example, by introducing a superfield $Z$ and its superpotential $W(Z) = \L^2 Z$ with an origin of the scale $\L$ presumably dynamical [@Iza]. During inflation $\v \simeq 0$, the field $Z$ acquires a mass of the Hubble scale, which keeps the condition $Z \simeq 0$ at the inflationary epoch [^9] and the contribution of the $Z$ sector is negligible during the inflation for $\L^2 \ll v^2$. Thus the introduction of the field $Z$ scarcely affects the inflationary dynamics. We note that the gravitino mass is possibly as light [^10] as $10^{-24}$ for the lower bound of the spectral index $n_s \simeq 0.6$ though we have regarded $m_{3/2}$ as the weak scale throughout the paper. On the other hand, if we consider the case that the contribution of the inflaton potential to the cosmological constant is canceled by some GUT scale physics instead of the supersymmetry breaking sector, the vacuum expectation value of the inflaton $\langle \v \rangle$ turns out to be of order one. Then the present model realizes supersymmetric topological inflation: The model possesses the discrete $R$ symmetry $Z_{2n}$, which is spontaneously broken to the $R$ parity symmetry by the inflaton condensation $\langle \v \rangle \neq 0$. Thus we have $n$ degenerate vacua in this model, which cause domain wall structures in the whole universe. The initial value of the inflaton field $\v \simeq 0$ may be naturally achieved in a sufficiently large region inside a domain wall for topological reasons and the resultant defects serve as seeds for inflation [@Lin].
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank E.D. Stewart for valuable comments.
[99]{}
M.J.G. Veltman, Acta Phys. Pol. [**12**]{} (1981) 437; L. Maiani, in Gif-sur-Yvette Summer School on Particle Physics, 11th Gif-sur-Yvette, France (Inst. Nat. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Particles, 1979).
For a review, H.P. Nilles, Phys. Rep. [**110**]{} (1984) 1.
A.E. Nelson and N. Seiberg, (1994) 46.
K. Kumekawa, T. Moroi, and T. Yanagida, (1994) 437.
S. Weinberg, (1982) 1776.
For reviews, E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner, [*The Early Universe*]{} (Addison-Wesley, 1990); A.R. Liddle and D.H. Lyth, Phys. Rep. [**231**]{} (1993) 1.
C.L. Bennett [*et al.*]{}, astro-ph/9601067.
A.R. Liddle, D.H. Lyth, R.K. Schaefer, Q. Shafi, and P.T.P. Viana, astro-ph/9511057; A.R. Liddle, D.H. Lyth, P.T.P. Viana, and M. White, astro-ph/9512102; M. White and D. Scott, astro-ph/9601170; M. White, P.T.P. Viana, A.R. Liddle, and D. Scott, astro-ph/9605057; E.F. Bunn and M. White, astro-ph/9607060; J. Primack and A. Klypin, astro-ph/9607061.
M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, (1986) 45.
T. Yanagida, in [*Proceedings of the Workshop on the Unified Theory and Baryon Number in the Universe*]{}, ed. O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK report 79-18, 1979); M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in [*Supergravity*]{}, ed. F. van Nieuwenhuizen and D.Z. Freedman (North Holland, 1979).
For a review, M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, in [*Physics and Astrophysics of Neutrinos*]{}, ed. M. Fukugita and A. Suzuki (Springer-Verlag, 1994).
Izawa K.-I. and T. Yanagida, (1995) 1105; [**95**]{} (1996) 829; T. Hotta, Izawa K.-I., and T. Yanagida, hep-ph/9606203.
G.D. Coughlan, W. Fischler, E.W. Kolb, S. Raby, and G.G. Ross, (1983) 59; T. Banks, D.B. Kaplan, and A.E. Nelson, (1994) 779; B. de Carlos, J.A. Casas, F. Quevedo, and E. Roulet, (1993) 447.
A. Linde, (1994) 208; A. Linde and D. Linde, (1994) 2456; A. Vilenkin, (1994) 3137; R. Basu and A. Vilenkin, (1994) 7150.
[^1]: This cancellation requires a fine tuning of parameters, which we postulate in this paper.
[^2]: This $R$ charge is chosen so that the inflaton $\f$ couples to this (composite) superfield.
[^3]: This U$(1)_R$ symmetry may be anomalous due to a dynamical origin of the scale $v^2$, which avoids the presence of an $R$ axion. We also note that one may impose a discrete $R$ symmetry from the start instead of the continuous one.
[^4]: Although these vacua may only correspond to local minima, possible vacua with $|\f| \geq 1$ do not affect the following analysis.
[^5]: This is none other than a fine tuning of the cosmological constant, which is the unique unnatural point in the present model. We do not specify the supersymmetry breaking sector since its details are unnecessary for our purposes in this paper (see the final section).
[^6]: A sufficiently large expansion of the universe is achieved under the condition that the initial amplitude of the inflaton $\v$ is localized near the origin. We suspect that such an initial condition is derived from some underlying physics. For example, let us consider that the inflation scale $v^2$ in Eq.(\[ADDEQ\]) arises from a hypercolor quark condensation $\l \langle Q \bar{Q} \rangle = v^2$, where the inflaton couples to the hyperquarks as $\l Q \bar{Q} \v$. If the initial values of $Q$ and $\bar{Q}$ are large as order one, the inflaton field $\v$ is set to be near the origin.
[^7]: Roughly speaking, this is the situation analyzed in Ref.[@Kum].
[^8]: In the case of $n = 5$, the required value $\d \r /\r \simeq 2 \times 10^{-5}$ implies that the spectral index $n_s \simeq 0.6$, which may be marginally consistent with the observations.
[^9]: This may result in a supersymmetry-breaking vacuum without the so-called Polonyi problem [@Ban] if the vacuum lies near the origin $\langle Z \rangle \simeq 0$.
[^10]: Such a light gravitino ($m_{3/2} \simeq 10^{-24}$) is realized in the framework of dynamical supersymmetry breaking at low energies. If $n_s > 0.7$ is confirmed in future observations, we will see that our scenario of the vacuum-energy cancelation may be incompatible with the low-energy supersymmetry breaking.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Exoplanets in extremely close-in orbits are immersed in a local interplanetary medium (i.e., the stellar wind) much denser than the local conditions encountered around the solar system planets. The environment surrounding these exoplanets also differs in terms of dynamics (slower stellar winds, but higher Keplerian velocities) and ambient magnetic fields (likely higher for host stars more active than the Sun). Here, we quantitatively investigate the nature of the interplanetary media surrounding the hot Jupiters HD46375b, HD73256b, HD102195b, HD130322b, HD179949b. We simulate the three-dimensional winds of their host stars, in which we directly incorporate their observed surface magnetic fields. With that, we derive mass-loss rates ($1.9$ to $8.0 \times 10^{-13}~{{\rm M}_\odot ~{\rm yr}^{-1}}$) and the wind properties at the position of the hot-Jupiters’ orbits (temperature, velocity, magnetic field intensity and pressure). We show that these exoplanets’ orbits are super-magnetosonic, indicating that bow shocks are formed surrounding these planets. Assuming planetary magnetic fields similar to Jupiter’s, we estimate planetary magnetospheric sizes of $4.1$ to $5.6$ planetary radii. We also derive the exoplanetary radio emission released in the dissipation of the stellar wind energy. We find radio fluxes ranging from $0.02$ to $0.13$ mJy, which are challenging to be observed with present-day technology, but could be detectable with future higher sensitivity arrays (e.g., SKA). Radio emission from systems having closer hot-Jupiters, such as from $\tau$ Boo b or HD 189733b, or from nearby planetary systems orbiting young stars, are likely to have higher radio fluxes, presenting better prospects for detecting exoplanetary radio emission.'
author:
- |
A. A. Vidotto$^{1}$[^1], [R. Fares]{}$^{2}$, [M. Jardine]{}$^{2}$, [C. Moutou]{}$^{3,4}$, [J.-F. Donati]{}$^{5}$\
$^{1}$Observatoire de Genève, Université de Genève, Chemin des Maillettes 51, Versoix, CH-1290, Switzerland\
$^{2}$SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, KY16 9SS, UK\
$^{3}$Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Corporation, CNRS, 65-1238 Mamalahoa Hwy, Kamuela HI 96743, USA\
$^{4}$Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, LAM (Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille) UMR 7326, 13388, Marseille, France\
$^{5}$LATT-UMR 5572, CNRS & Univ. P. Sabatier, 14 Av. E. Belin, Toulouse, F-31400, France
date: 'Accepted . Received ; in original form'
title: 'On the environment surrounding close-in exoplanets'
---
\[firstpage\]
MHD – methods: numerical – stars: magnetic fields – stars: winds, outflows – planetary systems
INTRODUCTION
============
The interplanetary medium that surrounds exoplanets is filled by stellar wind particles and the embedded stellar magnetic field. Due to detection biases, the large majority of exoplanets found so far are orbiting cool stars at the main-sequence phase. Although the winds of these stars have proven quite challenging to observe [@1992ApJ...397..225M; @2001ApJ...546L..57W; @2005ApJ...628L.143W], the interaction between exoplanets and their surrounding medium (i.e., the host star’s wind) may give rise to observable signatures, such as planetary radio emission , enhancement of stellar activity [@2000ApJ...533L.151C; @2003ApJ...597.1092S; @2005ApJ...622.1075S], bow-shock formation [@2010ApJ...722L.168V; @2013MNRAS.436.2179L; @2013ApJ...764...19B], charge-exchange between stellar wind protons and planetary neutral hydrogen and formation of comet-like tail structures , all of which can provide invaluable insights into the system, such as the intensity of the planetary magnetic field, velocity and temperature of the local stellar wind, etc.
By studying stellar winds, we are able to make quantitative predictions about the interplanetary medium. A significant improvement on our understanding of the interaction between a planet and the wind of its host star has been achieved in the past decade. Traditionally, these works have been based on simplified treatments of the winds . For example, simplified wind approaches might assume an isothermal wind structure, or that stars are non-rotating and/or non-magnetised bodies, among others. However, stellar winds are three-dimensional (3D) in nature, where complex interactions of a rotating, magnetised plasma take place. In view of that, more recently, new generations of 3D, magnetohydrodynamical (MHD) models have started to be employed in the studies of interactions between stars/winds and their planets [e.g., @2009ApJ...703.1734V; @2009ApJ...699..441V; @2010ApJ...720.1262V; @2011MNRAS.412..351V; @2012MNRAS.423.3285V; @2014MNRAS.438.1162V; @2009ApJ...704L..85C; @2014ApJ...790...57C; @2013MNRAS.436.2179L].
The advantage of using simplified treatments of the wind is that these works rely on analytical and low-dimensional (1D, 2D) numerical studies, which are significantly faster and do not demand extensive computational resources as 3D models do. Because of that, 1D works can investigate a much wider range of stellar wind parameters than more complex, computationally-expensive 3D models can. The disadvantage, on the other hand, is that the simplified models can not capture the 3D structure of stellar winds. Combined with modern techniques to reconstruct stellar magnetic fields, some 3D models are able to provide a more realistic account of the stellar magnetic field topology embedded in the wind, recognised to be essential to interpret and predict signatures of star-planet interactions .
Interactions with magnetised planets {#sec.introBp}
------------------------------------
As the wind outflows from the star, it interacts with any planet encountered on its way. If these planets are magnetised, their magnetic fields can act as shields, which prevent stellar wind particles from reaching all the way down to the surface or atmosphere of these objects . This is in particular the case of the Earth and, more generally, of planets with dipolar field configurations. For these objects, the solar and stellar winds are deflected around the magnetospheric cavity, potentially helping the planet to retain its atmosphere. However, atmospheric escape can still occur at high magnetic latitudes through polar flows, as is the case of the Earth (e.g., @2001Sci...291.1939S [@2007RvGeo..45.3002M]) and predicted for exoplanets (@2014MNRAS.444.3761O; see also Section \[sec.polarflows\]). Part of this planetary outflow can return from the magnetosphere back into atmospheric regions of low-magnetic latitudes, reducing the total net loss rate of atmospheric escape, as suggested for the Earth scenario [@2001Sci...291.1939S]. The detailed process of atmospheric dynamics and escape is certainly complex and not examined here.
In the present work, only magnetised exoplanets are considered. This means that the cross-section of the ‘obstacle’ is not that of the planet itself, but rather takes into account the magnetospheric size of the planet. The magnetospheric size of the planet depends both on the the characteristics of the local environment surrounding the planet (interplanetary density, velocity, magnetic field, temperature) and on its own magnetic field. On the theoretical side, some models suggest that the strength of the planetary magnetic field is dependent on the rotation rate of the planet [@1999JGR...10414025F]. In this situation, close-in planets that are tidally locked could have a reduced magnetic moment . Other models advocate that the planetary magnetic field is related to the energy flux coming from the planetary core and does not depend on the rotation rate of the planet [@2009Natur.457..167C]. Recent studies indicate that the planetary field strength is independent of rotation rate, which instead plays a role in the geometry of the generated magnetic field [@2012Icar..217...88Z].
Although planetary magnetism has been observed in several solar system planets, such as in Earth and the giant planets, the presence of exoplanetary magnetic fields are much more elusive. @2010ApJ...722L.168V suggested that the close-in giant planet WASP-12b hosts a bow-shock that surrounds its magnetosphere at a distance of about $4$ – $5$ planetary radii. Their suggestion was motivated by transit observations of the close-in giant planet WASP-12b by @2010ApJ...714L.222F, who, based on space-borne spectroscopic observations in the near-UV, showed that the transit lightcurve of WASP-12b presents both an early ingress when compared to its optical transit, as well as excess absorption during the transit [see also @2012ApJ...760...79H]. @2010ApJ...722L.168V attributed this signature to an absorption of the material in the bow shock (see also @2011MNRAS.416L..41L). If confirmed, this technique should provide a useful tool for determining planetary magnetic field intensities for hot-Jupiter transiting systems. In the case of WASP-12b, @2010ApJ...722L.168V derived an upper limit of $24$ G for the planetary field. @2011MNRAS.411L..46V later proposed other targets with good prospects to hosting observable early-ingresses. Unfortunately, the near-UV ($254-258$nm) early-ingress signature of WASP-12b observed with (expensive) space-based spectroscopic observations [@2010ApJ...714L.222F; @2012ApJ...760...79H] does not seem to be observable with ground-based, broad-band photometry in the wavelength range $\sim 340 - 540$nm [@2012ApJ...760...79H], and neither in the range of $303 - 417$nm (Turner, private comm.; for other transiting exoplanets see @2013MNRAS.428..678T [@2014NewA...27..102P]). Observations from @2010ApJ...714L.222F indicate that the material surrounding WASP-12b absorbs at certain resonance lines in the near-UV (in particular in MgII lines). The lack of absorption from broad-band photometric observations of WASP-12b possibly indicates that either the material is not absorbing at the observed photometric wavelengths ($\sim 303 - 540$nm), or that the absorption occurs only at some specific spectral lines, but gets diluted over the much wider spectral region.
Another hint that close-in planets may also harbour intrinsic magnetic fields, similar to the Earth and the giant planets of the Solar System, was found by @2003ApJ...597.1092S [@2005ApJ...622.1075S; @2008ApJ...676..628S], who observed modulations of chromospheric spectral lines in phase with orbital periods on a few systems. Such modulations were interpreted as induced activity on the stellar surface due to magnetic interactions between star and planet. @2008ApJ...676..628S showed that there exists a correlation between the night-to-night stellar activity variation with the ratio between the planetary mass to orbital period, used as a proxy for the magnetic moment of a tidally-locked planet. Although unfortunately this correlation does not provide the intensity of the planetary magnetic field, it offers a way to measure the relative field strength among the different exoplanets in their sample. Therefore, once magnetism is assessed for one of their targets (by a different method), the magnetic field strength of their remaining targets could be derived.
These two suggestions (early ingress and activity enhancement), however, cannot be used as conclusive evidence of the presence of planetary magnetic fields, as alternative, non-magnetic explanations for the observations exist . A conclusive way to probe the presence of exoplanetary magnetic fields could be achieved by the detection of radio emission from the planet. The stellar wind that impacts on the planet produces energetic particles that are captured by the planet’s magnetic field, emitting cyclotron radiation at radio wavelengths. This emission depends on the planet’s magnetic field intensity and on the stellar wind power: it implies that the stronger is the stellar wind, the more luminous is the planet. As such radio emission is observed in the Solar System , there are expectations that close-in exoplanets will exhibit comparable radiation (see @2012MNRAS.427L..75N for the case of planets that are not necessarily close-in). In particular, hot-Jupiters are expected to be much more luminous than the most luminous planet in our solar System, Jupiter . This is because hot-Jupiters are located much closer to their stars, interacting with portions of the host-star’s wind that has larger kinetic and magnetic energies available to power planetary radio emission. So far, radio signatures of close-in exoplanets have not yet been detected [e.g. @2000ApJ...545.1058B; @2004ApJ...612..511L; @2009MNRAS.395..335S; @2013ApJ...762...34H] and one possible reason for that may be due to the lack of instrumental sensitivity in the appropriate frequency range of the observations [@2000ApJ...545.1058B]. This picture, however, might be changing, as possible hints of exoplanetary radio emission have recently been reported .
The theoretical estimates of the radio flux emitted by extrasolar planets carry a large uncertainty due to the fact that the stellar wind properties are poorly constrained. In this work, we model the 3-D structure of the stellar wind of a sample of $5$ planet-hosting stars, whose 3-D winds have not yet been studied to date. We investigate the nature of the interplanetary media of these exoplanetary systems and how different they are from the environment surrounding our own Solar System planets. The stars used in this study, described in Section \[sec.sample\], have had their surface magnetic field recently reconstructed by means of tomographic techniques [@2012MNRAS.423.1006F; @2013MNRAS.435.1451F]. These surface fields are used as boundary conditions for our data-driven simulations of stellar winds. Our model is described in Section \[sec.model\]. The derived global characteristics of the stellar winds are presented in Section \[sec.results\] and the properties of the local environment surrounding the exoplanets in our sample are described in Section \[sec.planets\]. We then use these computed quantities to calculate the strengths of the interactions between the stellar wind and the planetary system, making it possible to quantitatively predict planetary radio emission and bow shock formation. Our discussion is shown in Section \[sec.discussion\] and summary and conclusions are presented in Section \[sec.conclusions\].
The sample of stars {#sec.sample}
===================
The stars considered in this study consist of five solar-type stars of spectral types F8 to K1, namely: HD 46375, HD 73256, HD 102195, HD 130322 and HD 179949. All these stars host a gaseous planet at very close orbit (i.e., a hot-Jupiter). Table \[tab.sample\] presents a summary of the observationally-derived characteristics of the host stars and also of their hot-Jupiters (planet ‘b’). The large-scale surface magnetic field maps of the planet hosts have been reconstructed by @2012MNRAS.423.1006F [@2013MNRAS.435.1451F] from a series of circular polarisation spectra (acquired at CFHT/ESPaDOnS and TBL/NARVAL) using the Zeeman-Doppler Imaging (ZDI) technique . Figure \[fig.maps\] presents the radial component of the reconstructed surface field of these stars. Our targets present surface magnetic fields with a variety of topologies and intensities. For instance, HD 46375 presents a magnetic field that is mostly dipolar, whose axis is slightly tilted with respect to the rotation axis. HD 73256, on the other hand, has a magnetic field topology that is less axisymmetric.
{width="58mm"} {width="58mm"} {width="58mm"}\
{width="58mm"} {width="58mm"}
----------- ---------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- --------------- ------------------- ----------- ----------------------- ---------- ----------------------- ------------------- --
Star Spectral $ M_\star $ $ R_\star $ $ T_{\rm eff} $ $ P_{\rm rot} $ Ro $ d $ $ i $ $ \Phi_{\rm 0} $ Date $ M_{p} \sin i $ $ a $
ID type $ (M_\odot) $ $ (R_\odot) $ (K) (d) (pc) (deg) ($10^{23}$ Mx) $ (M_{\rm Jup}) $ $ (R_\star) $
HD 46375 K1IV $ 0.97 $ $ 0.86 $ $ 5290 $ $ 42 $ $ 2.340 $ $ 33.4 ^1 $ $ 45 $ $ 0.85 $ 2008 Jan $ 0.2272 $ $ 10.0 $
HD 73256 G8 $ 1.05 $ $ 0.89 $ $ 5636 $ $ 14 $ $ 0.962 $ $ 36.5 ^2 $ $ 75 $ $ 2.1 $ 2008 Jan $ 1.869 $ $ 9.0 $
HD 102195 K0V $ 0.87 $ $ 0.82 $ $ 5290 $ $ 12.3 $ $ 0.473 $ $ 29.0 ^3 $ $ 50 $ $ 2.1 $ 2008 Jan $ 0.453 $ $ 12.6 $
HD 130322 K0V $ 0.79 $ $ 0.83 $ $ 5330 $ $ 26.1 $ $ 0.782 $ $ 30.0 ^4 $ $ 80 $ $ 0.74 $ 2008 Jan $ 1.043 $ $ 23.2 $
HD 179949 F8V $ 1.21 $ $ 1.19 $ $ 6168 $ $ 7.6 $ $ >1.726 $ $ 27.0 ^5 $ $ 60 $ $ 1.3 $ 2007 Jun $ 0.902 $ $ 7.9 $
----------- ---------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- --------------- ------------------- ----------- ----------------------- ---------- ----------------------- ------------------- --
\
$^[email protected]; $^2$; $^[email protected]; $^4$; $^5$
Stellar wind model {#sec.model}
==================
The stellar wind model we use here is identical to the one presented in @2014MNRAS.438.1162V. We use the 3D MHD numerical code BATS-R-US [@1999JCoPh.154..284P; @2012JCoPh.231..870T] to simulate the stellar winds. BATS-R-US solves the set of ideal MHD equations for the mass density $\rho$, the plasma velocity ${\bf u}=\{ u_r, u_\theta, u_\varphi\}$, the magnetic field ${\bf B}=\{ B_r, B_\theta, B_\varphi\}$, and the gas pressure $P$: $$\label{eq:continuity_conserve}
\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \boldsymbol\nabla\cdot \left(\rho {\bf u}\right) = 0,$$ $$\label{eq:momentum_conserve}
\frac{\partial \left(\rho {\bf u}\right)}{\partial t} + \boldsymbol\nabla\cdot\left[ \rho{\bf u\,u}+ \left(P + \frac{B^2}{8\pi}\right)I - \frac{{\bf B\,B}}{4\pi}\right] = \rho {\bf g},$$ $$\label{eq:bfield_conserve}
\frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t} + \boldsymbol\nabla\cdot\left({\bf u\,B} - {\bf B\,u}\right) = 0,$$ $$\label{eq:energy_conserve}
\frac{\partial\varepsilon}{\partial t} + \boldsymbol\nabla \cdot \left[ {\bf u} \left( \varepsilon + P + \frac{B^2}{8\pi} \right) - \frac{\left({\bf u}\cdot{\bf B}\right) {\bf B}}{4\pi}\right] = \rho {\bf g}\cdot {\bf u} ,$$ where $$\label{eq:energy_density}
\varepsilon=\frac{\rho u^2}{2}+\frac{P}{\gamma-1}+\frac{B^2}{8\pi} .$$ We assume the wind is polytropic, in which $P\propto \rho^\gamma$ and $\gamma$ is the polytropic index. To derive the temperature, we consider an ideal gas, so $P=n k_B T$, where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $T$ is the temperature, $n=\rho/(\mu m_p)$ is the particle number density of the stellar wind, $\mu m_p$ is the mean mass of the particle. In this work, we adopt $\gamma=1.1$, similar to the effective adiabatic index measured in the solar wind [@2011ApJ...727L..32V], and $\mu=0.5$, for a fully ionised hydrogen plasma.
At the initial state of the simulations, we assume that the wind is thermally driven [@1958ApJ...128..664P]. The stellar rotation period $P_{\rm rot}$, $M_\star$ and $R_\star$ are given in Table \[tab.sample\]. At the base of the corona ($r=R_\star$), we adopt a wind coronal temperature $T_0 = 2\times 10^6$ K and wind number density $n_0=10^{9}$cm$^{-3}$ (Section \[sec.limitations\] discusses the choices of $n_0$ and $T_0$ and how they affect our results). With this numerical setting, the initial solution for the density, pressure (or temperature) and wind velocity profiles are fully specified. The radial component of the magnetic field $B_r$ anchored at the base of the wind, is reconstructed from observations (Fig. \[fig.maps\]). The other two components of the surface field are assumed to be potential ($\boldsymbol\nabla \times {\bf B}=0$), as it has been shown that stellar winds are largely unaffected by the non-potential part of the observed surface field [@2013MNRAS.431..528J]. At the initial state, we assume that the field considered in the simulation box is potential up to a radial distance $r=r_{\rm SS}$ (known as the source surface) and, beyond that, the magnetic field lines are considered to be open and purely radial. As the simulation evolves in time, the wind particles interact with the magnetic field lines (and vice-versa), removing the field from its initial potential state. For all the cases studied here, we take $r_{\rm SS}=4~R_\star$, but we note that different values of $r_{\rm SS}$ produce similar final steady-state solutions for the simulations [@2011MNRAS.412..351V; @2014MNRAS.438.1162V].
Once set at the initial state of the simulation, the values of the observed $B_r$ are held fixed at the base of the wind throughout the simulation run, as are the coronal base density and thermal pressure. A zero radial gradient is set to the remaining components of ${\bf B}$ and ${\bf u}=0$ in the frame corotating with the star. The outer boundaries at the edges of the grid have outflow conditions. The rotation axis of the star is aligned with the $z$-axis, and the star is assumed to rotate as a solid body. Our grid is Cartesian and the star is placed at the origin of the grid, which extends in $x$, $y$, and $z$ from $-20$ to $20~R_\star$, except for HD 102195, whose simulation box extends from $-24$ to $24~R_\star$, as to extend out to the orbit of the planet. BATS-R-US uses block adaptive mesh refinement. The finest resolved cells are located close to the star (for $r \lesssim 2~R_\star$), where the linear size of the cubic cell is $0.0097~R_\star$ (or $0.012~R_\star$ for the simulation of HD 102195). The coarsest cell has a linear size of $0.31~R_\star$ (or $0.37~R_\star$ for HD 102195) and is located at the outer edges of the grid. The total number of cells in our simulations is around $40$ million. As the simulations evolve in time, both the wind and magnetic field lines are allowed to interact with each other. The resultant solution, obtained self-consistently, is found when the system reaches steady state in the reference frame corotating with the star.
Derived properties of the stellar winds {#sec.results}
=======================================
Table \[tab.results\] presents the properties of the stellar winds obtained in our simulations. The unsigned observed surface magnetic flux is $$\label{eq.phi0}
\Phi_0 = \oint_{S_\star} |B_r (R_\star, \theta, \varphi)| {\rm d} S_\star$$ and the unsigned open magnetic flux is $$\label{eq.phiopen}
\Phi_{\rm open} = \oint_{S_{\rm sph}} |B_r (r, \theta, \varphi)| {\rm d} S_{\rm sph}.$$ The surface flux (Table \[tab.sample\]) is integrated over the surface of the star $S_\star$ and the open flux (Table \[tab.results\]) over a spherical surface $S_{\rm sph}$ at a distance $r$ from the star, where all the magnetic field lines are open. The mass-loss rate $\dot{M}$ of the stellar wind, which outflows along open magnetic field lines, can be calculated as the flux of mass integrated across $S_{\rm sph}$ $$\label{eq.mdot}
\dot{M} = \oint \rho u_r {\rm d} S_{\rm sph},$$ where $\dot{M}$ is a constant of the wind. Similarly, the angular momentum loss rates can be calculated as the angular momentum flux across $S_{\rm sph}$ $$\label{eq.jdot}
\dot{J} = \oint_{S_{\rm sph}} \left[ - \frac{\varpi B_\varphi B_r}{4 \pi} + \varpi u_\varphi \rho u_r \right] {\rm d} S _{\rm sph}$$ [@1970MNRAS.149..197M; @1999stma.book.....M; @2014MNRAS.438.1162V], where $\varpi=(x^2+y^2)^{1/2}$ is the cylindrical radius. In our simulations, we find that ${\dot{M}}$ ranges from $\sim 2$ to $8 \times 10^{-13} ~{{\rm M}_\odot ~{\rm yr}^{-1}}$ and ${\dot{J}}$ between $\sim 0.14$ and $2.4 \times 10^{31}$ erg for the stars in our sample. The open flux ranges from $26\%$ to $69\%$ of the large-scale unsigned surface flux. These values are within the range $(4.4 - 8.4) \times 10^{22}$ Mx. For the solar wind, @2006ApJ...644..638W obtained magnetic field values at the orbit of the Earth in the range between $0.01$ and $0.05$ mG, or in terms of open magnetic fluxes, in the range $(2.8 - 14) \times 10^{22}$ Mx, depending on the phase of the solar activity cycle. Although the range of open fluxes calculated for the simulations presented here fall within the values of the solar wind, we show in Section \[sec.planets\] that the values of the interplanetary magnetic field at the orbits of the hot-Jupiters are more than $100$ times larger than the interplanetary magnetic field at the Earth’s orbit (compare $0.01$ to $0.05$ mG to the values presented in Table \[tab.resultsp\]).
----------- --------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Star $ \dot{M} $ $ \dot{J} $ $ \Phi_{\rm open} $ $ \langle r_A \rangle $ $ [ r_A^{\rm min} , r_A^{\rm max} ] $ $ r_{\rm SS}^{\rm eff} $
ID $ (10^{-13} M_\odot~\rm{yr}^{-1}) $ ($10^{31}$ erg) $ (\Phi_{\rm 0}) $ $ (R_\star) $ $ (R_\star) $ $ (R_\star) $
HD 46375 $ 1.9 $ $ 0.14 $ $ 0.52 $ $ 5.1 $ $ [ 3.0 , 6.1 ] $ $ 2.7 $
HD 73256 $ 2.1 $ $ 2.3 $ $ 0.26 $ $ 6.2 $ $ [ 1.8 , 8.1 ] $ $ 5.6 $
HD 102195 $ 3.2 $ $ 2.0 $ $ 0.41 $ $ 6.4 $ $ [ 2.3 , 7.5 ] $ $ 5.6 $
HD 130322 $ 5.8 $ $ 0.36 $ $ 0.69 $ $ 3.5 $ $ [ 1.6 , 4.2 ] $ $ 1.9 $
HD 179949 $ 8.0 $ $ 2.4 $ $ 0.34 $ $ 2.8 $ $ [ 1.0 , 3.7 ] $ $ 3.0 $
----------- --------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
The left panels in Figure \[fig.IC-SS\] show the final configuration of the magnetic field lines obtained through self-consistent interaction between magnetic and wind forces after the simulations reached steady state. Although we assume the magnetic field is current-free in the initial state of our simulations, this configuration is deformed when the interaction of the wind particles with the magnetic field lines (and vice-versa) takes place (currents are created in the system). The right panels of Figure \[fig.IC-SS\] show the Alfvén surface $S_A$ of each simulation. This surface is defined as the location where the wind velocity reaches the local Alfvén velocity ($v_A = B(4 \pi \rho)^{-1/2}$). Inside $S_A$, where the magnetic forces dominate over the wind inertia, the stellar wind particles are forced to follow the magnetic field lines. Beyond $S_A$, the wind inertia dominates over the magnetic forces and, as a consequence, the magnetic field lines are dragged by the stellar wind. In models of stellar winds, the [Alfvén]{} surface has an important property for the characterisation of angular momentum losses, as it defines the lever arm of the torque that the wind exerts on the star [e.g., @1967ApJ...148..217W]. Its location is also relevant in the studies of magnetic interactions with planets [e.g., @2014ApJ...795...86S; @2014ApJ...790...57C]. As shown in @2014MNRAS.438.1162V, the [Alfvén]{} surfaces of the objects investigated here have irregular, asymmetric shapes as a consequence of the irregular distribution of the observed magnetic field. To illustrate the difference in sizes of these surfaces, we show in the right panels of Figure \[fig.IC-SS\] the scales of the images plotted (red lines). We find that the average radius of the [Alfvén]{} surfaces range between $2.8~R_\star$ (for HD 179949) to $6.4~R_\star$ (for HD 102195).
{width="70mm"} {width="70mm"}\
{width="70mm"} {width="70mm"}\
{width="70mm"} {width="70mm"}
{width="70mm"} {width="70mm"}\
{width="70mm"} {width="70mm"}\
In order to provide constraints for analytical methods of extrapolation of magnetic field lines, we also compute here the MHD equivalent of the source surface. In particular, the potential field source surface (PFSS) method has proven to be a fast and simple way to extrapolate surface magnetic fields into the stellar coronal region . It is also used here as the initial conditions for our simulations. However, the PFSS method has an unconstrained parameter: the radius $r_{\rm SS}$ of the source surface, beyond which the magnetic field lines are assumed open and purely radial, as a way to mimic the effects of a stellar wind. Because of stellar rotation and magnetic field stresses, in the MHD solutions, the surface where all magnetic field lines are purely radial does not exist – even in the region of open field lines, there is always $B_\theta$ and, especially, $B_\varphi$ components that are non-null. Therefore, we define here an “effective radius of the source surface” $r_{\rm SS}^{\rm eff}$ as the radius of the spherical surface where $97$ percent of the average magnetic field is contained in the radial component (i.e., $\langle |B_r| \rangle / \langle |B| \rangle =0.97$, based on @2006ApJ...653.1510R). For some of the stars in our sample (HD 73256 and HD 179949), the ratio $\langle |B_r| \rangle / \langle |B| \rangle$ does not reach the 97-percent level and in such cases, we take $r_{\rm SS}^{\rm eff}$ to be the position where $\langle |B_r| \rangle / \langle |B| \rangle$ is maximum. Table \[tab.results\] shows that $r_{\rm SS}^{\rm eff}$ is in the range between $1.9~R_\star$ and $5.6~R_\star$, indicating a compact region of closed field lines. We note that this size is similar to the usual adopted size of $2.5~R_\odot$ from PFSS methods of the solar coronal magnetic field and also similar to the values obtained in other MHD simulations of winds [@2006ApJ...653.1510R; @2011MNRAS.412..351V; @2014MNRAS.438.1162V].
Characterising the local environment surrounding hot-Jupiters and resultant interactions {#sec.planets}
========================================================================================
All the stars in our sample host giant planets orbiting at close distances. Mercury, the closest planet to our Sun, has a semimajor orbital axis of about 0.39 au, or equivalently, of about $83~R_\odot$. The hot-Jupiters in our sample have considerably closer orbits, with semimajor axes of about $9$ to $23~R_\star$ (i.e., about $9$ to $4$ times closer than Mercury). As a consequence, the hot-Jupiters in our sample interact with much denser winds that have larger ram pressures than those typically found around the planets in the solar System. In addition, because the hot-Jupiters are located much closer to the star, the large-scale magnetic field at the orbit of these planets has also a larger strength compared to the interplanetary magnetic field strength of our solar System planets.
The orbital planes of the planets considered in this work are not known. Here, we assume their orbits lie in the equatorial plane of the star. This seems to be a reasonable hypothesis for our targets (cf. Table \[tab.sample\]), as planets orbiting stars cooler than $6200~$K have been observed to have small (projected) obliquities [@2010ApJ...718L.145W]. Figure \[fig.ptot\] shows the total pressure $p_{\rm tot}$ (i.e., the sum of thermal, magnetic and ram pressures) experienced by a planet as it orbits at the equatorial plane of the stars. Note that the ram pressure term must take into account the relative motion of the planet through the interplanetary medium. Here, we assume prograde motion of the planetary orbit relative to the stellar rotation. The white circles indicate the orbital radii of each hot-Jupiter, taken here to be circular (note that for the systems investigated here the eccentricities are rather small, $< 0.06$). The colour-bar is the same for the five images, illustrating that the total pressure varies from planet to planet. The last panel in Figure \[fig.ptot\] shows the total [*local*]{} pressure at the planetary orbits as a function of subplanetary longitude (see also Table \[tab.resultsp\]). For the cases studied here, at these orbital distances, the dominant term in the total pressure is the ram pressure of the relative motion of the planet through the wind. The values of the local total pressure are within $(0.58 - 4.1) \times 10^{-4}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$, which are about 4 orders of magnitude larger than the ram pressure of the solar wind at the Earth’s orbit ($1.8 \times 10^{-8}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$, ). We also note that there is some variability in the local total pressure, showing that the planets interact with the varying environment of the star along their orbits. In the case of HD 73256, the amplitude of this variability is the highest among the cases studied here and is due to the peak (which is a factor of $1.9$ above the average value of $p_{\rm tot}$ of HD 73256) at $\sim 220$ deg. This peak is caused by a fast wind stream, associated to the magnetic feature seen in the surface magnetograms at longitude $\sim 225~$deg (Fig. \[fig.maps\]). A similar feature appears in Figures \[fig.rM\] and \[fig.radio\] that we present later. Variability on larger timescales due to intrinsic variations of the stellar magnetic field can also alter the environment surrounding planets [@2011MNRAS.414.1573V; @2012MNRAS.423.3285V; @2013MNRAS.436.2179L], but it is not considered in the present work.
{height="53mm"} {height="53mm"} {height="53mm"}\
{height="53mm"} {height="53mm"} {height="53mm"}
Exoplanetary bow shocks: sizes and orientations
-----------------------------------------------
If a planet is magnetised, its magnetic field can act as shield for the stellar wind, deflecting the wind particles and potentially preventing the wind from reaching down to the planetary atmosphere. A way to estimate the size of this stand-off distance is by pressure balance between the local total pressure of the interplanetary medium (i.e., the stellar wind) and the planet total pressure. Thus, at the interaction zone, we have $$\label{eq.equilibrium}
p_{\rm tot} = \frac{B_{{p},r_M}^2}{8\pi} ,$$ where $B_{{p},r_M}$ is the planetary magnetic field intensity at a distance $r_M$ from the planet centre. Eq. (\[eq.equilibrium\]) neglects the planetary thermal pressure component on the right side. Because of the exponential decay of planetary densities, at the height of a few planetary radii, the thermal pressure is usually negligible compared to the planetary magnetic pressure. If we assume the planetary magnetic field is dipolar, we have that $B_{{p},r_M} = B_{p, {\rm eq}} (R_p/r_M)^3$, where $R_p$ is the planetary radius and $B_{p, {\rm eq}}$ its surface magnetic field at the equator (half the value of the intensity at the magnetic pole). For a planetary dipolar axis aligned with the rotation axis of the star, the magnetospheric size of the planet is given by $$\label{eq.r_M}
\frac{r_M}{R_p} = \left[ \frac{B_{p, {\rm eq}}^2}{8 \pi p_{\rm tot}} \right]^{1/6}.$$ In the absence of observational constraints, we assume the hot-Jupiters studied here to host magnetic fields similar to Jupiter’s. Figure \[fig.rM\]a shows the magnetospheric sizes of these hot-Jupiters assuming $B_{p, {\rm eq}}=7~$G (i.e., half of the maximum observed field of Jupiter of $\sim14~$G, @1975Sci...188..451S [@1992AREPS..20..289B].). The average estimated magnetospheric sizes range from about $\langle r_M\rangle=4.2~R_p$ for HD 179949b to $\langle r_M\rangle = 5.6~R_p$ for HD 130322b (see Table \[tab.resultsp\]). Variations in $r_M$ along the planetary orbit are roughly $\sim 10\%$. This variation occurs because, as the planet goes along its orbit and probes regions with different $p_{\rm tot}$, its magnetospheric size reacts accordingly, becoming smaller when the external $p_{\rm tot}$ is larger and vice-versa.
![As a magnetised planet orbits around its host star, it probes regions of the stellar wind with different properties. As a consequence, its magnetospheric size and shock orientation change. Upper panel: the magnetospheric stand-off distance for the hot-Jupiters studied here as a function of subplanetary longitude. Middle panel: the ratio between the relative velocity of the planet and the local fast magnetosonic velocity. Bottom panel: the angle formed between the shock normal and the tangent of a circular orbit. The top and bottom figures assume the hot-Jupiters have a dipolar field of $7~$G at their equator. \[fig.rM\]](figs/f4a.pdf "fig:"){width="85mm"}\
![As a magnetised planet orbits around its host star, it probes regions of the stellar wind with different properties. As a consequence, its magnetospheric size and shock orientation change. Upper panel: the magnetospheric stand-off distance for the hot-Jupiters studied here as a function of subplanetary longitude. Middle panel: the ratio between the relative velocity of the planet and the local fast magnetosonic velocity. Bottom panel: the angle formed between the shock normal and the tangent of a circular orbit. The top and bottom figures assume the hot-Jupiters have a dipolar field of $7~$G at their equator. \[fig.rM\]](figs/f4b.pdf "fig:"){width="85mm"}\
![As a magnetised planet orbits around its host star, it probes regions of the stellar wind with different properties. As a consequence, its magnetospheric size and shock orientation change. Upper panel: the magnetospheric stand-off distance for the hot-Jupiters studied here as a function of subplanetary longitude. Middle panel: the ratio between the relative velocity of the planet and the local fast magnetosonic velocity. Bottom panel: the angle formed between the shock normal and the tangent of a circular orbit. The top and bottom figures assume the hot-Jupiters have a dipolar field of $7~$G at their equator. \[fig.rM\]](figs/f4c.pdf "fig:"){width="85mm"}
----------- --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
Planet $ \langle \Delta u \rangle $ $ \langle n \rangle $ $ \langle |B| \rangle $ $ \langle T \rangle $ $ \langle p_{\rm tot} \rangle $ $ \langle r_M\rangle $ $ \langle \theta_{\rm shock} \rangle $ $ \langle \alpha_0 \rangle $ $ \langle A_{\rm auroral} \rangle $ $ \langle \phi_{\rm radio} \rangle $
ID (km s$^{-1}$) (10$^5$ cm$^{-3}$) (mG) ($10^6$ K) $ (10^{-4} \frac{\rm dyn}{\rm cm^{2}}) $ $ (R_p) $ (deg) (deg) $ (A_{\rm planet}) $ (mJy)
HD46375b $ 234 $ $ 1.8 $ $ 8.8 $ $ 0.87 $ $ 1.1 $ $ 5.1 $ $ 52 $ $ 26.2 $ $ 0.10 $ $ 0.037 $
$ [ 228 , 242 ] $ $ [ 1.7 , 2.0 ] $ $ [ 0.55 , 11 ] $ $ [ 0.86 , 0.91 ] $ $ [ 1.0 , 1.2 ] $ $ [ 5.0 , 5.2 ] $ $ [ 50 , 53 ] $ $ [ 26.0 , 26.6 ] $ $ [ 0.10 , 0.11 ] $ $ [ 0.036 , 0.043 ] $
HD73256b $ 263 $ $ 2.0 $ $ 17 $ $ 1.1 $ $ 1.6 $ $ 4.8 $ $ 57 $ $ 27.1 $ $ 0.11 $ $ 0.045 $
$ [ 217 , 345 ] $ $ [ 1.6 , 2.6 ] $ $ [ 2.6 , 26 ] $ $ [ 0.91 , 1.6 ] $ $ [ 1.0 , 2.7 ] $ $ [ 4.4 , 5.2 ] $ $ [ 44 , 67 ] $ $ [ 26.1 , 28.5 ] $ $ [ 0.10 , 0.12 ] $ $ [ 0.027 , 0.081 ] $
HD102195b $ 288 $ $ 1.5 $ $ 14 $ $ 0.96 $ $ 1.3 $ $ 5.0 $ $ 65 $ $ 26.6 $ $ 0.11 $ $ 0.067 $
$ [ 240 , 338 ] $ $ [ 1.1 , 2.0 ] $ $ [ 3.6 , 18 ] $ $ [ 0.87 , 1.2 ] $ $ [ 1.1 , 1.6 ] $ $ [ 4.8 , 5.1 ] $ $ [ 61 , 69 ] $ $ [ 26.2 , 27.1 ] $ $ [ 0.10 , 0.11 ] $ $ [ 0.054 , 0.086 ] $
HD130322b $ 322 $ $ 0.6 $ $ 2.3 $ $ 0.78 $ $ 0.62 $ $ 5.6 $ $ 74 $ $ 25.0 $ $ 0.09 $ $ 0.055 $
$ [ 316 , 334 ] $ $ [ 0.6 , 0.7 ] $ $ [ 0.36 , 2.9 ] $ $ [ 0.77 , 0.79 ] $ $ [ 0.58 , 0.69 ] $ $ [ 5.5 , 5.7 ] $ $ [ 74 , 75 ] $ $ [ 24.8 , 25.2 ] $ $ [ 0.09 , 0.10 ] $ $ [ 0.053 , 0.061 ] $
HD179949b $ 243 $ $ 5.9 $ $ 9.6 $ $ 0.97 $ $ 3.8 $ $ 4.2 $ $ 53 $ $ 29.3 $ $ 0.13 $ $ 0.112 $
$ [ 225 , 257 ] $ $ [ 5.5 , 6.2 ] $ $ [ 1.4 , 15 ] $ $ [ 0.96 , 0.99 ] $ $ [ 3.1 , 4.1 ] $ $ [ 4.1 , 4.3 ] $ $ [ 51 , 55 ] $ $ [ 28.9 , 29.6 ] $ $ [ 0.12 , 0.13 ] $ $ [ 0.092 , 0.127 ] $
----------- --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
Over-plotted to Figure \[fig.ptot\] are the contours at the equatorial plane of the [Alfvén]{} surface (red lines) and the magnetosonic surface (black lines) of the stellar wind. In all the cases studied here, the planets orbit at regions of super fast magnetosonic velocities of the stellar wind. One exception is the case of HD 73256b, in which a small part of its orbit (white circle) lies within the fast magnetosonic surface of the wind. This does not necessarily mean that at these orbital positions a bow shock will not be formed surrounding HD 73256b’s magnetosphere. Rather, it is the relative velocity of the planet orbiting through the stellar wind $$\Delta {\bf u} = {\bf u}-u_K \boldsymbol{\hat{\varphi}},$$ where $u_K$ is the (purely azimuthal) Keplerian velocity of the planet, that should be compared to the fast magnetosonic velocity of the local plasma $v_f = (c_s^2 + v_A^2)^{1/2}$, where $c_s$ is the local sound speed. Figure \[fig.rM\]b shows the fast magnetosonic Mach number ($\Delta u/v_f$) calculated at the orbital radii of the hot-Jupiters, where we see that the relative planetary velocity is always super-fast magnetosonic (i.e., $\Delta u/v_f>1$), indicating that the magnetosphere of these planets are surrounded by bow shocks.
It has been proposed that these bow shocks might absorb at specific wavelengths, generating asymmetric transit lightcurves [@2010ApJ...722L.168V]. This is particularly relevant for the case of hot-Jupiters, in which the orientation of the bow shock is shifted towards the direction of planetary motion (as opposed to the bow shocks surrounding the solar system planets, which are largely formed facing the Sun). These ‘sideways’ bow-shocks present the best conditions for detection during planetary transits [@2011MNRAS.416L..41L; @2013MNRAS.436.2179L]. Although the hot-Jupiters investigated here are not transiting and do not have constrained orbital inclinations, there has been cases in the literature of non-transiting (but grazing) exoplanets whose extended atmospheres might undergo partial transit . Likewise, combined with the orbital inclinations, it is possible that bow shocks of non-transiting planets might be visible if they graze the stellar disc. We, here, do not model the 3D extent of bow shocks, as done in @2011MNRAS.416L..41L [@2013MNRAS.436.2179L], but we can calculate the angle between the shock normal and the tangent of a circular orbit $$\theta_{\rm shock} = \arctan \left( \frac{u_r}{|u_K-u_\varphi|}\right)$$ [@2010ApJ...722L.168V]. Along its orbital path, the planet probes regions of the wind with different velocities, which implies that the orientation of the bow shock that forms surrounding planetary magnetospheres changes along the planetary orbit. This can be seen in Figure \[fig.rM\]c and Table \[tab.resultsp\], where we present $\theta_{\rm shock}$ as a function of the subplanetary longitude. We present in Table \[tab.resultsp\] the average shock angle $\langle \theta_{\rm shock} \rangle$ of the bow shock of each of these hot-Jupiters, where we note that they range from about $52^{\rm o}$ to $74^{\rm o}$.
Exoplanetary auroral ovals: escape channels and radio emission {#sec.polarflows}
--------------------------------------------------------------
As the planetary magnetosphere extent is reduced, the size of the ‘auroral oval’, which is the amount of planetary area with open magnetic field lines, increases. Along these open field lines, particles can be transported to/from the interplanetary space, affecting, for instance, the amount of atmospheric mass loss [@2011ApJ...730...27A]. We estimate here the size of the auroral region of the planet as follows. Assuming the planet to have a dipolar magnetic field, aligned with the planetary orbital spin axis, the colatitude of the largest closed field line of the planet, which defines the boundary between open- and closed-field line regions, can be estimated as $\alpha_0=\arcsin ({R_p}/{r_M})^{1/2}$ [@1975JGR....80.4675S; @2010Sci...327.1238T]. This implies in a fractional area of the planetary surface that has open magnetic field lines $$\label{eq.area}
\frac{A_{\rm polar~cap}}{A_{\rm planet}} = (1-\cos \alpha_0),$$ . Therefore, in addition to making $r_M$ smaller, a stronger external pressure of the stellar wind exposes a larger area of the polar cap of the planet. Table \[tab.resultsp\] shows the average, minimum and maximum angles of the auroral ovals $\langle \alpha_0 \rangle$ and fraction of open area $\langle A_{\rm polar~cap} \rangle$ as calculated by Eq. (\[eq.area\]). For the hot-Jupiters analysed here, $\langle \alpha_0 \rangle$ ranges between $25^{\rm o}$ and $29^{\rm o}$, and $\langle A_{\rm polar~cap} \rangle$ ranges between $9\%$ and $13\%$. For comparison, the size of the auroral oval in Saturn is $\alpha_0 \simeq 10^{\rm o}$ – $20^{\rm o}$ [@2005Natur.433..717C] and at the Earth it is $\alpha_0 \simeq 17^{\rm o}$ – $20^{\rm o}$ [@2009AnGeo..27.2913M]. Using Eq. (\[eq.area\]), a rough estimate indicates that the open-field-line region covers $\sim 1.5\%$ – $6 \%$ of Saturn’s surface and $\sim 4.5\%$ – $6 \%$ of Earth’s surface. This is a factor of $\sim 2$ smaller than the values we derive for the hot-Jupiters in our sample, but not as extreme as the cases of planets orbiting at the habitable zone of more active stars .
Planetary radio emission takes place in a hollow cone of half-aperture angle given by the auroral oval co-latitude $\alpha_0$. It has been recognised that the radio emission of the Earth and the four giant planets of the solar system correlates to the local characteristics of the solar wind [e.g., @1998JGR...10320159Z], an indication that radio emission is powered by the local solar wind. Analogously, it is expected that when exoplanets interact with the wind of their host stars, they would also be sources of radio emission.
We use the results of our stellar wind simulations to calculate the kinetic power of the wind, at the orbital radii of the hot-Jupiters studied here. Our approach follows closely the one in @2012MNRAS.423.3285V. The kinetic power $P_k$ of the impacting wind on the planet is approximated as the ram pressure of the particles $\rho (\Delta u)^2$ impacting on the planet, with effective cross-section $\pi r_M^2$, at a relative velocity $\Delta {\bf u}$ $$\label{eq.pK}
P_k \simeq \rho (\Delta u)^3 \pi r_M^2 .$$ The radio flux can be written as $$\label{eq.radioflux}
\phi_{\rm radio} = \frac{P_{\rm radio}}{d^2 \omega \Delta f} = \frac{\eta_k P_{\rm k}}{d^2 \omega \Delta f}$$ where $d$ is the distance to the system, $\omega = 2\times 2 \pi (1 - \cos \alpha_0)$ is the solid angle of the hollow emission cone (defined by the auroral oval), and $\Delta f$ is the frequency of emission. In the last equality, we assumed a linear efficiency $\eta_k$ in converting the power released from the dissipation of kinetic wind energy to radio emission (‘radiometric Bode’s law’). We adopt $\eta_k = 10^{-5}$, as derived from observations of the Solar System planets . Here, we assume that the emission bandwidth $\Delta f$ is approximately the cyclotron frequency : $$\label{eq.fcyc}
\Delta f = \frac{e B_p(\alpha_0) }{m_e c} = 2.8 \left[ \frac{B_p(\alpha_0)}{1~{\rm G}}\right] ~{\rm MHz} ,$$ where $m_e$ is the electron mass and $c$ the speed of light. $B_p(\alpha_0)$ is the planet’s magnetic field strength at colatitude $\alpha_0$ of the auroral ring. For a dipolar field, $B_p(\alpha_0)= B_{p, {\rm eq}} (1 + 3 \cos \alpha_0)^{1/2}$.
To compute the radio flux (Eq. \[eq.radioflux\]), we need to know the physical size of $r_M$. This value, normalised to the planet’s radius, is given in Figure \[fig.rM\]a and we further assume planetary radii of $1.5R_{\rm Jup}$ for all the hot-Jupiters analysed in this work (note that they are non-transiting planets and therefore do not have observationally-determined radii). Eq. (\[eq.radioflux\]) is the only place where the physical size of the exoplanet is required and different choices of $R_p$ influence the estimated radio flux as $\phi_{\rm radio} \propto r_M^2 \propto R_p^2$.
Figure \[fig.radio\]a shows the radio flux computed using the results of our wind simulations and Figure \[fig.radio\]b shows the calculated frequency of emission. We find that the predicted emission frequency occurs at $\sim 36$ MHz and the radio fluxes range between $0.02$ and $0.13$ mJy among all the cases studied here (see also Table \[tab.resultsp\]). Values of radio fluxes such as these (including the peak values that occur at favourable phases) should be challenging to be observed with present-day technology, such as with LOFAR, whose sensitivity at $20$ to $40$ MHz is $\gtrsim30$ to $3$mJy, respectively, for a one-hour integration time [@2011RaSc...46.0F09G]. It is likely, however, that even these small radio fluxes will be detectable with future higher sensitivity arrays, such as the SKA-low array system.
![[The predicted radio flux (Eq. \[eq.radioflux\]) computed using the results of our wind simulations (top) and associated frequency of emission (bottom) assuming the emission bandwidth is the cyclotron frequency (Eq. \[eq.fcyc\]). These results assume a dipolar exoplanetary magnetic field, whose intensity is $7~$G at the equator.]{} \[fig.radio\]](figs/f5a.pdf "fig:"){width="85mm"}\
![[The predicted radio flux (Eq. \[eq.radioflux\]) computed using the results of our wind simulations (top) and associated frequency of emission (bottom) assuming the emission bandwidth is the cyclotron frequency (Eq. \[eq.fcyc\]). These results assume a dipolar exoplanetary magnetic field, whose intensity is $7~$G at the equator.]{} \[fig.radio\]](figs/f5b.pdf "fig:"){width="85mm"}
Among the systems studied here, HD 179949b has the highest estimated radio flux. This occurs for two reasons. First, this exoplanet has the closest orbital radius and, because of that, $\rho \Delta u^3$ is the largest among our sample; for the same reason, it also has the smallest $r_M$ (cf. Tables \[tab.sample\] and \[tab.resultsp\]). In spite of the smallest cross-section $\pi r_M^2$, the large $\rho \Delta u^3$ term is more important in Eq. (\[eq.pK\]), which results in the largest stellar wind kinetic power impacting on the magnetosphere of the exoplanets studied here. Second, the closest distance to the HD 179949 system also favours a larger radio flux (Eq. (\[eq.radioflux\])).
It is also worth comparing the emission calculated here and the values calculated for $\tau$ Boo b and HD 189733b[^2]. Using the same radio emission model presented here, @2012MNRAS.423.3285V estimated the radio flux of $\tau$ Boo b at different epochs of the host star’s magnetic cycle. They found the radio flux of $\tau$ Boo b to be of the order of $0.5$ – $0.9$ mJy. We can also use the simulations presented in @2013MNRAS.436.2179L to compute the radio flux of HD 189733b. Assuming a planetary radius of $R_p = 1.15~R_{\rm Jup}$ and a distance of $19.3~$pc, we calculate the radio flux of HD 189733b to be on average $0.47$ mJy (peak at 0.98 mJy) for the case where the observed stellar magnetic map is derived from the 2007 June observations and $0.23~$mJy (peak at $0.51$ mJy) for the 2008 July map (cf. @2010MNRAS.406..409F).
The radio fluxes computed for $\tau$ Boo b and HD 189733b are therefore considerably larger than the values computed for the exoplanets presented here, having better prospects for being detected. The reason why these two systems have higher radio fluxes is similar to the reasons discussed for the case of HD 179949b: a combination of closer orbital radii ($6.8~R_\star$ and $8.6~R_\star$ for $\tau$ Boo b and HD 189733b, respectively) and closer distances to the systems ($15.6$ and $19.3$ pc). It is also expected that exoplanets orbiting young stars (with denser stellar winds) are likely to produce higher radio fluxes , presenting also better prospects for detection of exoplanetary radio emission.
Radio fluxes estimated for the $5$ hot Jupiters studied here have been estimated by other authors. For instance, @2011RaSc...46.0F09G predicted radio fluxes that are larger than the values predicted here by a factor of $500$ – $2000$ (compared to the case for their rotation-independent planetary magnetic field model). Although our radio emission model is similar to the one used in @2011RaSc...46.0F09G (i.e., both our models assume a ‘radiometric Bode’s law’, in which a fraction of the dissipation of the wind power is converted into planetary radio emission), we attribute the difference found between their work and the present one due to the different models assumed for the stellar wind and stellar magnetic field, as well as for the assumed planetary magnetic field intensities. For the stellar wind, @2011RaSc...46.0F09G’s work assumes a spherically symmetric, isothermal wind model [@1958ApJ...128..664P]. The velocity and density structures are scaled with respect to the age of the system, based on the age relations found by @1980asfr.symp..293N and @2005ApJ...628L.143W. For the planetary magnetic field, @2011RaSc...46.0F09G’s work assumes either a case where the planetary dynamo is independent or dependent on the planetary rotation. @2011RaSc...46.0F09G showed that the intensity of the planetary magnetic field affects the frequency of the emission (as in our model) and that the radio flux has a strong dependence with the intensity of the planetary magnetic field (contrary to our model). More recently, @see2015 studied the variability of exoplanetary radio emission for a sample of planet host stars, which includes the objects studied in the present work. Similar to our model, their model incorporates the realistic large-scale geometry of the stellar magnetic field, but their radio emission model differs from ours. Instead, their study was based on the model developed by , which computes the radio emission generated by energetic electrons released in the reconnection between stellar and exoplanetary magnetic field lines, without assuming the a priori relation of the ‘radiometric Bode’s law’. Despite the differences in these models, the radio fluxes estimated by @see2015 and by us are very similar, within a factor of $1$ – $4$, except for HD130322, in which we estimate radio fluxes that are $100$ times larger than theirs. In addition to providing information on exoplanetary’s magnetic field, detection of exoplanetary radio emission would clearly provide invaluable constraints to stellar wind models as well.
Discussion {#sec.discussion}
==========
Limitations of the models {#sec.limitations}
-------------------------
The stellar wind models presented in this paper use as input the observationally reconstructed stellar magnetic field and are, therefore, more realistic (and provide an advance) compared to models that are non-magnetised or that assume simplified stellar magnetic field topologies. In spite of that, our wind models share the limitations of global, polytropic wind models. In particular, these types of models have three parameters that are poorly constrained by observations, namely, the wind base density and temperature and the temperature profile (i.e., the profile of energy deposition through the parameter $\gamma$). In this work, we have chosen to set all these three parameters to be the same for all the stars in our sample. On the other hand, parameters such as the stellar mass, radius, rotation period and magnetic field differ for each object and are constrained to values observationally-derived for each stars (Table \[tab.sample\]).
@Johnstone2015 recently showed that the average temperature of X-ray coronae $\langle T_{\rm cor} \rangle$ is a weak function of X-ray flux $F_X$: $\langle T_{\rm cor} [{\rm MK}] \rangle= 0.11 (F_X/[{\rm erg~s}^{-1}{\rm cm}^{-2}])^{0.26}$ (see also @2005ApJ...622..653T). Using their relation, the X-ray luminosities compiled in @2014MNRAS.441.2361V and the stellar radii from Table \[tab.sample\], we estimate $\langle T_{\rm cor} \rangle$ to be in the range between $2$ and $3.6$ MK for the stars in our sample. Naively, one could expect that the temperature at the base of the wind is related to the temperature of the closed X-ray corona (and this is the case for our Sun), but it is not clear if this relation is true for other stars. Therefore, in the absence of a stronger constraint, in our models, we adopt a wind base temperature of $2$ MK, typical of stellar coronae of solar-type stars. We adopt $\gamma$ that is the same as the effective adiabatic index measured in the solar wind [@2011ApJ...727L..32V]. For the base density, we adopted a value of $10^9 {\rm cm}^{-3}$. Ideally, observations of mass-loss rates of cool dwarf stars would allow us to place better constraints on the densities. However the lack of, or difficult-to-obtain, observational signatures of these winds make constraints of base density (or mass-loss rates) challenging to be obtained.
To investigate how our results change with the change in the wind base density, we performed a stellar wind simulation of HD 46375 that results in a mass-loss rate (${\dot{M}}=2.9 \times 10^{-14}~{{\rm M}_\odot ~{\rm yr}^{-1}}$) that is similar to the one observed in the solar wind (${\dot{M}}=2 \times 10^{-14}~{{\rm M}_\odot ~{\rm yr}^{-1}}$). Compared to the values of HD 46375 reported in Table \[tab.results\], in this simulation, we found a mass-loss rate that is a factor of $6.5$ smaller, ${\dot{J}}$ that is a factor $3$ smaller and $\Phi_0$ that is a factor $1.3$ smaller.
Locally, the hot-Jupiter HD 46375b experience a total external pressure whose average value (averaged over the longitude of the subplanetary point) is a factor of $5.6$ smaller than the value presented in Table \[tab.resultsp\]. Because $r_M$ is weakly dependent on $p_{\rm tot}$ ($r_M \propto p_{\rm tot}^{-1/6}$), the value of $r_M$ we estimated before is smaller by a factor of only $1.3$. In spite of the larger the cross-section of the planetary magnetosphere, the radio flux decreased by a factor of $2.3$, caused by the decrease in the ram pressure \[Eq. (\[eq.pK\])\].
Another parameter we have assumed in our models is the planetary magnetic field intensity. As discussed in Section \[sec.introBp\], this is a quantity that has yet not been measured in exoplanets. Here, we adopted a magnetic field intensity which is similar to the value of Jupiter. We can also estimate how the magnetospheric size we presented in Fig. \[fig.rM\]a would have changed if a different field strength were to be adopted. Because $r_M \propto B_p^{1/3}$, a strength that is a factor of $2$ smaller would decrease the reported values of $r_M$ by $2^{1/3}$ (i.e., only $25\%$). In spite of that, this would not have significantly altered the computed radio flux (our radio flux model is weakly dependent on the planetary field strength; see discussion in @2012MNRAS.423.3285V), but would have decreased the frequency of the emission by a factor of $2$, making it not possible to be observed from the ground, due to the Earth’s ionospheric cut-off in frequencies. Indeed, one of the possibilities that exoplanetary radio emission has not been detected so far might be due to a frequency mismatch between the emission source and that of the search instruments [@2000ApJ...545.1058B].
Exoplanetary system conditions for detectability at radio wavelengths
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the cyclotron nature of the magnetospheric radio emission, exoplanets with higher magnetic field strengths emit at higher frequencies, where the detection sensitivity is larger. For instance, an exoplanet with a magnetic field of about $40$ – $50$ G emits at the frequency range between $110$ and $140$ MHz. The sensitivity of LOFAR at $100$ to $200$ MHz is roughly about $0.05$ mJy (cf. Fig. 1 in @2011RaSc...46.0F09G). This indicates that, except for HD 46375b, all the remaining exoplanets studied here could in principle be detectable with LOFAR, if their magnetic field strengths were about $40$ – $50$ G. Compared to Jupiter’ maximum field intensity, these field strengths are about $\sim 3$ times higher.
We can also estimate what would be the required dissipated stellar wind power to generate detectable radio signatures from the exoplanets studied here. In this exercise, we take the same exoplanetary magnetic field assumed in Section \[sec.planets\] (i.e., $B_{p, {\rm eq}}=7~$G). With such a magnetic field intensity, the frequency of emission is around $36$ MHz, where the LOFAR sensitivity for a one-hour integration time is about a few mJy. The radio power calculated in Section \[sec.planets\] yielded values of about ($1.6$ – $5.6) \times 10^{25}$ erg s$^{-1}$. For a radio flux of a few mJy, the required radio power of the exoplanets studied here should be higher, on the range of ($1.1$ – $2.1) \times 10^{27}$ erg s$^{-1}$. To have a radio power (or, equivalently, a wind kinetic power) that is roughly 2 orders of magnitude larger, the stellar wind characteristics need to change – either by increasing the density of the stellar wind or its velocity or both, as demonstrated next.
From equations (\[eq.r\_M\]), (\[eq.pK\]) and (\[eq.radioflux\]), and assuming a ram pressure-dominated wind, one can show that $$\rho^2 \Delta u^7 \sim \frac{8 P_k^3}{\pi^2 R_p^6 B_p^2},$$ such that the ratio between the values required for a radio flux of about 3 mJy to the ratio of the values calculated at Section \[sec.planets\] is $$\label{eq.estimate}
\frac{[\rho^2 \Delta u^7]_{(3 {\rm mJy})}}{[\rho^2 \Delta u^7]_{\rm (Sect.~5)} } \sim \left( \frac{P_{k(3 {\rm mJy})}}{P_{k (\rm Sect.~5)} }\right)^3 \sim (0.5 ~{\rm to~} 3.3)\times10^5.$$ A very crude estimate[^3] then tells us that either the wind density needs to increase by a factor of at least $\sim 300$ to $600$ (i.e., the square root of the values derived in Eq. (\[eq.estimate\])) or the velocity requires an increase of a factor of at least $\sim 5$ to $7$ (i.e., the 7-th root of the values in Eq. (\[eq.estimate\])). Or, alternatively, density and velocity should both change such that they obey the relation (\[eq.estimate\]).
From Table \[tab.resultsp\], a $5$ to $7$ times increase in the wind velocity implies a relative velocity $\gtrsim 1200$ km/s, which is $50\%$ larger than the speed of the fast solar wind and 3 times larger than the slow solar wind speed. In terms of density, an increase of $\sim 300$ to $600$ roughly implies a similar increase in mass loss rates and, from Table \[tab.results\], this would result in ${\dot{M}}$ of at least $(2.9$ – $24) \times10^4$ times the solar wind mass-loss rates. Such mass loss-rates are typical of very young stars, indicating that exoplanets orbiting young Suns are more likely to produce detectable levels of radio fluxes .
Summary and conclusions {#sec.conclusions}
=======================
In this work we have investigated the interplanetary media surrounding five hot-Jupiters, namely: HD 46375b, HD 73256b, HD 102195b, HD 130322b, HD 179949b. For that, we carried out 3D MHD stellar wind simulations, which incorporate as boundary conditions the surface magnetic field of the star reconstructed by @2012MNRAS.423.1006F [@2013MNRAS.435.1451F] using the Zeeman Doppler Imaging technique. The global characteristics of our wind models are presented in Table \[tab.results\].
We then calculated the [*local*]{} characteristics of the stellar winds at the orbital radius of the hot-Jupiters, in order to characterise the interplanetary medium surrounding these exoplanets. In particular, we calculated the total pressure of the interplanetary medium and estimated what would be the size of planetary magnetospheres in case these hot-Jupiters had a magnetic field similar to Jupiter’s field. We found that magnetospheric sizes range between $4.1$ and $5.6~R_p$ and that they can vary by a few percent due to variations in the external environment of the planets, as they orbit around their parent stars. We also demonstrated that these planets orbits are super fast magnetosonic, indicating that bow shocks should be formed around their magnetospheres. The bow shock orientations (i.e., the angle between the shock normal and the tangent of the circular orbit) are of intermediate type, in which the shock forms at intermediate angles from the one of a shock facing the motion of the planet (‘ahead shock’) and the one connecting the star-planet centres (‘dayside shock’).
We also calculated the size of the auroral ovals of these planets. Inside these ovals, the planetary magnetic field lines are open, through which particles from the star and from the cosmos can penetrate as well as planetary atmospheric particles can escape through polar flows. On average, the auroral ovals we calculated have a half-opening angle of about $25^{\rm o}$ to $29^{\rm o}$, leaving exposed about $9\%$ to $13\%$ of the planetary area, which is a factor of $\sim 2$ larger than estimates for the Earth’s and Saturn’s auroral caps. Finally, we estimated the radio flux of these planets, using the analogy observed in the solar system, in which the radio emission from the magnetised planets is correlated to the solar wind power. We found small radio fluxes ranging from $0.02$ to $0.13$ mJy, which should represent a challenge to be observed with present-day technology (e.g., LOFAR; @2011RaSc...46.0F09G), but could be detectable with higher sensitivity arrays, such as the SKA-low array system. Radio emission from systems having closer hot-Jupiters, such as from $\tau$ Boo b (radio flux of the order of $0.5$ – $0.9$ mJy, @2012MNRAS.423.3285V), HD 189733 b ($0.5$ – $1$ mJy, calculated using the simulations from @2013MNRAS.436.2179L and the same model as presented here), or from nearby planetary systems orbiting young stars , are likely to have higher radio fluxes, presenting thus better prospects for detection of exoplanetary radio emission.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
AAV acknowledges support from the Swiss National Science Foundation through an Ambizione Fellowship. RF acknowledges support from a STFC grant. The results of this work are based on observations acquired at CFHT/ESPaDOnS and TBL/NARVAL. This work was carried out using the BATS-R-US tools developed at The University of Michigan Center for Space Environment Modeling (CSEM) and made available through the NASA Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC). This work was supported by a grant from the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre (CSCS) under project ID s516. This work used the DiRAC Data Analytic system at the University of Cambridge, operated by the University of Cambridge High Performance Computing Service on behalf of the STFC DiRAC HPC Facility (www.dirac.ac.uk). This equipment was funded by BIS National E-infrastructure capital grant (ST/K001590/1), STFC capital grants ST/H008861/1 and ST/H00887X/1, and STFC DiRAC Operations grant ST/K00333X/1. DiRAC is part of the National E-Infrastructure.
=====
[108]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
F. C., 2011, , 730, 27
F., 1992, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 20, 289
T. S., [Dulk]{} G. A., [Leblanc]{} Y., 2000, , 545, 1058
D., [Kaygorodov]{} P., [Ionov]{} D., [Shematovich]{} V., [Lammer]{} H., [Fossati]{} L., 2013, , 764, 19
V., [Lecavelier des Etangs]{} A., 2013, , 557, A124
J., 2013, , 557, A72
U. R., [Holzwarth]{} V., [Reiners]{} A., 2009, , 457, 167
J. T. [et al.]{}, 2005, , 433, 717
O., [Drake]{} J. J., [Glocer]{} A., [Garraffo]{} C., [Poppenhaeger]{} K., [Bell]{} J. M., [Ridley]{} A. J., [Gombosi]{} T. I., 2014, , 790, 57
O., [Drake]{} J. J., [Kashyap]{} V. L., [Saar]{} S. H., [Sokolov]{} I. V., [Manchester]{} W. B., [Hansen]{} K. C., [Gombosi]{} T. I., 2009, , 704, L85
S. R., [Saar]{} S. H., 2011, , 741, 54
M., [Saar]{} S. H., [Musielak]{} Z. E., 2000, , 533, L151
J. [et al.]{}, 2006, , 370, 629
J.-F., [Brown]{} S. F., 1997, , 326, 1135
P., [Bercovici]{} D., 2013, , 226, 1447
D. [et al.]{}, 2012, , 547, A18
A., [Holmstr[ö]{}m]{} M., [Wurz]{} P., [Grie[ß]{}meier]{} J.-M., [Lammer]{} H., [Selsis]{} F., [Penz]{} T., 2010, , 709, 670
R. [et al.]{}, 2010, , 406, 409
R. [et al.]{}, 2012, , 423, 1006
R., [Moutou]{} C., [Donati]{} J.-F., [Catala]{} C., [Shkolnik]{} E. L., [Jardine]{} M. M., [Cameron]{} A. C., [Deleuil]{} M., 2013, , 435, 1451
W. M., [Desch]{} M. D., [Zarka]{} P., 1999, , 104, 14025
L. [et al.]{}, 2010, , 714, L222
E. J., [G[ü]{}del]{} M., [Blake]{} G. A., 2000, , 27, 501
J. [et al.]{}, 2006, , 648, 683
J.-M., [Motschmann]{} U., [Mann]{} G., [Rucker]{} H. O., 2005, , 437, 717
J.-M., [Preusse]{} S., [Khodachenko]{} M., [Motschmann]{} U., [Mann]{} G., [Rucker]{} H. O., 2007, , 55, 618
J.-M. [et al.]{}, 2004, , 425, 753
J.-M., [Zarka]{} P., [Girard]{} J. N., 2011, Radio Science, 46, 0
G., [Sirothia]{} S. K., [Antonova]{} A., [Ishwara-Chandra]{} C. H., [Bourke]{} S., [Doyle]{} J. G., [Hartman]{} J., [Golden]{} A., 2013, , 762, 34
C. A. [et al.]{}, 2012, , 760, 79
J., [Nordstr[ö]{}m]{} B., [Andersen]{} J., 2007, , 475, 519
M., [Ekenb[ä]{}ck]{} A., [Selsis]{} F., [Penz]{} T., [Lammer]{} H., [Wurz]{} P., 2008, , 451, 970
W.-H., [Kopp]{} A., [Hu]{} J.-H., 2004, , 602, L53
M., [Barnes]{} J. R., [Donati]{} J., [Collier Cameron]{} A., 1999, , 305, L35
M., [Cameron]{} A. C., 2008, , 490, 843
M., [Collier Cameron]{} A., [Donati]{} J., 2002, , 333, 339
M., [Vidotto]{} A. A., [van Ballegooijen]{} A., [Donati]{} J.-F., [Morin]{} J., [Fares]{} R., [Gombosi]{} T. I., 2013, , 431, 528
C., [Guedel]{} M., 2015, , submitted
M. L. [et al.]{}, 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 167
K. G. [et al.]{}, 2014, , 562, A116
D., [Helling]{} C., [van den Heuvel]{} E. P. J., 2010, , 721, 923
H. [et al.]{}, 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 185
N. R., [Mendes]{} L. T. S., [Vaz]{} L. P. R., 2010, , 510, A46
A. F., 2012, , 544, A23
T. J. W., [Farrell]{} W. M., [Dietrick]{} J., [Greenlees]{} E., [Hogan]{} E., [Jones]{} C., [Hennig]{} L. A., 2004, , 612, 511
A., [Sirothia]{} S. K., [Gopal-Krishna]{}, [Zarka]{} P., 2013, , 552, A65
J., [Vidotto]{} A. A., [Jardine]{} M., [Wood]{} K., [Fares]{} R., [Gombosi]{} T. I., 2013, , 436, 2179
J., [Wood]{} K., [Jardine]{} M., [Vidotto]{} A. A., [Helling]{} C., [Fossati]{} L., [Haswell]{} C. A., 2011, , 416, L41
R. V. E., [Romanova]{} M. M., [Barnard]{} A. W., 2008, , 389, 1233
G. W., [Butler]{} R. P., [Vogt]{} S. S., 2000, , 536, L43
T., [Jardine]{} M., [Holzwarth]{} V., 2006, , 367, L1
L., 1999, [Stellar magnetism]{}
L., [Selley]{} C. S., 1970, , 149, 197
S. E., [Hutchinson]{} J., [Boakes]{} P. D., [Hubert]{} B., 2009, Annales Geophysicae, 27, 2913
T. E., [Horwitz]{} J. L., 2007, Reviews of Geophysics, 45, 3002
D. J., [Doyle]{} J. G., [Redman]{} R. O., [Mathioudakis]{} M., 1992, , 397, 225
A. [et al.]{}, 2011, , 211, 1
, Jr. G., 1980, in The Ancient Sun: Fossil Record in the Earth, Moon and Meteorites, [Pepin]{} R. O., [Eddy]{} J. A., [Merrill]{} R. B., eds., pp. 293–320
J. D., 2012, , 427, L75
J. E., [Adams]{} F. C., 2014, , 444, 3761
E. N., 1958, , 128, 664
K. A., [Turner]{} J. D., [Sagan]{} T. G., 2014, , 27, 102
K. G., [Roe]{} P. L., [Linde]{} T. J., [Gombosi]{} T. I., [de Zeeuw]{} D. L., 1999, , 154, 284
S., [Kopp]{} A., [B[ü]{}chner]{} J., [Motschmann]{} U., 2005, , 434, 1191
S., [Kopp]{} A., [B[ü]{}chner]{} J., [Motschmann]{} U., 2006, , 460, 317
S. [et al.]{}, 2012, , 752, 1
A., [Christensen]{} U. R., 2010, , 522, A13+
P., [Linker]{} J. A., [Miki[ć]{}]{} Z., [Lionello]{} R., [Ledvina]{} S. A., [Luhmann]{} J. G., 2006, , 653, 1510
V., [Jardine]{} M., [Fares]{} R., [Donati]{} J.-F., [Moutou]{} C., 2015, , submitted
V., [Jardine]{} M., [Vidotto]{} A. A., [Petit]{} P., [Marsden]{} S. C., [Jeffers]{} S. V., [do Nascimento]{} J. D., 2014, , 570, A99
K., [Elphic]{} R. C., [Hirahara]{} M., [Terasawa]{} T., [Mukai]{} T., 2001, Science, 291, 1939
E., [Bohlender]{} D. A., [Walker]{} G. A. H., [Collier Cameron]{} A., 2008, , 676, 628
E., [Walker]{} G. A. H., [Bohlender]{} D. A., 2003, , 597, 1092
E., [Walker]{} G. A. H., [Bohlender]{} D. A., [Gu]{} P.-G., [K[ü]{}rster]{} M., 2005, , 622, 1075
S. K., [Lecavelier des Etangs]{} A., [Gopal-Krishna]{}, [Kantharia]{} N. G., [Ishwar-Chandra]{} C. H., 2014, , 562, A108
G. L., [Chen]{} C.-K., 1975, , 80, 4675
A. M. S., [Collier Cameron]{} A., [Greaves]{} J., [Jardine]{} M., [Langston]{} G., [Backer]{} D., 2009, , 395, 335
E. J., [Davis]{}, Jr. L., [Jones]{} D. E., [Coleman]{}, Jr. P. J., [Colburn]{} D. S., [Dyal]{} P., [Sonett]{} C. P., 1975, Science, 188, 451
I. R., 2005, , 356, 1053
A., [Brun]{} A. S., [Matt]{} S. P., [R[é]{}ville]{} V., 2014, , 795, 86
J. A. [et al.]{}, 2010, Science, 327, 1238
A., [G[ü]{}del]{} M., [Briggs]{} K., [Audard]{} M., [Ness]{} J.-U., [Skinner]{} S. L., 2005, , 622, 653
G. [et al.]{}, 2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 870
J. D. [et al.]{}, 2013, , 428, 678
S. [et al.]{}, 2003, , 407, 679
S. [et al.]{}, 2000, , 356, 590
T., [Wardle]{} N., [Del Zanna]{} G., [Jansari]{} K., [Verwichte]{} E., [Nakariakov]{} V. M., 2011, , 727, L32
A. A., [Bisikalo]{} D., [Fossati]{} L., [Llama]{} J., 2014, Interpretations of WASP-12b near-UV observations, [Lammer]{} H., [Khodachenko]{} M., eds., Vol. 411, Springer, p. 153
A. A., [Fares]{} R., [Jardine]{} M., [Donati]{} J.-F., [Opher]{} M., [Moutou]{} C., [Catala]{} C., [Gombosi]{} T. I., 2012, , 423, 3285
A. A. [et al.]{}, 2014, , 441, 2361
A. A., [Jardine]{} M., [Helling]{} C., 2010, , 722, L168
A. A., [Jardine]{} M., [Helling]{} C., 2011, , 411, L46
A. A., [Jardine]{} M., [Helling]{} C., 2011, , 414, 1573
A. A., [Jardine]{} M., [Morin]{} J., [Donati]{} J.-F., [Lang]{} P., [Russell]{} A. J. B., 2013, , 557, A67
A. A., [Jardine]{} M., [Morin]{} J., [Donati]{} J. F., [Opher]{} M., [Gombosi]{} T. I., 2014, , 438, 1162
A. A., [Jardine]{} M., [Opher]{} M., [Donati]{} J. F., [Gombosi]{} T. I., 2011, , 412, 351
A. A., [Opher]{} M., [Jatenco-Pereira]{} V., [Gombosi]{} T. I., 2009, , 703, 1734
A. A., [Opher]{} M., [Jatenco-Pereira]{} V., [Gombosi]{} T. I., 2009, , 699, 441
A. A., [Opher]{} M., [Jatenco-Pereira]{} V., [Gombosi]{} T. I., 2010, , 720, 1262
C., [Schneiter]{} M., [Costa]{} A., [Vel[á]{}zquez]{} P., [Raga]{} A., [Esquivel]{} A., 2014, , 438, 1654
Y.-M., [Sheeley]{}, Jr. N. R., [Rouillard]{} A. P., 2006, , 644, 638
B. J., [Drake]{} J. J., 2001, , 546, L57
E. J., [Davis]{} L. J., 1967, , 148, 217
J. N., [Fabrycky]{} D., [Albrecht]{} S., [Johnson]{} J. A., 2010, , 718, L145
B. E., [M[ü]{}ller]{} H.-R., [Zank]{} G. P., [Linsky]{} J. L., [Redfield]{} S., 2005, , 628, L143
P., 1998, , 103, 20159
P., 2007, , 55, 598
J. I., [Cuartas]{} P. A., 2012, , 217, 88
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Note that the stellar wind simulations presented in @2012MNRAS.423.3285V and @2013MNRAS.436.2179L have the same assumptions as the ones shown in the present work.
[^3]: Note that this approach is not a self-consistent one, because in this scenario the structure of the wind temperature, velocity and magnetic fields are not modified (i.e., we are assuming they remain unchanged as the structures derived in Section \[sec.results\]). In the self-consistent approach, if either the density of the wind or its velocity are modified, one needs to solve the coupled MHD equations to derive all the remaining quantities of the wind. However, this back-of-the-envelope calculation can give a rough estimate of how larger should the stellar wind power be in order for the radio emission to reach values above the sensitivity limit of a couple of mJy.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A system of generalized coherent states for the de Sitter group obeying Klein-Gordon equation and corresponding to the massive spin zero particles over the de Sitter space is considered. This allows us to construct the quantized scalar field by the resolution over these coherent states; the corresponding propagator can be computed by the method of analytic continuation to the complexified de Sitter space and coincides with expressions obtained previously by other methods. We show that this propagator possess the de Sitter-invariance and causality properties.'
address: |
Department of Physics, Kharkov State University,\
Svobody Sq., 4, 310077, Kharkov, Ukraine
author:
- 'S A Pol’shin'
title: |
Quantization of fields over de Sitter space\
by the method of generalized coherent states.\
I. Scalar field
---
\#1[(\[\#1\])]{} \#1 \#1[[\#1]{}]{}
-25 true mm 15 true mm 15 true mm
\[Quantization by the generalized coherent states. I\]
Introduction
============
In the later years a considerable progress in the theory of massive scalar field over the de Sitter (dS) space is attained due to using the new mathematical methods. In [@24] is shown that the two-point Wightman function ${\cal W}(x,y)$ which corresponds to this field and obeys the conditions of causality, dS-invariance and positive definiteness can be obtained as the boundary value of the holomorphic function $W(z_1 ,z_2)$ defined over the complexified dS space. In turn, the function $W(z_1 ,z_2)$ can be represented as an integral over so-called “plane waves” which obeys the Klein-Gordon equation over the dS space and generalizes the usual plane waves over the Minkowski space. In [@dS-PLB] we applied to examining the quantum fields over the dS space the method of generalized coherent states (CS) which has been fruitfully used in various physical problems (see [@coher1/4] and references therein). In the mentioned paper we shown that the above “plane waves” are CS for the dS space to within the coordinate-independent multiplier, and their scalar product coincides with the two-point function considered in [@24].
Nevertheless, some questions remain open. Can we construct the quantized field over the dS space by the expansion over the mentioned “plane waves” in such a way that its propagator will be equal to ${\cal W}(x,y)-{\cal
W}(y,x)$? What is the explicit form of this propagator? The purpose of the present paper is to answer on these questions and explain systematically the results briefly mentioned in [@dS-PLB].
The present paper is composed as follows. In section 2, bearing in mind the application to the spinor field (see part II of this series of papers), we give the method of construction of CS in the maximally general form for which the Perelomov’s definition is a special case. In section 3 we consider the dS space, its symmetry group and the classification of its irreducible representations. The realization of the dS group as a group of transformations of Lemaitre coordinate system is given too. Following [@dS-PLB], in section 4 we realize the dS group as a group of transformations of functions over ${\Bbb R}^3$ and then construct CS system for the dS space which correspond to the massive spin zero particles and obey the dS-invariant Klein-Gordon equation. The scalar product of two CS is the two-point function considered in [@24]; from here its dS-invariance follows immediately which is proved in [@24] by the other reasons. The integral that defines this two-point function may be regularized passing to the complexified dS space. For the sake of completeness we reproduce some results of the J.Bros and U.Moschella’s paper [@24] and compute the two-point function over the complexified dS space in the explicit form. In section 5 we construct the quantized scalar field by the expansion over CS constructed in section 4. The propagator of this field is the difference of two-point function and the permuted one. We show that the boundary values on the real dS space of the two-point function computed in section 4 coincides with the Green’s function obtained previously by other methods [@76; @33]. The propagator which is the difference of two two-point functions coincides with that obtained previously starting from the demands of the dS-invariance and the satisfaction of the Klein-Gordon equation and the boundary conditions[@77/81/82]. Thus, the relation between different expressions for the propagator available in the literature is established (review of the papers concerning the propagators over dS space see in [@caus4/5]).
Definition of the CS system
===========================
Let $\cal G$ is a Lie group and ${\cal G}\ni g\mapsto T(g)$ is its representation in a linear vector space $H$ with operators $T(g)$. Consider some vector $|\psi_0 \rangle\in H$ yielding the set of vectors $$\{ |\psi_g \rangle\equiv T(g)\psi_0,\ \forall g\in {\cal G} \}.$$ Define the equivalence relation $\sim$ between the vectors of the $H$ space coordinated with the product over $H$ in the following way. Let $|\xi'\rangle$ and $|\xi''\rangle$ are the vectors of $H$. Then we assume the existence of a product (which, in general, isn’t the mapping of $H\times H$ to ${\Bbb R}$) such as $$\label{defsim}
|\xi'\rangle\sim|\xi''\rangle
\Rightarrow \langle\xi'|\xi'\rangle =\langle\xi''|\xi''\rangle.$$ Consider the subgroup $\cal H$ of $\cal G$ which remains in the rest the equivalency class generated by $|\psi_0\rangle$: $$h\in {\cal H}\Longleftrightarrow T(h)|\psi_0\rangle \sim
|\psi_0\rangle .$$ It is obvious that the number of unequivalent elements of the mentioned set $|\psi_g \rangle$ is less than the number of elements of the group $\cal G$ because the elements $g$ and $gh,\ h\in {\cal H}$ generate the equivalent vectors. Then, in fact, the set of unequivalent vectors is determined by the set of all right equivalency classes $g\cal H$ which compose the symmetric space ${\cal G}/{\cal H}$.
The mapping ${\cal G}/{\cal H}\ni \xi \mapsto g_\xi \in {\cal G}$ such that for an arbitrary $g_1 \in {\cal G}$ the equality $$\label{foliation}
g_1 g_\xi=g_{\xi '}h \qquad h\in {\cal H}
\qquad \xi ' =\xi_{g_1}$$ is valid, is called the lifting from the ${\cal G}/{\cal H}$ space to the $\cal G$ group, where $\xi\mapsto \xi_g$ is the action of $\cal G$ over the ${\cal G}/{\cal H}$ space. We shall use the following simple method of construction of liftings. Let $\xi_\circ$ is a “standard” point of the ${\cal G}/{\cal H}$ space. Let us denote as $g_\xi$ the set of transformations parametrized by points $\xi$ of the ${\cal G}/{\cal H}$ space so as $\xi=(\xi_\circ )_{g_\xi}.$ It is easily seen that $\xi \mapsto g_\xi$ is a lifting. Indeed, let $g_1
\in {\cal G}$ is an arbitrary transformation from the group $\cal G$. Then the transformations $g_1 g_\xi$ and $g_{\xi'}$ both transform the point $\xi_\circ$ into the point $\xi'$; then the transformation $(g_1 g_{\xi})^{-1} g_{\xi'}$ remains the point $\xi_\circ$ in the rest and therefore belongs to $\cal H$.
The choice of lifting is the choice of the [*representative*]{} $g_\xi \in\cal G$ for each equivalency class $\xi$. Then the set of all unequivalent vectors $|\psi_g\rangle$ is given by the [*coherent states*]{} system $$|\xi\rangle =T(g_\xi) |\psi_0\rangle .$$ The major property of CS system is its $\cal G$-invariance which follows from (\[foliation\]): $$\label{lor7}
T(g)|\xi\rangle \sim |\xi_g\rangle \qquad g\in {\cal G}.$$ The Perelomov’s definition for the CS system is narrower than ours as he suppose that $\sim$ is the equality to within the phase: $$|\xi'\rangle\sim|\xi''\rangle \Leftrightarrow |\xi'\rangle=\e^{\i\alpha}
|\xi''\rangle \qquad \alpha\in {\Bbb R}.$$ In a certain sense, our definition is the further generalization of a so-called vector-like CS [@coher10]. Another difference of our definition from Perelomov’s one is that we, following [@coher10], do not assume the compactness of the $\cal H$ subgroup.
Representations of the de Sitter group
======================================
The dS space is a four-dimensional hyperboloid determined by the equation $\eta _{AB}x^{A}x^{B}=-R^{2}$ in the five-dimensional space with the pseudo-euclidean metric $\eta_{AB} \quad (A, B, \ldots=0\ldots 3, 5)$ of signature $(+ - - - -)$. Except the explicitly covariant vierbein indices, all the ones are raised and lowered by the Galilean metric tensors $\eta_{AB}$ and $\eta_{\mu \nu}$. The metric in coordinates $x^\mu$ has the form $$\label{5. 21}
g_{\mu \nu}=\eta _{\mu \nu}-
\frac{x^{\mu}x^{\nu}}{R^{2}\chi ^{2}} \qquad
g^{\mu \nu}=\eta ^{\mu \nu}+\frac{x^{\mu}x^{\nu}}{R^{2}}$$ where $\chi =(1+x\cdot x/R^{2})^{1/2}.$ The symmetry group of the dS space is the dS group $SO(4,1)$ with ten generators $J^{AB}=-J^{BA}$ obey commutation relations $$\label{5. 22}
[J_{AB}, J_{CD}]=\eta _{AD}J_{BC}+\eta _{BC}J_{AD}-
\eta _{AC}J_{BD}-\eta _{BD}J_{AC}.$$ Let us denote $P^\mu =R^{-1}J^{5\mu}$; these generators correspond to translations.
The action of an arbitrary element $g\in {SO(4,1)}$ of the dS group over the dS space we denote as $x\mapsto x_g$. The stationary subgroup of an arbitrary point of dS space is $SO(3,1)$; then we can identify the dS space with the set of equivalency classes ${SO(4,1)}/{SO(3,1)}$.
Let us construct the operators $$\label{3. 2}
\Pi^\pm_i=P_{i}\pm\frac{1}{R}J_{0i}.$$ Using the commutation relations (\[5. 22\]) it is easy to show that $$\label{3. 3}
[\Pi^+_i ,\Pi^+_k ] =[\Pi^-_i ,\Pi^-_k ] =0.$$ We can take the operators $\bPi^{+},\bPi^{-},P^{0}$ and $J_{ik}$ as a new set of generators of the dS group; they generates subgroups which we denote as ${ \cal T}^{+}, {\cal T}^{-},{\cal T}^{0}$ and ${\cal
R}=SO(3)$, respectively. The groups ${\cal T}^{\pm}$ are abelian by the virtue of (\[3. 3\]). Besides (\[3. 3\]), the commutation relations are $$\label{3. 4}
\eqalign{
{[}\Pi^+_i ,\Pi^-_k {]}=
-\frac{2}{R}P^{0}\delta_{ik}+\frac{2}{R^2}J_{ik} \qquad
{[}P^{0},J_{ik}{]}=0 \\
{[}\Pi^\pm_i ,J_{kl}{]}=
\Pi^\pm_k \delta_{il}-\Pi^\pm_l \delta_{ik} \qquad
{[}P^{0},\bPi^{\pm} {]} =\pm \frac{1}{R}\bPi^{\pm}.
}$$
The dS group has two independent Casimir operators: $$\label{5. 26}\label{5. 27}
C_{2}=-\frac{1}{2R^{2}}J_{AB}J^{AB} \qquad
C_{4}=W_{A}W^{A}$$ where $$\label{5. 28}
W_{A}=\frac{1}{8R}\varepsilon _{ABCDE}J^{BC}J^{DE}$$ is an analog of the Pauly–Lubanski pseudovector in the Poincaré group. There is two series of the dS group irreducible representations [@4/5]:
1)$ \bpi_{p, q}$, $p=1/2, 1, 3/2, \ldots
;q=p, p-1, \ldots, 1$ and $1/2$. The eigenvalues of Casimir operators in this series are $$\label{5. 29}
\eqalign{
R^{2}C_{2}=p(p+1)+q(q-1)-2 \\
\label{5. 30}
R^{2}C_{4}=p(p+1)q(q-1).
}$$
2)$\bnu_{m, s}$. The quantity $s$ is a spin, $s=0, 1/2, 1, \ldots$;the quantity $m$ corresponds to a mass, at the integer spin $m^{2}>0$; at the half-integer spin $m^{2}>1/4R^{2}$; at $s=0 \quad m^{2}>-2/R^{2}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5. 31}
C_{2}=-m^{2}+R^{-2}(s(s+1)-2) \\
\label{5. 32}
C_{4}=-m^{2}s(s+1).\end{aligned}$$
The generators of five-dimensional rotations are $$\label{5. 33}
J^{(l)AB}=(x^{A}\eta^{BC}-x^{B}\eta^{AC})\partial_{C}.$$ As the fifth coordinate is not independent: $x^{5}=R \chi, $ then $\partial_{5}=0$ and we obtain the generators of scalar representation: $$\label{5. 34}\label{3. 4a}
P^{(l)}_{\mu}=\chi \partial _{\mu} \qquad
J^{(l)\mu \nu}=(x^{\mu}\eta ^{\nu \sigma}-
x^{\nu}\eta ^{\mu \sigma})\partial _{\sigma}.$$ They compose the representation $\bnu_{m,0}$ since $$\label{5. 35}
W_{A}^{(l)}=0 \Rightarrow C_{4}^{(l)}=0.$$ As $(-g)^{1/2}=1/\chi,$ then for the second order Casimir operator in the scalar representation we obtain from and : $$C_{2}^{(l)}=\Box \equiv (-g)^{-1/2}\partial
_{\mu}((-g)^{1/2}g^{\mu \nu} \partial _{\nu}).$$ Then using (\[5. 31\]) we obtain that in the representation $\bnu_{m, 0}$ the Klein-Gordon equation $$\label{5. 36} \label{5. 37}
(\Box +m^{2}+2R^{-2})\psi =0$$ is satisfied.
By the virtue of (\[3. 3\]) in the scalar representation the generators (\[3. 2\]) are derivatives along certain new coordinates called the Lemaitre coordinates: $$\label{3. 4b}
\bPi^\pm=\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bi y}_\pm}.$$ Substituting (\[3. 4a\]) and (\[3. 4b\]) into r.h.s. and l.h.s of equation (\[3. 2\]) respectively, we obtain the connection of ${\bi y}_\pm$ with $x^\mu$. A new time coordinate independent on ${\bi y}_{\pm}$ is denoted as $y^{0}_{\pm}=\tau_{\pm}$; then the transformation rules from the old coordinates to the new ones are $$\label{3. 6a}
{\bi y}_{\pm}={\bi x}\e^{\mp\tau_{\pm}/R} \qquad
\e^{\pm\tau_{\pm}/R}=\chi \pm \frac{x^0}{R}.$$ The operator $P_{0}$ in new coordinates takes the form $$P_{0}^{(l)}=\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau_{\pm}}\mp
\frac{1}{R}{\bi y}_{\pm}\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bi y}_{\pm}}.$$ The finite transformations from the groups ${\cal T}^{\pm}$ and ${\cal T}^{0}$, which we denote as $\Theta_{\pm}$ and $\Theta_{0}$, act in the scalar representation in the following way: $$\label{3. 9}
\label{3. 10}
\eqalign{
g= \Theta_{\pm}({\bi a})\equiv \exp (\bPi^{\pm}{\bi a}R) \ :
\quad \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
{{\bi y}}_{\pm}\longmapsto {{{\bi y}}'}_{\pm}={{\bi y}}_{\pm}+{{\bi a}}R \\
\tau_{\pm}\longmapsto {\tau'}_{\pm}=\tau_{\pm}
\end{array} \right. \\
g= \Theta_{0}(\varepsilon )\equiv \exp (P_0 \varepsilon R)\ :
\quad\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
{{{\bi y}}'}_{\pm}={{\bi y}}_{\pm}\e^{\mp \varepsilon} \\
{\tau'}_{\pm}=\tau_{\pm}+\varepsilon R.
\end{array} \right.
}$$ We assume that the transformations act in the order from the right to the left.
Scalar coherent states
======================
The dS group is isomorphic to the group of conformal transformations of the three-dimensional real space. We denote the vector of this space as ${\bi w}$. There exist two different conformal realizations of the dS group; the first one corresponds to the upper, and the second one to the lower signs in the following formulas. The generators take the form $$\begin{aligned}
R\bPi^{\mp}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial {{\bi w}}} \qquad
R\bPi^{\pm}={w}^{2}\frac{\partial}{\partial {{\bi w}}}-2{{\bi w}}
({{\bi w}}\frac{\partial}{\partial {{\bi w}}}) \nonumber\\
R P_{0}=\pm {{\bi w}}\frac{\partial}{\partial {{\bi w}}} \qquad
J_{ik}={w}_{k}\frac{\partial}{\partial {w}_{i}}-
{w}_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial {w}_{k}}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ They obey commutation relations (\[3. 3\]) and (\[3. 4\]). Finite transformations have the form $$\begin{aligned}
g=\Theta_{\mp}({{\bi a}}):\ {{\bi w}}_{g}={{\bi w}}-{{\bi a}}\nonumber \\
\label{3. 15}
g=\Theta_{\pm}({{\bi a}}):\ {{\bi w}}_{g}=
\frac{{{\bi w}}+{{\bi a}}{w}^{2}}{1+2{\bi wa}+{w}^{2}{a}^{2}} \\
g=\Theta_{0}(\varepsilon ):\ {{\bi w}}_{g}={{\bi w}}\e^{\pm \varepsilon}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we used the notations (\[3. 9\]) for finite transformations of the dS group.
Let us define two different representations of the dS group acting over the space of functions dependent on ${\bi w}$: $$\label{3. 20}
T^{\pm}_\sigma (g)f({{\bi w}})=\left(\alpha^{\pm}_{{\bi w}}(g)\right)^\sigma
f({{\bi w}}_{g^{-1}})$$ where $\sigma\in {\Bbb C}$ and $$\alpha^{\pm}_{{\bi w}}(g)=
\det \left( \frac{\partial {\rm w}^{i}_{g^{-1}}}{\partial {\rm w}^{k}}
\right)^{-1/3}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & g\in {\cal T}^{\mp}\circledS {\cal R} \\
\e^{\pm \varepsilon} & g=\Theta_{0}(\varepsilon) \\
1-2{\bi aw}+a^{2} w^{2} & g=\Theta_{\pm}({{\bi a}})
\end{array}
\right.$$ and the action of the dS group over the ${\Bbb R}^3$ space is determined by (\[3. 15\]). We denote these representations as $T_\sigma^\pm$. It is easily seen that the generators in these representations are $$\label{3. 20a}
\eqalign{
R\bPi^{\mp}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial {{\bi w}}} \qquad
R\bPi^{\pm}={w}^{2}\frac{\partial}{\partial {{\bi w}}}-2{{\bi w}}
({{\bi w}}\frac{\partial}{\partial {{\bi w}}})+2\sigma {{\bi w}} \\
R P_{0}=\pm\left( {{\bi w}}\frac{\partial}{\partial {{\bi w}}}-\sigma \right)
\qquad
J_{ik}={w}_{k}\frac{\partial}{\partial {w}_{i}}-
{w}_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial {w}_{k}}.
}$$ We define the scalar product in the space of representation $T_\sigma^\pm$ as follows: $$\langle f_{1} |f_{2}\rangle =\int_{{\Bbb R}^3} \d^{3}{{\bi w}} \,
f_{1}^{*}({{\bi w}}) f_{2}({{\bi w}}).$$ It is not difficult to show that it is dS-invariant at $$\sigma=\sigma_{0}\equiv -\frac{3}{2}-\i\mu R \qquad \mu\in {\Bbb R}.$$ Then the representation $T^\pm_{\sigma_0}$ is unitary; but it is reducible since we do not assume the square integrability of functions carrying it and therefore the space contains an invariant subspace of square integrable functions. Such an extension of the representation space is necessary for the construction of CS with noncompact stability groups [@coher10].
The equality $$\label{3. 18a}
g_{y_{\pm}}=\Theta_{\pm}({{\bi y}}_{\pm}/R)
\Theta_{0}(\tau_{\pm}/R)$$ defines a lifting in the sense of (\[foliation\]) since the transformation $g_{y_\pm}$ transforms the origin into the point with coordinates $y_\pm$. As an equivalency relation we can take the equality. Then the vector $|\psi_{0}\rangle$ being Lorentz-invariant under the action of the representation $T^\pm_\sigma$ is $|\psi_{0}\rangle
=(1-{w}^{2})^{\sigma}.$ Then we can construct the CS system $$\label{3. 24}
|x ,\pm;\sigma\rangle =T^{\pm}_\sigma (g_{y_{\pm}(x)})|\psi_{0}\rangle$$ where we assume that the Lemaitre coordinates are dependent on $x^\mu$ by the transformations (\[3. 6a\]). The explicit form of CS as functions of ${\bi w}$ is $$|x ,\pm;\sigma\rangle \equiv \Phi^{(0)\pm}_{{\bi w}}(x;\sigma) =
(1-{w}^{2})^{\sigma}\varphi_{k_{{\bi w}}}^{(0)\pm}(x;\sigma)$$ where $$\varphi_{k}^{(0)\pm}(x;\sigma)=
\left( \chi\pm \frac{k\cdot x}{R} \right)^{\sigma}\label{5. 58} \qquad
k^{\mu}_{{\bi w}}=\left( \frac{1+{w}^{2}}{1-{w}^{2}},
\pm \frac{2{{\bi w}}}{1-{w}^{2}}\right)$$ then $k_{{\bi w}}\cdot k_{{\bi w}}=1$. From (\[lor7\]) the transformation rules $$\label{transf}
\Phi_{{\bi w}}^{(0)\pm}(x_g ;\sigma)=\left(
\alpha^\pm_{{{\bi w}}}(g)\right)^\sigma \Phi_{{{\bi w}}'}^{(0)\pm}(x;\sigma)
\qquad {{\bi w}}'={{\bi w}}_{g^{-1}}$$ follow.
Functions $\varphi_{k}^{(0)\pm}(x;\sigma_0)$ obey the dS-invariant Klein-Gordon equation (\[5. 36\]) and were known previously in this capacity [@24; @coher9/78]. Under $R \rightarrow \infty$ these functions pass into the usual plane waves over the Minkowski space.
Let us consider the scalar product of two CS in the representation $T^\pm_{\sigma_0}$; it is easily seen that the scalar products in representations $T^+_{\sigma_0}$ and $T^-_{\sigma_0}$ are equal to each other. This may be proved considering the inversion $\bbox{w}\mapsto
-\bbox{w}/{\myrm w}^2$ with which $$\Phi^{(0)\pm}_{\bbox{w}}(x;\sigma_0)\mapsto (-{\myrm w}^2)^{-\sigma_0}
\Phi^{(0)\mp}_{\bbox{w}}(x;\sigma_0).$$ Then a two-point function can be defined as $$\label{twop-0-def}
\langle {\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},\pm;\sigma_0|{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}} ,\pm;\sigma_0 \rangle =
\int_{{\Bbb R}^3}\d^3 {{\bi w}}\, \Phi_{{\bi w}}^{(0)\pm}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}};\sigma_0 )
\Phi_{{\bi w}}^{(0)\pm}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}};\sigma_0^* )= \frac{1}{8}
{\cal W}^{(0)}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}).$$ It is dS-invariant by the virtue of unitarity of the representation $T^\pm_{\sigma_0}$: $${\cal W}^{(0)}
({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}_{g},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}_{g})={\cal W}^{(0)}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}})
\qquad g\in SO(4,1).$$ We can obtain an another expression for ${\cal W}^{(0)}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}})$ passing to the integration over 3-sphere [@24]. Let us consider a unit euclidean four-vector $l_a$, $a,b=1,2,3,5$ dependent on the three-vector ${\bi w}$: $$l^a_{{\bi w}}=\left( \mp \frac{2{{\bi w}}}{1+{\rm w}^2},
\frac{1-{\rm w}^2}{1+{\rm w}^2}\right) \qquad
l^a_{{\bi w}}l^a_{{\bi w}}=1.$$ Then computing the Jacobian of the transformation from ${\bi w}$ to ${\bi l}_{{\bi w}}$ we obtain $$\label{twop-eucl}
{\cal W}^{(0)}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}})=\int_{S^3}\frac{\d^3{\bi l}}{l^5}
\left( \frac{{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^0+l^a{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^a}{R}
\right)^{-\i\mu R-3/2}
\left( \frac{{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^0+l^a{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^a}{R}
\right)^{\i\mu R-3/2}.$$ The function ${\cal W}^{(0)}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}})$ coincides with the two-point function over the dS space considered in [@24]. In general, the determining integrals diverge because of $|\psi_0\rangle$ is not square-integrable over ${\Bbb R}^3$. We can make the integral meaningful by passing to the complexified dS space with subsequent computation of the boundary values over the real dS space [@24]. In this case the dS-invariance of two-point function remains valid since the transformation rules (\[transf\]) remains correct.
Let us consider the domain ${\cal D}^\pm$ in the complexified dS space (we shall denote its points as $\zeta$) defined as $$\quad \pm\im \zeta^0 >0 \qquad
\im \zeta^A \im \zeta_A >0.$$ The domain ${\cal D}^+$ (${\cal D}^-$) is the domain of analyticity of functions $\varphi^{(0)\pm}_{k}(\zeta;\sigma_0)$ ($\varphi^{(0)\pm}_{k}(\zeta;\sigma_0^*)$). Then the integral (\[twop-eucl\]) converges at ${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}}\in {\cal D}^+$ and ${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}}\in {\cal D}^-$ since 3-sphere volume is finite. Let us choose the points as $$\label{points-dS}
{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}}^A=(\i\cosh v,{\bi 0},i\sinh v) \qquad
{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}}^A=(-\i,{\bi 0},0) \qquad v\in {\Bbb R}.$$ Then using the formula [@59] $$\label{BE123-8}
\mathop{_2 F_1} (a,b;c;z)=
\frac{2^{1-c}\Gamma(c)}{\Gamma(b)\Gamma(c-b)}
\int_{0}^\pi \d\varphi
\, \frac{(\sin\varphi)^{2b-1}(1+\cos\varphi)^{c-2b}}{\left(
1-\frac{z}{2}+\frac{z}{2}\cos\varphi\right)^a}$$ we obtain $$\label{twop-cdS}
{\cal W}^{(0)}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}})=
-\frac{\pi^2}{2} \e^{-\pi\mu R}\mathop{_2 F_1}\left( -\sigma_0^*,
-\sigma_0 ;2;\frac{1-\rho}{2}\right)$$ where $\rho=R^{-2} {\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}}^A {\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}}_A$. The expression obtained in [@24] is in fact equivalent to the above expression to within a constant.
Spin zero field over de Sitter space\[field0-dS\]
=================================================
Let us define the quantized spin zero field in the dS space as $$\phi^{(0)}(x)=\int_{{\Bbb R}^3} \d^3 {{\bi w}}\, \left(
\Phi^{(0)+}_{{\bi w}}(x;\sigma_0 )a^{(+)} ({{\bi w}})+
\Phi^{(0)-}_{{\bi w}}(x;\sigma_0^* )a^{(-)\dagger}
({{\bi w}})\right)$$ where $a^{(\pm)}({{\bi w}})$ and $a^{(\pm)\dagger} ({{\bi w}})$ are two sets of bosonic creation-annihilation operators with the commutation relations $$\label{comm-bosonic}
[a^{(\pm)}({{\bi w}}), a^{(\pm)\dagger} ({{\bi w}}')]=
\delta ({{\bi w}},{{\bi w}}')$$ where $\delta({\bbox{w}}_1 ,{\bbox{w}}_2)$ is the $\delta$-function over ${\Bbb R}^3$. Now compute the propagator $$\label{3. 31a}
\Bigl[ \phi^{(0)}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}),\phi^{(0)\dagger}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}})\Bigr] \equiv
\frac{1}{8}G^{(0)}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}})=
\frac{1}{8}\left( {\cal W}^{(0)}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}})-
{\cal W}^{(0)}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}) \right)$$ in the explicit form by passing to the complexified dS space. Considering the real dS space as the boundary of the domains $({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}})\in {\cal D}^\pm \times {\cal D}^\mp$, let us denote the boundary values of the functions ${\cal W}^{(0)}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}})$ as ${\cal W}^{(0)\pm}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}})$. To compute these functions we put ${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}}={\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}+\i{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\epsilon}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\epsilon}}$ and ${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}}={\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}-\i{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\epsilon}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\epsilon}},$ where ${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\epsilon}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\epsilon}}$ and ${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\epsilon}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\epsilon}}$ are two real infinitesimal time-like forward four-vectors and then indeed $({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}})\in {\cal D}^+ \times {\cal D}^-$. It is easily seen that $${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}}^A {\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}}_A ={\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^A {\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}_A +
\frac{\i}{{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^5 {\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^5}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\epsilon}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\epsilon}}+
{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\epsilon}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\epsilon}})\cdot \left( \frac{{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}}{{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^5}-
\frac{{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}}{{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^5}\right).$$ Then under the above assumptions the sign of the imaginary part of ${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}}^A {\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}}_A$ does not depend on the way in which ${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\epsilon}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\epsilon}}$ and ${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\epsilon}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\epsilon}}$ tend to zero. Let ${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^\mu =0$ and ${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}\cdot {\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}\geq 0$, then $${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}}^A {\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}}_A ={\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^A {\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}_A -
i0\varepsilon ({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^0).$$ The case of backward ${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\epsilon}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\epsilon}}$ and ${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\epsilon}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\epsilon}}$ (then $({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}})\in {\cal D}^- \times {\cal D}^+$) may be considered in the completely analogous way. Then $${\cal W}^{(0)\pm}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}})=
-\frac{\pi^2}{2} \e^{-\pi\mu R}\mathop{_2 F_1}\left( -\sigma_0^*,
-\sigma_0 ;2;\frac{1-G \pm \i 0 \varepsilon({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^0)}{2}\right)$$ where $G=R^{-2}{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^A {\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}_A$. As $({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}})\in {\cal D}^+ \times {\cal D}^-$ yields $({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{\zeta}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{\zeta}})\in {\cal D}^- \times {\cal D}^+$, then we get $$\label{x1x2-x2x1}
{\cal W}^{(0)+}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}) =
{\cal W}^{(0)-}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}})$$ (cf. proposition 2.2 of [@24]) and by the virtue of (\[3. 31a\]) the propagator is equal to $$G^{(0)}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}})=
{\cal W}^{(0)+}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}})-
{\cal W}^{(0)-}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}).$$ The function ${\cal W}^{(0)-}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}})$ coincides to within the constant with the propagator obtained in [@76] from the demands of satisfaction of the Klein-Gordon equation and the boundary conditions. This function may be obtained by the summation over the modes [@33] and by the method of discrete lattice [@85] too.
As we assume that ${\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}\cdot {\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}\geq 0$ then $\frac{1-G}{2}\geq 1$, but the integral (\[BE123-8\]) with which we define the hypergeometric function, makes no sense at $z\in [1,+\infty)$ and then demands the analytic continuation in the domain which contains the mentioned interval. To this end we shall use the formulas [@59] $$\begin{aligned}
u_1 =\frac{\Gamma (c)\Gamma(b-a)}{\Gamma(c-a)\Gamma(b)}u_3 +
\frac{\Gamma(c)\Gamma(a-b)}{\Gamma(c-b)\Gamma(a)} u_4 \label{u1}\nonumber \\
u_2 =\frac{\Gamma (a+b+1-c)\Gamma(b-a)}{\Gamma(b+1-c)\Gamma(b)}
\e^{\mp \i\pi a}u_3 +
\frac{\Gamma(a+b+1-c)\Gamma(a-b)}{\Gamma(a+1-c)\Gamma(a)}
\e^{\mp \i\pi b} u_4 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the upper or lower sign should be chosen depending on the $\im z$ greater or smaller than zero, and $u_1,\ldots,u_4$ are the Kummer solutions of the hypergeometric equation: $$\begin{aligned}
u_1 =\mathop{_2 F_1}(a,b;c;z)\nonumber \\
u_2 =\mathop{_2 F_1}(a,b;a+b+1-c;1-z)\nonumber \\
u_3 =(-z)^{-a}\mathop{_2 F_1}(a,a+1-c;a+1-b;z^{-1})\nonumber \\
u_4 =(-z)^{-b}\mathop{_2 F_1}(b,b+1-c;b+1-a;z^{-1}) .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The functions $u_1 ,u_3, u_4$ are holomorphic at $z<0$. Then at $a+b+1=2c$ $$\left. u_2 \right|_{z-i0}^{z+i0} =\i (\e^{\pi\mu R}+\e^{-\pi\mu R})\theta (-z)
u_1 \qquad z\not= 0$$ and thus we obtain for $G\not= -1$ $$\fl
G^{(0)}({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}},{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}})=-\frac{\i\pi^2}{2}(1+\e^{-2\pi\mu R})
\varepsilon ({\stackrel{\scriptstyle 1}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^0 -{\stackrel{\scriptstyle 2}{x}\hspace{-3.5pt}\vphantom{x}}^0)
\theta \left(-\frac{1+G}{2}\right) \mathop{_2 F_1}
\left(-\sigma_0 ,-\sigma_0^* ;2; \frac{1+G}{2}\right).$$ To within the constant, the above expression coincide with that obtained previously from the demands of satisfaction of the Klein-Gordon equation and the boundary conditions [@77/81/82]. The only difference is that our method do not allow us to find the behavior of the propagator over the “light cone” $G=-1$.
I am grateful to Yu P Stepanovsky for the constant support during the fork and to W Drechsler and Ph Spindel sending me copies of their papers [@coher9/78; @caus4/5].
[99]{}
Bros J and Moschella U 1996 [*Rev. Math. Phys.*]{} [**8**]{} 327
Pol’shin S A 1999 [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**449**]{} 56
Perelomov A M 1986 (Berlin: Springer); Twareque Ali S, Antoine J-P, Gazeau J-P and Mueller U A 1995 [*Rev. Math. Phys.*]{} [**7**]{} 1013
Candelas P and Raine D J 1975 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**12**]{} 965
Birrell N D and Davies P C W 1982 [*Quantum fields in curved space*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Chernikov N A and Tagirov E A 1968 [*Ann. Inst. Henry Poincaré, Sect. A*]{} [**IX**]{} 109; Börner G and Durr H P 1969 [*Nuovo Cimento A*]{} [**64**]{} 669; Gutzwiller M 1956 [*Helv. Phys. Acta*]{} [**29**]{} 313
Gabriel Cl and Spindel Ph 1997 [*J.Math.Phys.*]{} [**38**]{} 622; Allen B and Jacobson Th 1986 [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**103**]{} 669
Papaloucas L C, Rembieliński J and Tybor W 1989 [*J.Math.Phys.*]{} [**30**]{} 2407
Dixmier J 1960 [*Bulletin de la Societe Mathematique de France*]{} [**89**]{} 9; Kihlberg A and Ström S 1965 [*Arkiv för fysik* ]{} [**31**]{} 491
Drechsler W and Prugovečki E 1991 [*Found. Phys.*]{} [**21**]{} 513; Trucks M 1996 [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**13**]{} 2941
Erdélyi A, Magnus W, Oberhettinger F and Tricomi F 1953 [*Higher transcendental functions*]{} (New York: Mc Graw-Hill) Vol. 1
Huang J J and Wang M J 1988 [*Nuovo Cimento A*]{} [**100**]{} 723
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Experiments on Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) of excitons in the semiconductor Cu$_2$O started over thirty years ago, as one of the first serious attempts at exciton BEC. Early claims were based on spectroscopic signatures and transport data which have since been reinterpreted, in large part because the Auger recombination process for excitons was not well understood. Understanding of the Auger process has also advanced, and recent experiments have made significant progress toward exciton BEC. We review the history of experiments on exciton BEC in Cu$_2$O, the Auger recombination process, and the prospects for observing exciton BEC in this system in the near future.'
author:
- David Snoke
- 'G. M. Kavoulakis'
title: 'Bose-Einstein Condensation of Excitons in Cu$_2$O: Progress Over Thirty Years'
---
Introduction
============
[**BEC of excitons**]{}. Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) of excitons was predicted in the early 1960’s, by Moskalenko [@mosk1], Blatt and coworkers [@blatt], and Casella [@casella], in independent efforts. The concept is simple: just as two electrons with half-integer spin can be paired to make a Cooper pair which acts as an integer-spin boson, and just as an even number of fermionic electrons, protons, and neutrons are bound together to make up every bosonic atom, so too an electron and hole in a semiconductor, each with half-integer spin, can be bound together in the complex known as an exciton, which will also act as a boson. Therefore one can expect Bose-Einstein condensation of excitons under two conditions: 1) when the number of excitons is approximately conserved; in particular, their lifetime is much longer than the time it takes for them to thermalize to a well-defined temperature, and 2) when the density of the excitons is not too high, because competing phases occur at high density such as electron-hole plasma, in which the binding of the electrons and holes into excitons breaks down.
Under these conditions, it is straightforward to describe the exciton gas by weakly interacting Bose gas theory. The general condition for quantum coherent effects to be important is that the thermal deBroglie wavelength $\lambda_{dB}$ of the particles be comparable to or larger than the average distance $r_s$ between the particles. The order of magnitude of the deBroglie wavelength is found by equating $$\frac{\hbar^2k^2}{2m} = \frac{\hbar^2 (2\pi)^2}{2m\lambda_{dB}^2} \sim k_BT,$$ which implies $$\lambda_{dB} \sim \frac{2\pi\hbar}{\sqrt{2mk_BT}}.$$ In three dimensions, the average distance $r_s$ scales as $r_s \sim n^{-1/3}$, where $n$ is the density of the particles. Setting $\lambda_{dB} \sim r_s$ gives $$n \sim \frac{2^{3/2}}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{(mk_BT)^{3/2}}{\hbar^3},
\label{nc}$$ or $$T \sim \frac{(2\pi\hbar)^2}{2mk_B}n^{2/3}.
\label{Tc}$$ In equilibrium, the standard calculation of statistical mechanics [@statmech] gives the critical density for Bose-Einstein condensation, $$T_c = 0.17 \frac{(2\pi\hbar)^2}{2mk_B}n^{2/3}.$$ Even away from perfect equilibrium, however, the relations (\[nc\]) and (\[Tc\]) will still apply as the conditions for Bose-Einstein statistical effects, which include a peaking of the distribution of the particles near the ground state, also known as a “quasicondensate.”
Note that these relations give a critical temperature inversely proportional to the mass $m$. This means that light mass implies Bose-Einstein effects at higher temperature. Since excitons have mass of the order of two electron masses, this led to the proposal that exciton condensates could be the first room temperature condensate. The excitons in many semiconductors are stable at room temperature, e.g. Cu$_2$O, CuCl, CdSe, ZnO, and GaN. To have a Bose-Einstein condensate, one must ensure that the exciton lifetime is also long enough to allow thermalization, as discussed above. Several of these semiconductors seemed to satisfy this requirement, and experiments on them began in the 1970’s, as discussed below.
![Generic phase diagram of excitons in a three-dimensional bulk semiconductor. FE = free exciton gas. BEC = exciton BEC. BCS (EI) = excitonic insulator state, which is a BCS state; there is a BEC-BCS crossover at low temperature as density increases. EHP = electron-hole plasma, i.e. ionized excitons. There are two regimes for this, a non-degenerate and a degenerate plasma. The general condition for degeneracy is $r_s \sim a$, that is, the average distance between the particles be comparable to the exciton Bohr radius.[]{data-label="phasediagram"}](PT){width="70.00000%"}
The relations (\[nc\]) and (\[Tc\]) also imply that the critical temperature for Bose-Einstein effects depends on the density. In liquid helium and in BCS superconductors, the density is essentially a fixed quantity. By contrast, it is quite easy to vary the density of excitons to very low density by simply changing the intensity of a light source which generates electrons in the conduction band and holes in the valence band of the semiconductor. Therefore one has a density-dependent critical temperature, $T_c \sim n^{2/3}$, as plotted in Fig. \[phasediagram\]. From the ideal Bose gas theory, one would say that to have a condensate at room temperature, one simply needs to increase the density of the excitons until their critical temperature for condensation is above room temperature. However, there are limits to the density of excitons which can be obtained. These limits come from 1) competing phases of the electrons and holes, and 2) density-dependent recombination mechanisms.
[**Competing phases**]{}. There are three possible competing phases for electrons and holes besides the exciton Bose-Einstein condensate (EBEC). One of these is the “excitonic insulator” (EI) state which is a BCS state of the electrons and holes instead of two spin states of the electrons. This state arises under the general condition $r_s < a$, where $a$ is the exciton Bohr radius, i.e, the pair correlation length. This is equivalent to the condition $na^3 > 1$. This condition corresponds to the case that a Fermi level of the electrons (and also of the holes, assuming they have comparable mass) exists in the system which is large compared to the intrinsic binding energy of the excitons. We can see this by noting first that the exciton binding energy ${\rm Ry}_{ex}$ and the excitonic Bohr radius $a$ are related by the formula (in MKS units) $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Ry}_{ex} = \frac{e^2}{8\pi\epsilon a},\end{aligned}$$ which is the same as for a hydrogen atom except that the electric force has been renormalized by the screening in the medium, $e^2 \rightarrow e^2/\epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is the dielectric constant of the medium. The hydrogenic formula for $a$ is $$a = \frac{4\pi\epsilon\hbar^2}{e^2m}.
\label{ebohr}$$ On the other hand, the Fermi energy of an electron gas in the low-temperature limit is given by [@statmech] $$E_F = \left(\frac{3\pi^2\hbar^3}{\sqrt{2}m^{3/2}} n\right)^{2/3},$$ where $n$ is the density. Setting this larger than the binding energy gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{3\pi^2\hbar^3}{\sqrt{2}m^{3/2}} n &>& \left(\frac{e^2}{8\pi\epsilon a}\right)^{3/2} \nonumber \\
\sim \left( \frac{4\pi\epsilon \hbar^2}{e^2m} \right)^{3/2} n &>& \frac{1}{a^{3/2}},\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to $na^3 > 1$, using (\[ebohr\]) for the excitonic Bohr radius.
In the EI limit the gas still is coherent, like a BCS superconductor, below a critical temperature. There should be a crossover from exciton BEC to the excitonic insulator state at low temperature, as density is increased. Indeed, some of the earliest work on the theory of BEC-BCS crossover was done in the context of thinking about exciton systems, notably foundational theory by Keldysh and Kozlov [@keld; @keld2], Hanamura and Haug [@HH1; @HH2; @HH3], and Comte and Noziéres [@comnoz1; @comnoz2]; for a general review of the early theory of excitonic condensates, see Ref. [@moskbook]). These works showed that excitonic condensation in the low-density BEC limit was a sound concept, despite the fermionic nature of the underlying electrons and holes, and there is a smooth transition to the BCS-like EI phase at high density. The critical temperature for this high-density EI phase will decrease with increasing density, however, so that raising the density is no longer advantageous. In practical terms, this means that the density of the particles should be kept below $1/a^3$. Excitonic condensation can be expected at room temperature only if $a$ is small enough that this limit can be satisfied even for densities given by (\[nc\]) at room temperature. The condition that the critical density at room temperature be less than $1/a^3$ turns out not to be an issue for most of the semiconductors listed above with excitons which exist at room temperature, since large binding energy of the excitons also corresponds to small Bohr radius.
Another competing phase is ionization to an incoherent electron-hole plasma (EHP). This is analogous to the classical ionization of an atomic gas at high temperature and high density due to three-body collisions; it is sometimes called the excitonic “Mott” transition because it is a conductor-insulator transition, although the mechanism is quite different from the Mott transition in cold-atom lattices. The theory of this transition is actually quite complicated (for a review, see Ref. [@exion]; see also recent work by Manzke and coworkers [@manzkenew1; @manzkenew2]). Self-consistent theory of this transition involves the dynamic screening of the electron-hole interaction, which in turn depends on the number of ionized electrons and holes. Figure \[phasediagram\] illustrates the basic shape of the boundary for this phase. The position of the phase boundary depends on the binding energy of the excitons; in general we can say that higher binding energy pushes this curve to higher temperature. Therefore having deeply bound excitons also helps avoid this competing phase.
Another competing phase is the electron-hole liquid (EHL), sometimes also called “condensation.” This state received a significant amount of attention in the 1970’s and 1980’s [@EHLexpt2; @EHLtheory-keld] following its observation in two bulk semiconductors, Ge and Si. This state is analogous to liquid mercury: the electrons and holes generated by optical excitation are not bound into pairs as excitons or biexcitons but instead form two interpenetrating Fermi gases with the properties of a classical liquid, with a surface tension. The EHL state is a conductor, while the EBEC state is an insulator, because excitons are charge neutral. If the EHL state does exist, it will prevent EBEC at any temperature and density, since its phase boundary also scales as $T \sim n^{2/3}$ in three dimensions.
The EHL state only occurs in indirect-gap semiconductors like Si and Ge with multiple degenerate valleys in the conduction band. This degeneracy allows the density of the excited electrons to be high while still keeping the average kinetic energy of the carriers low. This means that the mutual attraction of the electrons and holes overcomes the kinetic energy cost of the Fermi level of free carriers, leading to a net free energy savings to enter the EHL state at high excited carrier density [@EHLtheory-keld]. In a nice experiment, Timofeev and coworkers [@timo-Ge] used a stress geometry to lift this degeneracy in a germanium crystal, and magnetic field to prevent biexciton formation, and found that the EHL state did not occur, leaving only free excitons. At high density they saw evidence for Bose-Einstein statistics of the excitons (see Ref. [@moskbook], section 1.4.2), although not for EBEC.
As illustrated in Fig. \[phasediagram\], it is expected that at low enough temperature and density, excitons can undergo BEC, and if the excitons have large binding energy and small Bohr radius this could even occur at room temperature. Therefore experimental research on Bose-Einstein condensation of excitons began in the 1970’s with a focus on deeply bound excitons in bulk semiconductors. As we will see, however, the second competing effect mentioned above, namely density-dependent recombination mechanisms, have turned out to be a major issue.
[**Deeply bound excitons and Cu$_2$O**]{}. The earliest experiments on excitonic condensation in bulk semiconductors were done with the bulk semiconductors CdSe and CuCl [@japan1; @japan2; @japan3; @japan4]. The most complete study on CuCl was done in the early 1980’s [@peygh1; @peygh2]. In CuCl, there is a tightly bound biexciton state (i.e., an excitonic molecule like H$_2$), which, of course, is also an integer-spin boson which can in principle undergo BEC. The biexciton binding energy in CuCl is 26 meV, which is comparable to $k_BT$ at room temperature. The experiments with CuCl ran into interpretive difficulties, however, because CuCl has a strong polariton effect, in which photons in the medium couple strongly to the exciton or biexciton states, leading to a very short radiative lifetime for low-momentum excitons. At high density, the biexcitons in CuCl showed a distinct peak in low-energy states, but were far from equilibrium. The enhancement of the population in low-energy states was probably related to the boson nature of the particles through the process of stimulated scattering, which drives the onset of BEC in all bosonic gases [@yl; @snoke-wolfe]. In recent years, several sophisticated models [@hartwell; @tassone; @malpuech] have been developed which describe the nonequilibrium behavior of polaritonic gases and show clearly the role of the bosonic stimulated scattering. It would be quite interesting to apply these modern theoretical tools to the early CuCl experiments to estimate to what degree the occupation number of the biexcitons was enhanced by their bosonic nature.
Around the same time, the semiconductor Cu$_2$O was identified as a good candidate for excitonic BEC. The excitons in Cu$_2$O have binding energy of 150 meV [@binding]; the biexciton state is either nonexistent or only very weakly bound, on the order of 1 meV or less [@cu2obiex; @mosk-biex], so that one can generally ignore the existence of biexcitons (we discuss this further below).
The lowest conduction band in Cu$_2$O comes from the $4s$-orbitals of the oxygen atoms, while the highest valence band comes from the $3d$-orbitals of the copper atoms. The crystal field in the cubic lattice splits the five $d$-orbitals into a triplet and a doublet, with the triplet higher; when the electron spin is taken into account, the spin-orbit interaction splits this triplet into a higher twofold-degenerate state and a lower fourfold-degenerate state. The lowest-energy excitons are formed from holes in these two highest states of the valence band and electrons in the two $s$-like states of the lowest conduction band. The electron-hole exchange splits these four states into a triplet and a singlet, which are called the orthoexciton and the paraexciton, respectively. These are split by 12 meV, with the paraexciton the lower state. In general, these two exciton states, which are the lowest energy exciton states, are the only important ones unless higher-lying exciton states are being excited directly.
The symmetry group of unstressed Cu$_2$O is $O_h$, which is cubic with inversion symmetry. This high symmetry leads to the effect that the lowest exciton state in Cu$_2$O, the singlet paraexciton has zero oscillator strength for interaction with photons, due to the selection rules which arise from the symmetry of the crystal [@binding; @moskbookA; @bayer]. This implies that there is no polariton effect for the paraexcitons. The triplet orthoexciton state, by contrast, has a symmetry-allowed radiative recombination process. (The singlet-triplet terminology of Cu$_2$O sometimes confuses those who work with organic light emitters, in which the state with forbidden recombination is the triplet state and the state with allowed radiative recombination is the singlet state. The difference in the terminology is because in the case of organics, the transition is assumed to have an $s$-$p$ dipole-allowed matrix element, and the spin singlet state corresponds to no spin flip of the excited electron, and thus an allowed process, while the spin triplet state corresponds to a spin flip. In the case of Cu$_2$O, neither the orthoexciton nor the paraexciton is a pure spin state; the triplet orthoexciton state is actually a superposition of singlet and triplet pure electron spin states, while the singlet paraexciton is a superposition of only pure spin triplet states.)
In principle, the fact that the lowest exciton state has a forbidden transition means that these excitons have infinite lifetime, but a weak phonon-assisted recombination process is allowed [@birman], and also recombination at impurities can occur, so that the lifetime of paraexcitons in Cu$_2$O is typically of the order of hundreds of nanoseconds to microseconds [@andre; @snoke-shields; @naka-njp]. This is very long compared to excitons in most semiconductors, and very long compared to the thermalization times of the excitons via exciton-phonon interaction, which is tens of picoseconds [@snokebc]. Because there has never been a large technological effort to produce pure Cu$_2$O, most of the purest samples come from rock collectors who obtain them from copper mines.
A very important step was accomplished in the 1980’s in the trapping of excitons in Cu$_2$O. Inhomogeneous stress was used to create a harmonic potential minimum for the excitons inside the crystal [@trauer; @trauer2] very similar in geometry to the magneto-optical traps used to hold cold atoms for BEC experiments. As discussed below, some early experiments on EBEC used surface excitation of the crystal, which had the advantage of achieving high carrier density due to the short absorption length of the excitation light, but generated a highly nonequilibrium situation with an expanding gas that was difficult to analyze. The stress used in the exciton traps has the side effect that it changes the symmetry of the crystal, so that the paraexciton state no longer has a forbidden radiative recombination transition [@parastress], but the lifetime of the paraexcitons in a stressed crystal is still very long compared to the exciton-phonon interaction time.
![Recombination processes of Wannier excitons in a direct band-gap semiconductor. $K$ is the wave vector associated with the center-of-mass momentum of the exciton; $E_{gap}$ is the semiconductor band gap energy, and $E_{ex}$ is the exciton binding energy. $\hbar\omega_{phon}$ is the energy of an optical phonon, which is nearly independent of momentum.[]{data-label="fig.pha"}](phon){width="50.00000%"}
[**Phonon-assisted luminescence spectroscopy**]{}. The phonon-assisted recombination process in Cu$_2$O provides nice data to indicate the behavior of the excitons and whether they undergo BEC. Figure \[fig.pha\] shows the phonon-assisted recombination process of excitons in a direct-gap semiconductor like Cu$_2$O. Only excitons with low momentum can recombine via the direct recombination process, while an exciton at any momentum can recombine via the phonon-assisted process, with the phonon taking up any excess momentum. The phonon-assisted process can occur for both the paraexciton, which is a singlet state, and the orthoexciton state, which is a triplet that lies 12 meV above the paraexciton in unstressed crystals. The energy of the emitted photon is equal to the total energy of the exciton minus the energy of the optical phonon, which is nearly constant. The energy spectrum of the phonon-assisted luminescence therefore gives the kinetic energy distribution of the excitons directly. If we take the matrix element as nearly independent of the exciton momentum, which is the case in Cu$_2$O, then the intensity of the light emitted at a given energy is directly proportional to the number of excitons with the corresponding kinetic energy $\hbar^2K^2/2m$.
![Solid lines: luminescence from excitons in Cu$_2$O from low temperature to room temperature. Dashed line: fit to the theory for phonon-assisted luminescence discussed in the text, giving the thermal distribution of the excitons. A single parameter, namely the lattice temperature, is used to fit all the curves. From Ref. [@snoke-shields].[]{data-label="figRT"}](shields1 "fig:"){width="46.00000%"} ![Solid lines: luminescence from excitons in Cu$_2$O from low temperature to room temperature. Dashed line: fit to the theory for phonon-assisted luminescence discussed in the text, giving the thermal distribution of the excitons. A single parameter, namely the lattice temperature, is used to fit all the curves. From Ref. [@snoke-shields].[]{data-label="figRT"}](shields2 "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Figure \[figRT\] shows typical spectra of phonon-assisted luminescence from orthoexcitons in Cu$_2$O at various temperatures up to room temperature. At high temperature, an optical phonon can be both emitted or absorbed when an exciton recombines. Therefore there are two lines, one at the exciton energy minus the optical phonon energy, and one at the exciton energy plus the optical phonon energy. The theory fits to each peak in the data in Fig. \[figRT\] are given simply by $I(E+E_0) \propto D(E)f(E)$, where $E$ is the exciton kinetic energy, $D(E)$ is the density of states of the excitons, proportional to $E^{1/2}$ in three dimensions, and $f(E)$ is the occupation number of the excitons, proportional to $e^{-E/k_BT}$ at low density. The relative height of the two lines depends on the temperature of the lattice. At low temperature, the phonon-emission line dominates, since there are no phonons to absorb, while at high temperature, the two lines become comparable.
When many-body interactions are taken into account, the analysis of the phonon-assisted luminescence is slightly more complicated. Each momentum state emits with an energy profile given by the spectral function $A(\vec{k},\omega)$, which is approximately equal to $\delta(\omega-\omega_{\vec{k}})$ at low density and low temperature, but can be substantially broadened when there are strong particle-particle interactions [@snokebook; @griffinshi; @zimm]. This brings up a crucial difference between exciton BEC experiments and experiments on cold atoms. The fact that excitons can recombine and turn into photons allows us to have direct access to the spectral function. (This property has been used widely in the exciton-polariton BEC experiments, e.g. to show spectral narrowing due to coherence [@polspec1; @polspec2].) In cold atom experiments, the spectral function is a theoretical construct that is never directly observed.
Direct access to the spectral function means that we can see absolute shifts of the ground-state energy of the excitons directly as energy shifts of the emitted photons, and that we can see the effect of broadening of the spectral function as spectral broadening of the photon emission. To lowest order, the former can be identified as the real part of the exciton self-energy, and the latter as the imaginary part of the self-energy. (See Ref. [@snokebook], section 8.4). The exciton-phonon interaction increases as the temperature increases, leading to a red shift of the luminescence line in Fig. \[figRT\] due to renormalization of the real self-energy as well as broadening due to increasing imaginary self-energy. The imaginary self-energy is, to first order, just given by $\Gamma = \hbar/\tau$, where $\tau$ is the average scattering time of the excitons. This scattering time is an average of all scattering processes, including exciton-phonon scattering, which increases as temperature increases, exciton-impurity scattering, which also increases with increasing temperature, and exciton-exciton scattering.
[**Exciton-exciton scattering**]{}. This line broadening effect was used in the first attempt to estimate the absolute density of the excitons independently from the assumed statistics of the excitons in the Cu$_2$O experiments [@comments], as discussed below. Given an estimate of the exciton-exciton scattering cross section, the scattering time $\tau$ for a given density can be calculated for the case when the lattice is cold, near 1 K, so that exciton-phonon interactions are negligible, and this can be compared to the observed broadening as a function of exciton density.
The cross section for exciton-exciton scattering is actually a problematic theoretical topic for exciton physics, as compared to cold atom physics, where atom-atom cross sections are calculated to three decimal places or better. The difficulty of calculating the exciton-exciton scattering cross section has nothing to do with details of the band structures of the crystals, which are well understood. The primary difficulty is the fact that the electron and hole have comparable mass, so that all the following exchange effects are important and cannot be neglected: electron-electron exchange, hole-hole exchange, and electron-hole exchange. In atoms, there is no electron-nucleus exchange, and nucleon-nucleon exchange can typically be ignored (although M. Combescot has argued that under the conditions of BEC the nucleon-nucleon exchange may be important, since the wavelength, by definition, is comparable to the distance between the particles; see Ref. [@comb] and references therein for the general approach of accounting for these exchange effects).
The most accurate calculations for the exciton-exciton scattering cross section in Cu$_2$O have been done by Shumway and Ceperley [@shum], and give a cross section of 5 Å, which is comparable to the Bohr radius of the excitons. In that work, the spin of the electrons and holes was assumed to be aligned. The spin structure of the excitons can lead to significant differences in the scattering cross sections between different spin states [@mosk-spin], although these calculations have not been worked out with the same accuracy as the Ceperley and Shumway work.
Early Experiments on Exciton BEC in Cu$_2$O
===========================================
Spectral analysis experiments {#sfit}
-----------------------------
The first experiments to show promise for exciton BEC in Cu$_2$O used excitation with a green laser which was absorbed within 5 $\mu$m of the surface [@wolfeprl1; @wolfeprb]. This created a thin “pancake” of excitons which were not trapped, and could flow away from the surface, but on time scales of a few nanoseconds remained at high density at the point of creation.
The phonon-assisted luminescence spectrum of the orthoexcitons (the upper, triplet state of the 1s excitons in Cu$_2$O) could be well fit by the Bose-Einstein distribution $$I(E) \propto D(E)f(E) \propto E^{1/2}\frac{1}{e^{(E-\mu)/k_BT}-1},
\label{fit}$$ with $\alpha \equiv |\mu/k_BT| \sim 0.1$ over a wide range of densities. In other words, the gas remained near the phase boundary for BEC but did not cross it. This was termed “Bose saturation.” Figure \[figscale\] shows that this saturation corresponds to an energy scaling such that the shape of the photoluminescence remains the same. This scaling was found to apply over more than an order of magnitude of density variation.
![Phonon-assisted luminescence spectrum showing the spatially-averaged energy distribution of orthoexcitons in Cu$_2$O for two different times as the density falls after the excitons are created by a short laser pulse. The fit temperature at 5 ns is approximately 60 K while the temperature at 15 ns is approximately 30 K. From Ref. [@wolfeprb].[]{data-label="figscale"}](scale){width="46.00000%"}
The fits to the Bose-Einstein distribution imply an absolute density of the particles according to $$N = \int_0^{\infty}\frac{1}{e^{(E-\mu)/k_BT}-1} D(E)dE.$$ The densities from the fits were compared to data for the relative change of the density, found by taking the total luminescence intensity and dividing the measured exciton cloud volume at each point in time, and the variation in the density deduced from the fits agreed with the variation in density from the intensity data within a factor of two over a wide range of density [@wolfeprl1].
Later experiments looked at the paraexciton phonon-assisted luminescence under very similar experimental conditions and concluded that the paraexciton density exceeded the density for BEC predicted by the ideal gas theory [@linwolfe]. Line shape analysis of the paraexciton phonon-assisted emission was harder, because the emission intensity of this line is 500 times weaker than the orthoexciton line, and it lies near another, brighter emission line. The relative intensity of the paraexciton line seemed consistent with the conclusion that the paraexcitons exceeded the critical density.
The first indication that this analysis could not be the whole story came from noting that the many-body collision broadening of the lines (discussed above) was very low, and not consistent with the densities implied by the BEC fits [@comments]. Although the exciton-exciton scattering cross section is not known to better than a factor of two, as discussed above, if the experiments were truly to have densities in the range of $10^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$, as implied by the fits of Eq.(\[fit\]) to data like that shown in Fig. \[figscale\], along with the observed spectral broadening of less than 0.1 meV, then these two observations together would require a scattering cross section with radius much less than the Bohr radius of the excitons. The crucial evidence came in comparing the exciton luminescence spectrum in the case of a cold (2 K) lattice, when the exciton distribution fit a Bose-Einstein distribution at 70 K, to the luminescence spectrum with a 70 K lattice under the same excitation conditions [@phcou]. The total number of photons emitted in each case was nearly the same, indicating that the densities were comparable, but the shapes of the spectra were quite different. The deviation from a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution in the cold-lattice case could therefore not be from Bose statistics at high density if the same density gave a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution when the system was closer to equilibrium with the lattice. This pointed to spatial inhomogeneity in a nonequilibrium system as the cause of the non-Maxwellian distribution.
The main ambiguity of these experiments comes from the fact that the luminescence from the exciton gas must be integrated over at least one dimension, since the photons are collected by imaging a three-dimensional crystal in two dimensions. To fit the Bose-Einstein distribution to the data, some model of the spatial variation of the density and temperature must be used. This was recognized in the early work [@wolfeprb], and it was found that nearly all models which assumed that the temperature and density of the orthoexcitons decreased monotonically in the direction away from the surface gave spatially integrated spectra that looked very similar to the simple homogeneous spectrum of Eq. (\[fit\]). (The difficulty of interpreting the three-dimensional data integrated over one dimension was one motivation for pursuing experiments with excitons, or exciton-polaritons, in two dimensions (for reviews see, e.g., Refs. [@indirect] and [@polariton].)
Later modeling [@wolfeohara] found that a reasonable fit to the spatially-integrated orthoexciton luminescence spectra could be obtained by assuming a large cloud of cold orthoexcitons far from the surface (see Fig. \[ohara\]). A simple analysis would seem to indicate that orthoexcitons do not travel very far within their lifetime due to down-conversion into paraexcitons [@orthodown; @Denev; @denev-conf], and therefore one should not expect so many orthoexcitons away from the surface. However, the model of Ref. [@wolfeohara] showed that picking a high enough rate for an exciton Auger recombination process could generate orthoexcitons at long distances from the surface due to up-conversion from paraexcitons.
[**Auger recombination**]{}. This brings up the Auger recombination process in Cu$_2$O, which was established to occur in Cu$_2$O in the 1980’s [@trauer] and became an increasingly important topic of study in the 1990’s. The Auger process occurs when two excitons collide, and one of them recombines, but instead of emitting a photon, the energy of the recombining exciton is given to ionizing the second exciton, as shown in Fig. \[fig.auger\]. The hot electron and hole thus produced can then lose energy by phonon emission or by collisions with other carriers, and finally form into an exciton again. It is assumed that the spins of the electron and hole are randomized in this process, so that the returning exciton can be either an orthoexciton or paraexciton.
![The Auger recombination process. In (a), the exciton on the left recombines, giving its energy to the exciton on the right, which leads to the final state (b) of a single ionized exciton.[]{data-label="fig.auger"}](auger){width="90.00000%"}
The Auger recombination process is density dependent, since it is proportional to the rate of excitons colliding with each other. The Auger rate is therefore parametrized by a constant typically called $A$, such that the rate of the process is $$\frac{1}{\tau} = An,$$ where $n$ is the density. For a single population with an intrinsic radiation lifetime $\tau_r$, this gives the rate equation $$\frac{\partial n}{\partial t} = G(t) -\frac{n}{\tau_r} - \frac{1}{2}An^2,$$ where $G(t)$ is the generation rate of the excitons. A factor of $1/2$ occurs because half the excitons are returned to the population after ionization. For a two-population system such as the orthoexcitons and paraexcitons in Cu$_2$O, we must write two coupled rate equations, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial n_o}{\partial t} &=& G_o(t) -\frac{n_o}{\tau_{or}} - An_o^2 - An_on_p +\frac{1}{2}\alpha A (n_o+n_p)^2\nonumber\\
\frac{\partial n_p}{\partial t} &=& G_p(t) -\frac{n_p}{\tau_{pr}} - An_p^2 - An_on_p + \frac{1}{2}(1-\alpha)A(n_o+n_p)^2, \label{simplerates}\end{aligned}$$ to take into account the collisions between different species. The last term in each equation gives the effect of the return of the ionized electrons and holes; the factor $\alpha$ gives the fraction of these which return to each species. It is typically assumed that $\alpha = 3/4$, since the orthoexciton population has three degenerate states while the paraexciton is a singlet. An additional modification of these equations can be made to take into account direct conversion of one species into the other by phonon emission and absorption [@orthodown; @Denev; @denev-conf]. Most generally, the constant $A$ can be different for collisions of different types of excitons, for example due to the effects of indistinguishability on the different spin states [@KB]. Writing down down three parameters, $A_{oo}$, $A_{op}$, and $A_{pp}$, the rate equations (\[simplerates\]) become $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial n_o}{\partial t} &=& G_o(t) -\frac{n_o}{\tau_{or}} - A_{oo}n_o^2 - A_{op}n_on_p +\frac{1}{2}\alpha (A_{oo}n_o^2+2A_{op}n_on_p + A_{pp}n_p^2)\nonumber\\
\frac{\partial n_p}{\partial t} &=& G_p(t) -\frac{n_p}{\tau_{pr}} - A_{pp}n_p^2 - A_{op}n_on_p +\frac{1}{2}(1-\alpha) (A_{oo}n_o^2+2A_{op}n_on_p + A_{pp}n_p^2). \end{aligned}$$
The Auger process 1) reduces the lifetime of the excitons dramatically at high density, from the radiative lifetime of milliseconds down to less than a nanosecond, 2) heats the exciton gas due to the gap energy given to the ionized electron and hole, which then interact with the rest of the system, and 3) gives a population of orthoexcitons in excess of that expected from the Boltzmann occupation factor $e^{-\Delta/k_BT}$, where $\Delta$ is the paraexciton-orthoexciton splitting. Such an imbalance implies that the system is not in full equilibrium, which can occur when the lifetime due to Auger annihilation of the paraexcitons is shorter than the ortho-to-para conversion time.
Throughout the 1990’s and early 2000’s, several groups tried to measure the rate of Auger recombination in Cu$_2$O. This work is reviewed in Section \[augerrev\]. The measurements are made difficult by the fact that there is also a two-body conversion process by which two orthoexcitons can collide and turn into two paraexcitons. Since this process has the same density dependence as the Auger process it can be difficult to distinguish the two processes in many experiments. In recent experiments, the group of Kuwata-Gonokami used infrared absorption measurements to excite the 1s-2p exciton transition [@gono-lyman1; @gono-lyman2; @gono-lyman3], which is analogous to the 1s-2p transition in alkali atoms. Since this transition only occurs when the excitons exist, the absolute absorption cross section of the transition gives an absolute measurement of the number of both species of excitons. Therefore the spin flip process, which conserves total number of excitons, could be distinguished from the Auger process, which annihilates excitons.
Although there was a range of values found for the Auger rate, the general consensus arising from the Auger measurements has been that the density of the excitons could not be as high as predicted by the fits of the surface-excitation data to the Bose-Einstein distribution, because the lifetime would be too short at those densities. Since, as discussed above, there was also inconsistency in the broadening of the spectral lines and the absolute number of photons coming from the phonon-assisted luminescence, it was generally concluded by the end of the 1990s that the early experiments did not show Bose-Einstein condensation. The Bose saturation effect, which corresponds to an invariance of the luminescence spectrum as temperature is scaled (see Fig. \[figscale\]), is therefore surprising, because there are a number of details which go into the classical numerical model of which have to be fortuitously related to give the nearly invariant spectrum which is observed; without these coincidences the spectrum would have different shapes at different times. The model of Ref. [@wolfeohara] used choices of the physical parameters which were reasonable based on the experimental data, but even with the optimal choice of realistic parameters, the fit of the model to the data is qualitatively similar in shape but not especially good (see Fig. \[ohara\]). The saturation effect corresponds to a scaling law, which we discuss below, in Section \[sat\].
![Fits of a theoretical model for nonequilibrium flow of excitons to the phonon-assisted photoluminescence spectrum of Cu$_2$O with high-intensity surface excitation for three excitation powers under conditions similar to those of Fig. \[figscale\], at two different times after a short laser pulse. From Ref. [@wolfeohara].[]{data-label="ohara"}](oharafig){width="66.00000%"}
Transport experiments
---------------------
Also during the 1990’s, another set of experiments was performed that focused on transport of the excitons rather than spectral signatures [@fortin1; @fortin2; @fortin3; @fortin4]. The experiments were done as follows: a long-wavelength (red) laser with photon energy nearly resonant with the exciton energy was used to flood a whole three-dimensional crystal of Cu$_2$O with a low-density exciton gas. Then a very intense pulse of green light was used to excite one surface of the crystal, creating a very dense exciton cloud at the surface. Excitons were then detected on the opposite side of the crystal, in some cases over a millimeter distant, by a bimetal detector that ionized the excitons into free electrons and holes which then produced an external current. The signal would only occur if excitons migrated across the crystal into the detector.
The experiments showed that the exciton signal on the back side of the crystal jumped up in a sharp pulse when the green laser pulse intensity exceeded a critical threshold. The arrival time of the pulse corresponded to propagation at the speed of sound across the crystal. This was interpreted by the authors as superfluid motion of the excitons across the crystal when the excitons exceeded a critical density threshold. The high density pulse of excitons created by the green pulse was viewed as being amplified by the large population of cold excitons created by the resonant laser.
There were soon alternative interpretations of these experiments. Ref. [@kav-pulse] pointed out that the width of the pulses was orders of magnitude longer than the expected coherence length, and that a classical soliton model could reproduce many of the effects. Tikhodeev and coworkers [@tikh1; @tikh2; @tikh3; @tikh4] pointed out that the intense green laser pulse also created many hot phonons which could blow as a nonequilibrium “phonon wind” away from the surface, pushing excitons at the speed of sound, and reasonable models of the phonon wind could explain the exciton propagation. The phonon wind was well established (e.g., Ref. [@phonwind; @phonwindwolfe]) in the 1980’s as an effect in surface-excited solids; a flux of phonons streaming away from the surface can push excitons and electron-hole liquid for hundreds of microns. One experimental result in support of this interpretation is that a second pulse was seen at the detector at much later times, corresponding to three passes across the crystal at the speed of sound, i.e., hitting the back surface, bouncing off, and coming back one round trip later [@andreprivate]. This strongly supports the view that a sound pulse was created by the green laser pulse, and this sound pulse propagated across the crystal and reflected from the surfaces, sweeping excitons from the cold exciton gas as it traveled. As with the spectral signature experiments, it was widely concluded by the end of the 1990’s that these experiments with surface excitation also did not show Bose-Einstein condensation. Both of these experiments used very intense surface excitation in order to get very high exciton density, but both had the same drawback that the exciton gas thus created was very far from equilibrium and unconstrained in space, so that flow out of the excitation region had to be modeled, including the heat flow and phonon wind. Because of this, attention returned to trapping the excitons using stress.
A Way Forward
-------------
It became clear by the first ICSCE conference in 2003 [@icsce1] that the Auger effect played a dominant role in preventing EBEC in Cu$_2$O by shortening the lifetime of the excitons. To avoid this, the density of the excitons can be dropped, with a corresponding drop in the temperature, since $T_c$ of the BEC transition is proportional to the density to the 2/3 power in three dimensions. At first, one might think that dropping the density would not help, because the collision rate between the particles has the same dependence on density as the Auger rate, and therefore the ratio of the Auger lifetime to the collision time will not change. Excitons in a semiconductor have another means of thermalizing besides collisions, however, which is exciton-phonon scattering. The time scale for exciton-phonon equilibration is hundreds of picoseconds to nanoseconds [@snokebc; @ivanov_longthermtime] at low temperature, so that when the gas has low density, the time scale for thermalization via phonons can be much shorter than the lifetime due to Auger recombination.
One issue in some solid-state systems in going to lower temperature and density is that the excitons can become localized in minima of the disorder (e.g., [@zoltan_local]), so that they do not move and do not thermalize. Many Cu$_2$O samples have extremely good quality, however, so that disorder is not a limiting factor. Another issue is that the polariton effect, i.e., mixing of the exciton and photon states, becomes important for excitons at low momentum, i.e., low temperature. There is a polariton effect in Cu$_2$O for both the orthoexciton species and for the paraexciton species in stressed crystals; although the direct recombination process for paraexcitons is forbidden by symmetry in unstressed crystals, if stress is used to create a trap for the excitons, the paraexciton coupling to the photons becomes comparable to that of the orthoexcitons [@trauer]. It is possible, however, to go to temperatures so low that the excitons have momentum which is below the mixing region of the photon and exciton states.
The above considerations imply that the best temperatures to see BEC effects in Cu$_2$O are in the sub-Kelvin range of tens to hundreds of mK. This removes one of the original motivations for studying exciton condensates, which is to see high-temperature condensation; the fact that the excitons in Cu$_2$O are stable up to room temperature turns out not to help in getting them to condense at room temperature. One can still hope to see a true exciton BEC in a three-dimensional system, however. Two experimental groups have pursued EBEC experiments of excitons in traps in Cu$_2$O at milliKelvin temperatures in the past five years; these are reviewed in Section \[recent\].
Review of the Auger process {#augerrev}
===========================
As discussed above, one of the most important of the mechanisms which determine the lifetime of excitons in Cu$_2$O is believed to be a nonradiative two-body decay process, as evidenced by numerous experiments which have shown that the exciton lifetime is density dependent. This “Auger" process is a well-known decay mechanism in the physics of semiconductors. This process is also present in electron-hole plasmas, in which the recombination of an electron and a hole excites either an electron high in the conduction band or a hole deep in the valence band. This process, which occurs in many semiconductors, has long been studied both theoretically [@BL58; @ridley; @haug-auger; @das-auger] and experimentally [@GW81; @yosh]. A similar decay process has also been observed in experiments with cold metastable He atoms, where the term “Penning collisions" is used [@Penning]. It also occurs with Frenkel excitons in organic materials, where it can be quite strong [@org1; @org2]. There may, in fact, be a general principle that excitons with large binding energy, and therefore are Frenkel-like, intrinsically will have strong Auger recombination. This is seen in the phonon-assisted Auger theory discussed below, which as seen in Equation (\[augercalc\]), gives a rate proportional to $1/a^2$, where $a$ is the exciton Bohr radius.
In Cu$_2$O, the exact nature of the Auger process is still an open question and is under current investigation. As discussed above, the general picture is that in such a process two excitons collide, the one recombines, transferring its energy to the other, which ionizes. The electron and the hole which result from the ionization process then form an exciton, after a fraction of their energy is transferred to the lattice, via phonons. The final states of the ionized electron and hole, however, are not entirely clear.
Before we review the main results on this process, we start mention some reasons which make the study of this process in Cu$_2$O difficult:
\(1) The experiments which have measured this process cover a rather wide range of exciton temperatures $T$ and exciton densities $n$. The Auger rate is likely to depend on the temperature, but the temperature of the excitons may not be the same as the lattice temperature in all cases, making it harder to determine the dependence on temperature accurately.
\(2) In excitons in Cu$_2$O there are many different processes which take place at the same time (radiative recombination, conversion between the orthoexcitons and the paraexcitons, expansion, etc.) These processes obscure the measurement of the Auger decay process alone, since there is strong evidence that the rate of some of the above mechanisms is comparable to the rate of the Auger process.
In particular, the interconversion process of the total angular-momentum triplet state orthoexcitons into the total angular-momentum singlet state paraexcitons is of great importance. It is believed that it takes place via two mechanisms, namely a phonon-assisted process [@CW; @orthodown; @denev-conf; @Keith; @WolfeJang] and a collisional spin-exchange process [@KM]. At low temperature and high density, the collisional ortho-para conversion process in many ways mimics the Auger collisional recombination process, making analysis much more difficult.
As a result of the many processes which all take place at the same time, one has to write down rate equations, which then give the Auger rate (as well as the rate of the other processes) from some fitting. Therefore, to a large extent, the determination of the Auger rate is model-dependent, and this complicates the problem. In many cases, the models must include parameters for spatial diffusion of the excitons in order to estimate the volume of the exciton cloud.
In some regimes of parameters, different processes can be isolated. For example, experiments can be done in a very low density regime in which collisions between excitons are negligible. In this case, the phonon-assisted conversion between orthoexcitons and paraexcitons can be determined very accurately [@orthodown; @Denev]. It is also possible to establish the intrinsic lifetime of the excitons by fitting the decay of the luminescence at very low densities, when the Auger recombination rate is negligible. In addition, at temperatures which are high compared to the energy splitting between the ortho and para states, chemical equilibrium between the ortho and para populations can be assumed, so that all ortho-para conversion processes drop out of the rate equations. This fact has been used to extract the total Auger rate of the exciton population in the high-temperature regime [@yingmei], although these results still relied on a model for the exciton cloud volume.
\(3) The determination of the exciton density has proven to be a rather difficult task. There are basically three approaches that one may follow to extract the density. The first is the spectroscopic approach, in which some specific phonon-assisted recombination line is fitted to a Bose-Einstein distribution and from that the density and the temperature are extracted [@wolfeprl1], as discussed in Section \[sfit\] above. As discussed above, the estimates of density based on spectroscopic fits to an equilibrium homogeneous gas can strongly overestimate the density. The second method of extracting the exciton density is based on estimating the volume of the exciton gas and the number of excitons [@phcou; @wolfeohara; @OHara]. The third method relies on the absorption spectrum that corresponds to the 1s to 2p radiative excitonic transition. This method does not depend on the strength of the recombination lines and is thus advantageous in that respect. In addition, the absorption spectrum of this process is very sensitive to the degeneracy of the excitons and can serve as a clear and indisputable probe for the transition to a Bose-Einstein condensed phase [@KJ].
\(4) The theoretically-calculated decay rate involves several parameters with experimental uncertainty in their numerical value. As a result, the theoretical estimate of the decay rate is also uncertain.
The importance of the Auger process in excitons in Cu$_2$O has been revealed in several experiments over the last three decades [@naka-njp; @WolfeJang; @HMBa; @HMBb; @trauer; @SW90b; @yingmei; @OHara; @Warren; @wolfeohara; @Denev; @Jolk; @gono-lyman2; @Jang; @gono-lyman3]. The decay rate of the excitons shows an approximate proportionality to their density, which is an indication of a two-body collision process. The Auger process is also confirmed by the presence of orthoexcitons in stress-generated traps for times much longer than the orthoexciton lifetime [@trauer; @SW90b]; as discussed above, high energy electrons and holes produced by the Auger ionization of para excitons lead to re-formation of excitons in essentially random internal angular momentum states, and thus to orthoexcitons in excess of the amount expected from Boltzmann occupation.
The difficulties discussed above have led to a wide scatter in experimental estimates of the Auger decay rate. The decay rate has been extracted to be negligible [@Jolk] and also non-negligible, and when non-negligible, to be independent of the temperature [@gono-lyman3], to increase linearly with the exciton temperature [@yingmei], and to be inversely proportional to the exciton temperature [@WolfeJang]. The stress dependence of the Auger decay rate is also of importance [@Denev]. The process is sensitive to the various symmetries of the crystal, which impose certain selection rules/constraints on the matrix elements and on the decay rate, while stress tends to lift these constraints. It has also been argued [@Jang] that excitons form biexcitons, which then rapidly decay via the Auger process; there is no direct experimental evidence for this process, however, to our knowledge. In addition, the theoretical calculation presented in Ref. [@Jang] ignores the orthogonality of the bands of the crystal. (According to the authors of this study, the Auger mechanism is thus associated with breaking the band symmetries, e.g. by impurities, and therefore differences of impurity concentrations could explain the different Auger rates measured).
Review of Auger theory, constrained by experiments {#auger}
--------------------------------------------------
![A phonon-assisted Auger process in which two excitons (electron-hole pairs) collide, and one recombines, transferring its energy to another exciton via a Coulomb interaction. A phonon emission causes an electron to transition to a virtual intermediate state. There are four nonequivalent diagrams for the phonon-assisted Auger process, since either an electron or hole can emit a phonon, and either an electron or hole can receive the momentum from the recombining exciton.[]{data-label="fig.dia"}](diagram){width="35.00000%"}
Turning to the theoretical study of the Auger decay rate, according to Ref.[@KB] this process may be either “direct", or phonon assisted. In the phonon-assisted process there is a phonon involved, as shown in the diagram in Fig. \[fig.dia\]. While the participation of a phonon suppresses the rate of this process, on the other hand, it lifts the symmetry constraints set by the band structure of Cu$_2$O. We should stress here that there is an intimate connection between the radiative and the Auger decay mechanisms: the radiative lifetime of excitons is rather long as the dipole matrix element between the conduction and the valence bands (which have the same parity) vanishes. Phonon-assisted mechanisms provide an alternative way for the excitons to decay radiatively. As in the Auger process, the exciton-phonon interaction suppresses the rate of this process, but on the other hand it makes the process dipole allowed. As a result, the phonon-assisted processes are actually the dominant radiative decay mechanisms. Rather similar results also hold for the direct and the phonon-assisted Auger processes: the theoretical calculations indicate that the dominant Auger process is the phonon-mediated process. Although in this case one also needs a phonon, which makes it less likely, on the other hand, there is no symmetry constraint, which enhances the rate of this process.
The dependence of the matrix element for the Auger collisions on the momentum exchange between the colliding excitons is of major importance [@KB]. If this is constant, then its only temperature dependence comes from phonon emission [@yingmei]. If the matrix element is proportional to the momentum exchange, the Auger decay rate is proportional to the exciton temperature as well as to the density of the excitons.
![The measured Auger rate from several measurements. Circles: measurements from Ref. [@yingmei]. Triangle: measurement from Ref. [@Denev]. Star: measurement from Ref. [@Warren]. Dashed-dotted line: phonon-assisted Auger recombination theory from Refs. [@KB] and [@yingmei], discussed in the text.[]{data-label="yingmeifig"}](yingmeifig){width="70.00000%"}
Based on Ref. [@KB], Ref. [@yingmei] evaluated the Auger rate $\tau_{\rm Auger}^{-1} = A n_{o}$ for orthoexciton-orthoexciton collisions. The formulas given in Ref. [@yingmei] contained some errata; the correct formula for the Auger rate considered in Ref. [@KB], integrated over all $k$-vectors, is (in MKS units) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\tau_{\rm Auger}} &=& n_o \frac{128\hbar}{\pi^3}\left( \frac{m_h^{3/2}}{m_e^{1/2}m} \right)\left(\frac{2\langle p\rangle^2}{m E_{c'v}}\right)\left(\frac{e^2}{\epsilon a}\right)^2 \frac{D^2}{\rho E_{opt}}\frac{1}{E_{c'v}E_{cc'}^2}
\left(\int_0^b \frac{x^4\sqrt{b^2-x^2} dx}{(1+x^2)^6}\right) \nonumber\\
&& \times \left(1+\frac{1}{e^{E_{opt}/k_BT}-1}\right), \label{augercalc}\end{aligned}$$ with $$b^2 = \frac{2m_ea^2E_{c'v}}{\hbar^2},$$ where $m_e$ and $m_h$ are the effective mass of the electron and hole, respectively, $m$ is the standard electron mass, $\epsilon$ is the dielectric permittivity of the medium, $\langle p\rangle$ is the dipole moment for optical inter band transitions, $\rho$ is the crystal mass density, $D$ is the deformation potential for excitons interacting with optical phonons with energy $E_{opt}$, $a$ is the exciton Bohr radius, and $E_{c'v}$ and $E_{cc'}$ are the energy differences between a higher-lying conduction band $c'$ (which is assumed to be involved in virtual transitions) and the valence and conduction bands $v$ and $c$, respectively. All of the numbers in this formula are known from other experiments. The optical phonon deformation potential is known from time-resolved experiments [@snokebc] to be on the order of a few times $10^7$ eV/cm; the oscillator strength $f = 2\langle p\rangle^2/m E_{c'v}$ can be assumed to be of order unity [@snokebook]; the interband energies are known and are all on the order of an eV; the optical phonon energies have been measured accurately and are on the order of 10-20 meV; the exciton Bohr radius is known to be around $5$ Å. (See Ref. [@yingmei] for the experimental references for these numbers.) These numbers give $A$ on the order of $5\times 10^{-18}$ cm$^3$/ns in the low-temperature limit. In other words, an exciton gas with density $10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$ will have a lifetime of around 2 ns due to Auger recombination, much shorter than the typical radiative recombination times in the low-density limit.
Ref. [@yingmei] found a best fit, shown in Fig. \[yingmeifig\], of $$\begin{aligned}
A &\approx& 3.698 \times 10^{-17} \left( 1 + \frac
2 {e^{160/T} - 1} \right) + 1.298 \times 10^{-17} \left(
1 + \frac 2 {e^{217/T} - 1} \right),
\label{the}\end{aligned}$$ for $A$ in units of cm$^3$/nsec and the temperature $T$ in Kelvin. The two exponential factors come from the emission of the optical phonons $\Gamma_{12}^-$ and $\Gamma_{15}^-$, with energies 13.8 meV and 18.7 meV, respectively. The temperature dependence is in good agreement with the experimental measurements for a wide range of temperature between 2 K and 235 K with essentially two fitting parameters, namely the oscillator strength $f$ times the deformation potential $D$ for each phonon-assisted transition; the fit value of this product is within a factor of 3 of the value estimated above. According to Eq.(\[the\]), for $T$ roughly up to 77 K the rate is independent of $T$, while for higher temperatures the rate increases linearly with $T$ (which is obvious if one expands the exponentials).
References [@OHara] and [@Warren] estimated the exciton number and the volume of the gas at relatively low temperatures (and thus did not get the density spectroscopically). The values of the Auger constant $A$ that they found using this method were $7 \times
10^{-17}$ cm$^3$/ns and $6 \times 10^{-17}$ cm$^3$/ns, respectively, which is in decent agreement with the result of Eq.(\[augercalc\]) and with the experimental results of Ref. [@yingmei] at low temperature. Reference [@naka-njp] also recently measured the orthoexciton-orthoexciton Auger rate to be $5\times 10^{-17}$ cm$^3$/ns at low temperature, very close to the low-temperature value of Ref. [@yingmei].
For temperatures above 100 K, it is worth a close look to compare the results of Refs. [@WolfeJang] and [@yingmei]. As noted above, the values for the Auger constant of the two groups at low temperature fall within the same range, with about a 30% deviation, which is not surprising given the various experimental uncertainties. However, in the range 100-200 K, the two experiments showed opposite trends with temperature: the Auger rate was found to rise by about a factor of two in Ref. [@yingmei] and to fall by a little less than a factor of two in Ref. [@WolfeJang]. The two experiments used similar methods, with pulsed near-resonant dye laser excitation. Even apart from any modeling, the raw data of Ref. [@yingmei] clearly showed that the excitons had shorter lifetime at high temperature, while the raw data of Ref. [@WolfeJang] shows the opposite trend.
The primary difference between the experiments was that a much tighter focus was used in the experiments of Ref. [@WolfeJang], about 15 $\mu$m radius, as compared to 120 $\mu$m radius in Ref. [@yingmei]. This gave higher densities and much greater range of lifetime, but may also have had other effects. One possibility is that the local lattice temperature may have gone well above the background bath temperature due to the concentration of energy, leading to a local “hot spot” (cf., e.g., Refs. [@hotspot1; @hotspot2].) The exciton temperature may also have gone well above the lattice temperature, if the Auger rate was fast compared to the phonon emission rate. Taking the Auger rate as increasing with temperature as discussed above, if a local exciton cloud is hotter than the rest of the crystal, a higher Auger rate will occur. To actually have a decrease of the Auger rate with increasing lattice temperature, however, would require that the local temperature excursion was greater at low bath temperatures. It is also possible that in the experiments of Ref. [@yingmei], at the highest temperatures there was also an excursion of the temperature above the lattice temperature, because the absorption length of the input laser shortened to approach 20 $\mu$m (although the lateral size still gave much larger volume for the spot size than the experiments of Ref. [@WolfeJang]).
Alternatively, or possibly in conjunction with a local hot spot, the rapid expansion of the exciton cloud seen in Ref. [@WolfeJang] may have played a role. In the experiments of Ref. [@yingmei], volume expansion was a minor factor because the initial size of the cloud was large. With the smaller initial spot size in Ref. [@WolfeJang], the expansion of the cloud played a bigger role. The authors of Ref. [@WolfeJang] carefully estimated the volume as a function of time $V(t)$ based on a model of diffusion to get the density $n(t) = N(t)/V(t)$, but the relative uncertainty of the volume will be larger with a smaller spot size.
At present, Refs. [@gono-lyman3] and [@Jolk] are the outliers. Ref. [@gono-lyman3] reported a value for the Auger rate of approximately $4 \times 10^{-16}$ at low temperature, and Ref. [@Jolk] reporting a much lower, indeed negligible, rate, of the order of 10$^{-23}$ cm$^3$/ns. The majority of other experimental work [@yingmei; @WolfeJang; @naka-njp] gives Auger rates in the range of 10$^{-17}$ to 10$^{-16}$ cm$^{3}$/ns. Ref. [@gono-lyman3] reported uncertainty of a factor of three, which would allow a value in this range by taking the low side of the uncertainty range.
In the case of the work by the group of Gonokami, a multi-step process of analysis and measurements was used to derive the Auger rate. In the first step, the absolute number of excitons is established by far infrared Lyman absorption spectroscopy of the 1s-2p, 1s-3p, etc. transitions for both orthoexcitons and paraexcitons [@gono-lyman1; @gono-lyman2; @gono-lyman3]. The reason that the Lyman spectroscopy can establish the absolute number of excitons while band-to-band absorption cannot is that the absolute cross section for the Lyman series can be very accurately calculated from first principles for intraband transitions, while the band-to-band oscillator strength cannot.
Having this method to establish the absolute number of both ortho and paraexcitons, the number must be converted to a density by an estimate of the volume of the exciton cloud. In a stress-generated harmonic trap, this can be done by imaging the exciton cloud from two sides of the crystal, but typically the number of excitons in such a trap is too few to generate a reasonable Lyman absorption measurement. Therefore a large exciton cloud was generated in a bulk crystal, without a trap, and a model for the exciton diffusion was used to estimate their volume. This modeling is the greatest source of uncertainty in the measurements, since various effects such as phonon wind, discussed above, may also affect the exciton motion. The authors of Ref. [@gono-lyman3] used the diffusion constant for paraexcitons reported in Ref. [@trauer-low], which was very high. This was reasonable, given that their sample was cut from the same natural sample as that used in Ref. [@trauer-low], but was not checked directly. If the diffusion constant was estimated too high, then the volume would be estimated as much greater, and therefore the density much lower, which could give systematically high Auger rates.
The work of Ref. [@Jolk] gave the opposite result of very low Auger rate for both paraexcitons and orthoexcitons. In this experiment, the absolute density of the excitons was estimated by using the effect of screening of excitons at high density on the absorption spectrum [@jolk-screen], based on a theory of the Mott transition. Their theory of the screening led them to estimate initial densities on the order of 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$, and under these conditions they saw no evidence of an Auger effect. The theory of the excitonic Mott transition is hotly debated and quite complex, however [@exion; @manzkenew1; @manzkenew2; @craw], and therefore it is difficult to find agreement on a universal theory for the density at which the exciton absorption will be screened out.
The above experiments primarily were sensitive to the ortho-ortho Auger recombination rate. The question of the value of the Auger collisions between paraexcitons is even more more subtle. Reference [@naka-njp] has provided evidence for a very low paraexciton-paraexciton Auger rate, on the order of $10^{-18}$ cm$^3$/ns. Earlier experiments of Refs. [@Denev] in stressed crystals also gave a para-para Auger rate about two orders of magnitude less than the ortho-ortho rate. However, other experiments suggest that Auger collisions are also possible among paraexcitons [@OHara]. Reference [@gono-lyman3] used a single Auger rate constant for all collisions in their model, so that their fit was not sensitive to a difference between the para-para, ortho-para, and ortho-ortho rates.
Theoretically the para-para Auger collisions should be negligible [@KB] at zero stress (the effect of stress is discussed below). The reason for this is the band structure of Cu$_2$O, which makes the direct Auger process for para-para collisions forbidden, while the phonon-assisted process is highly suppressed [@KB]. This is due to the fact that the phonon-assisted Auger process for para-para Auger collisions involves a virtual transition to a deep valence band, as opposed to the ortho-ortho collisions, for which this process involves a conduction band which is close in energy to the lowest conduction band.
Orthoexciton to paraexciton conversion process and “saturation" of the orthoexciton gas {#sat}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, at very low densities, when the two-body processes are negligible, it has been observed that orthoexcitons convert into paraexcitons through a phonon-assisted process [@CW; @orthodown; @Keith; @WolfeJang]. According to Ref.[@orthodown] its rate scales as $T^{3/2}$. More recently Refs. [@Keith] and [@WolfeJang] have reported that its rate is constant at very low temperatures and increases linearly with the temperature at higher temperatures.
In addition to the phonon-assisted process, orthoexcitons convert into paraexcitons via a spin-exchange process, where two orthoexcitons collide, they exchange their electrons or holes, resulting into two paraexcitons in the final state. This process was studied theoretically in Ref.[@KM], while Ref.[@gono-lyman2] has shown experimental evidence for it. The decay rate of this process is proportional to the orthoexciton density $n_{o}$.
A simple argument has been proposed at various times over the years (see, e.g., Refs. [@KBW] and [@GK]) to explain the saturation effect of orthoexcitons, discussed in Section \[sfit\], which corresponds to a power law $n_{o} \propto T^{3/2}$. Recall that the exciton gas, which in general has a higher temperature than the lattice temperature, exchanges phonons with the lattice and thus loses energy, while on the same time it is heated by the Auger process and the ortho-to-para conversion. From simple deformation potential theory, the rate of loss of energy is proportional to $T^{3/2}$ (see Ref. [@snokebook], Section 5.1.4). On the other hand, both the Auger process and the collisional conversion process of orthoexcitons to paraexcitons heat the gas. In both cases the rate of energy gain of the gas is $b n_o$, where $n_o$ is the orthoexciton density. As a result, we can write a rate balance equation for the entropy of the orthoexcitons divided by the orthoexciton number $S_o/N_o$ $$\begin{aligned}
T \frac d {d t} \left( \frac {S_{o}} {N_o}
\right) \approx - a T^{3/2} + b n_o,\end{aligned}$$ which implies that the orthoexcitons move along adiabats, where $n_o \propto T^{3/2}$, in agreement with the experimental data [@SW90b]. This above argument applies both in the classical and in the degenerate regime [@GK].
A problem with this argument, however, is that the rate of heat loss for orthoexcitons in Cu$_2$O never exactly follows the $T^{3/2}$ law predicted by elementary deformation potential theory. There are both high-temperature corrections, due to optical phonon emission and high-frequency corrections of the exciton wave function, and low-temperature corrections due to momentum-conservation limitations [@trauer-low], that give deviations from this law. The rate of phonon emission in Cu$_2$O has been measured carefully and reported in Ref. [@snokebc]; a summary plot is shown in Fig. \[heat\].
![Energy loss rate for orthoexcitons in Cu$_2$O as a function of exciton temperature, for a cold lattice. Dashed line: rate when only acoustic phonon emission is included. Dotted dashed line: rate when acoustic-phonon and optical single-phonon emission are included. Solid line: rate when acoustic, optical single-phonon, and optical two-phonon emission are included. Dotted line: the $T^{3/2}$ power law. From Ref. [@snokebc].[]{data-label="heat"}](heat){width="45.00000%"}
Ref. [@wolfeohara] also addressed the saturation effect, using a classical rate equation model of with only acoustic phonon emission for energy relaxation and including the Auger process. They did not obtain a $n \propto T^{3/2}$ power law but did find a general trend of temperature increasing with density comparable to the experimental results.
The effect of stress
--------------------
As we mentioned earlier, the Auger decay process is strongly influenced by stress. In stressed crystals the selection rules which determine the Auger decay rate are no longer valid, and as a result stress enhances the rate of this process.
The most important issue in the case of stressed crystals is the effect of stress on the paraexciton-paraexciton Auger collisions. As discussed above, in non-stressed crystals it is an open question whether the para-para Auger process is allowed, but it is certain that under stress it is allowed. An analogous situation is the radiative decay of paraexcitons, where stress makes the direct radiative recombination process of paraexcitons allowed, and it also enhances the phonon-assisted recombination lines. More specifically, uniaxial stress mixes the $\Gamma_7^+$ and $\Gamma_8^+$ valence bands with the result that the para-exciton energy increases for small values of the applied stress but decreases for higher values, and the direct radiative recombination increases quadratically with increasing stress [@parastress; @pstr1; @pstr2; @pstr3].
Indeed, the experiment in Ref. [@trauer] shows clearly that para-para Auger collisions are allowed in stressed crystals. Uniaxial stress makes the direct Auger process allowed as well as the phonon-assisted process for paraexcitons. In both cases the orientation of the uniaxial stress is very important, since it determines the selection rules in the deformed crystal [@parastress; @pstr1; @pstr2; @pstr3]. These processes are responsible for the presence of orthoexcitons in the stress-generated trap Ref. [@trauer]. The orthoexcitons are generated from free electrons and holes from Auger-ionized paraexcitons; the free electrons and holes are assumed to enter random angular momentum states.
A more recent experiment [@Denev] has found that the Auger recombination rate for paraexciton collisions increases with increasing stress, while the rate of conversion of orthoexcitons into paraexcitons decreases. Furthermore, the same study found that for zero stress the paraexciton Auger collisions are negligible. As discussed above, these results are consistent with the theoretical study of this problem.
The fact that the paraexciton Auger process becomes stronger under crystal stress creates a drawback for using stress to create a harmonic trap for the excitons. While the trap can be used to increase the density of the excitons, it also shortens the lifetime. Which process wins out will depend on the temperature, the trap depth, and other experimental details.
Recent Experiments on Exciton BEC in Cu$_2$O {#recent}
============================================
Two currently ongoing experiments are attempting to produce EBEC in Cu$_2$O under the most optimal conditions. In these experiments, stress is used to produce a three-dimensional harmonic trap for paraexcitons. The lattice temperature is taken to the milliKelvin range, so that paraexcitons can equilibrate in states below the polariton mixing region, and also so that very low densities can be used, giving a very slow Auger recombination rate.
As discussed in Section \[auger\], the group of Gonokami in Japan performed measurements of the Auger recombination rate of the excitons in Cu$_2$O using exciton Lyman spectroscopy to establish the number of excitons and a theoretical model for the diffusion to estimate the volume of the exciton cloud. Based on this method, the Auger cross section was found to be independent of temperature over the range of 4-70 K [@gono-lyman3]. The authors suggested that this is similar to the case of inelastic collisions of atoms, but as discussed in Section \[auger\], this result is also consistent with the phonon-assisted mechanism for Auger recombination presented in Ref. [@KB].
The authors then dropped the temperature into the range of tens to hundreds of mK and performed both spatial imaging and spectroscopy of the exciton photoluminescence. Initially, they found that the exciton cloud size agreed well with the predictions of equilibrium of the exciton cloud with the lattice temperature. The cloud size depends on temperature in a trap because the harmonic potential of the trap leads to the relation $r^2 \propto k_B T$.
![“Explosion” of paraexcitons below a critical temperature. The white dashed line indicates the trapping potential. The temperatures is fixed at 345 mK and the number of excitons in the trap was varied, estimated at a) $2\times10^7$, b) $5\times10^8$, and c) $2\times 10^9$. From Ref. [@gono-exp].[]{data-label="explosion"}](explosion){width="35.00000%"}
As the lattice temperature dropped, the exciton cloud temperature as measured by the cloud size and energy distribution stayed at around 800 mK. Below a lattice temperature of about 400 mK, an “explosion” was found [@gono-exp], in which the cloud expanded and was very far out of equilibrium (see Fig. \[explosion\]). One mechanism which could in principle lead to this is that proposed by Hijmans et al. [@hijmans] for atomic hydrogen condensates. In this scenario, in a harmonic trap, the condensate may have such small volume and high density that density-dependent loss processes are strongly enhanced. The size of the condensate cloud is controlled by the repulsive interactions of the particles; if these are weak, then the size of the condensate can be quite small.
The authors of Ref. [@gono-exp] have suggested that the explosion could be caused by the divergence of the Auger cross section for $k=0$ excitons. Since they found that the Auger rate is independent of temperature below 70 K, they argued that cross section for Auger recombination must diverge at low temperature proportional to $1/v$, where $v$ is the velocity of the particles, since in the semiclassical Born approximation in three dimensions, a collisional process has rate $1/\tau = n\sigma v$, where $n$ is the density and $\sigma$ is the cross section. As discussed in Section \[augerrev\], however, Eq. (\[the\]) predicts an Auger recombination rate independent of temperature below around 70 K, which should be the same whether the exciton gas is condensed or not.
Strange nonequilibrium effects of the paraexcitons at high density have been seen before, namely in the work done with surface excitation in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s [@wolfeprb]. It is possible that when the paraexcitons approach the BEC state, some nonequilibrium recombination effect does indeed prevent them from condensing.
The German collaboration of Stolz and coworkers [@naka-njp] and Fröhlich and coworkers [@froh] also has seen equilibration of paraexcitons in a trap, including at temperatures in the sub-Kelvin range. No evidence of an “explosion” of the type seen by Gonokami and coworkers was seen at low temperature, but the conditions were not exactly the same. In general, the degree of equilibration will depend on the rate of heat removal from the sample in the cooling system, the excess energy of the pump laser which creates the excitons, the intrinsic lifetime of the excitons, which depends on the impurities in the sample, and the duration of the laser pulse. Stolz’s group has argued [@stolz1; @stolz2] that the mean-field renormalization of the exciton self-energy at high density should lead to a blue shift of the paraexciton line at high density and a change of the condensate spatial profile. Such a shift has not generally been seen in excitons in Cu$_2$O at high density (see, e.g., Fig. \[figscale\]). Although the mean-field density dependence is generally expected to lead to a blue shift (see, e.g., Ref. [@snokebook], chapter 8), and this has been seen with microcavity polariton condensates [@pol-blue] and with indirect excitons in GaAs quantum double wells [@zoltan-shift], in bulk semiconductors like Cu$_2$O the effect of higher-order correlations seems to cancel out most of this blue shift. A blue shift may indicate that much higher effective densities have been reached, although also at higher temperature than needed for condensation.
Future Prospects
================
The process of the “explosion” seen by the Gonokami group is not well understood. It is possible that further theoretical study will allow a full understanding of this effect and its connection to condensation. In the meantime, the Gonokami group has reported that the explosion effect seems to be less dramatic at lower temperatures, and so experiments to go to even lower temperatures, which imply lower densities for condensation, may overcome this barrier.
In a possible experiment that has been proposed and has been studied theoretically in Ref. [@KJ], it was shown that the absorption spectrum of infrared radiation inducing internal transitions of the excitons from the 1s to the 2p level is very sensitive to the degree of quantum degeneracy of the gas. Actually, a similar idea has been used in the experiments with atomic hydrogen [@H]; however, in this case the mass of the excitons in the 1s and the 2p states is different (due to band structure effects [@KCB]), as opposed to the case of hydrogen, where the mass in the 1s and in the 2p states is the same to a very good approximation. Remarkably, such experiments have been performed, as described above; see, e.g., Refs.[@Jolk; @gono-lyman2; @gono-lyman3].
In such an experiment one should observe the contribution of the orthoexcitons and of the paraexcitons to the absorption separately, with an energy separation of order $\Delta$, assuming that the width of each distribution is of the order of $k_B T \ll \Delta$).
As shown in Ref.[@KJ], the appearance of two distinct peaks in the absorption spectrum of ortho/para excitons would signal the presence of a Bose-Einstein condensate, since in the condensed phase one deals with a two-component system, and the two peaks would indicate the two different collective modes of it. Even if the ortho/para excitons have not crossed the phase boundary, but are highly degenerate, this would still show up clearly in the absorption spectrum. An advantage of this method is that it does not depend on the strength of the radiative recombination lines (which is very weak for the paraexcitons, as we mentioned above).
As noted above, in practice, getting reasonable infrared absorption measurements of the 1s-2p transition for a small number of excitons in a trap is difficult. It is possible, however, to imagine using a stimulated process to enhance the absorption.
Despite many false trails, research on excitons in Cu$_2$O has progressed and is still active, and there is good reason to believe that progress on establishing BEC of excitons in this well-studied crystal may still happen.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}. The work of D.S. has been supported by by the Department of Energy under grant DE-GF02-99ER45780 and the National Science Foundation under grant DMR-1104383. We thank many workers in this field, including G. Baym, Y. C. Chang, D. Fröhlich, A. D. Jackson, C. Klingshirn, M. Kuwata-Gonomaki, A. Mysyrowicz, H. Stolz, and J. P. Wolfe, for helpful conversations and interactions over the years.
[99]{}
S.A. Moskalenko, Fiz. Tverd. Tela. [**4**]{}, 276 (1962).
J.M. Blatt, K.W. Böer, and W. Brandt, Phys. Rev. [**126**]{}, 1691 (1962).
Casella, R.C. Source: Journal of the Physics and Chemistry of Solids, v 24, p 19-26, Jan. 1963.
E.g., K. Huang, [*Statistical Mechanics*]{}, 2nd ed., (Wiley, 1987). L.V. Keldysh and A.N. Kozlov, Zh. Exsp. Teor. Fiz. Pis’ma [**5**]{}, 238 (1967).
L.V. Keldysh and A.N. Kozlov, Zh. Exsp. Teor. Fiz. [**54**]{}, 978 (1968) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**27**]{}, 521 (1968).\]
E. Hanamura and H. Haug, Solid State Comm. [**15**]{}, 1567 (1974).
E. Hanamura and H. Haug, Phys. Rev. B [**11**]{}, 3317 (1975).
E. Hanamura and H. Haug, Phys. Rep. C [**33**]{}, 209 (1977).
C. Comte and P. Nozières, [*J. Phys.*]{} [**43**]{}, 1069 (1982).
P. Nozières and C. Comte, [*J. Phys.*]{} [**43**]{}, 1083 (1982).
S.A. Moskalenko and D.W. Snoke, [*Bose-Einstein Condensation of Excitons and Biexcitons*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, 2nd printing, 2005).
D.W. Snoke, Solid State Comm. [**146**]{}, 73 (2008).
G. Manzke, D. Semkat, F. Richter, D. Kremp, and K. Henneberger, J. Physics: Conference Series [**210**]{} 012020 (2010).
D. Semkat, F. Richter, D. Kremp, G. Manzke, W.-D. Kraeft, and K. Henneberger, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 155201 (2009).
J.P. Wolfe and C.D. Jeffries, in [*Electron–Hole Droplets in Semiconductors*]{}, C.D. Jeffries and L.V. Keldysh, eds. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987).
L. V. Keldysh, in [*Electron-Hole Droplets in Semiconductors*]{}, C. D. Jeffries and L. V. Keldysh, eds. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987).
V.B. Timofeev, V.D. Kulakovskii, and I.V. Kukushkin, [*Physica*]{} B+C [**117/118**]{}, 327 (1983).
H. Kuroda, S. Shionoya, H. Saito, and E. Hanamura, J. Phys. Soc. Japan [**35**]{}, 534 (1973).
T. Goto, T. Anzai, and M. Ueta, J. Phys. Soc. Japan [**35**]{}, 940 (1973).
N. Nagasawa, N. Nakata, Y. Doi, and M. Ueta, J. Phys. Soc. Japan [**38**]{}, 593 (1975).
N. Nagasawa, N. Nakata, Y. Doi, and M. Ueta, J. Phys. Soc. Japan [**39**]{}, 987 (1975).
L.L. Chase, L.L. N. Peyghambarian, G. Grynberg, and A. Mysyrowicz, [**42**]{}, 1231 (1979).
N. Peyghambarian, L.L. Chase, and A. Mysyrowicz, Phys. Rev. B [**27**]{}, 2325 (1983).
Y. Yakhot and E. Levich, Phys. Lett. A [**80**]{}, 301 (1980).
D.W. Snoke and J.P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev, B [**39**]{}, 4030 (1989).
V. E. Hartwell and D. W. Snoke, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 075307 (2010).
F. Tassone and Y. Yamamoto, Phys Rev B [**59**]{}, 10830 (1999).
G. Malpuech, Y. Rubo, F. Laussy, P. Bigenwald and A. Kavokin, Semicond Sci Techno [**18**]{}, S395 (2003).
V.T. Agekyan, Phys. Stat. Solidi (a) [**43**]{}, 11 (1977).
F. Bassani and M. Rovere, Solid State Comm. [**19**]{}, 887 (1976).
A.I. Bobrysheva and S.A. Moskalenko, Phys. Stat. Solidi B [**119**]{}, 141 (1983); A.I. Bobrysheva, S.A. Moskalenko, and S.S. Russu, Phys. Stat. Solidi B [**167**]{}, 625 (1991).
See Ref. [@moskbook], Appendix A.
G. Dasbach et al., Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 045206 (2004).
J.L. Birman, Solid State Comm. [**13**]{}, 1189 (1978).
A, Mysyrowicz, D. Hulin, and A. Antonetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**43**]{}, 1123 (1979).
D.W. Snoke, A. Shields, and M. Cardona, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 11693 (1992).
R. Schwartz, N. Naka, F. Kieseling, and H. Stolz, New J. Phys. [**14**]{}, 023054 (2012).
D.W. Snoke, D. Braun, and M. Cardona, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 2991 (1991).
D.P. Trauernicht, J.P. Wolfe, and A. Mysyrowicz, Phys. Rev. [**34**]{}, 2561 (1986)
D.P. Trauernicht, A. Mysyrowicz, and J.P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. B [**28**]{}, 3590 (1983).
A. Mysyrowicz, D.P. Trauernicht, J.P. Wolfe, and H.-R. Trebin, Phys. Rev. B [**27**]{}, 2562 (1983).
D.W. Snoke, [*Solid State Physics: Essential Concepts*]{}, (Pearson/Addison-Wesley, 2009).
H. Shi, G. Verechake, and A. Griffin, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 1119 (1994).
R. Zimmermann, Phys. Stat. Solidi (b), [**243**]{}, 2358 (2006).
J. Kasprzak et al., Nature [**443**]{}, 409 (2006).
R. Balili, V. Hartwell, D.W. Snoke, L. Pfeiffer and K. West, [Science]{} [**316**]{}, 1007 (2007).
D.W. Snoke, Comments Cond. Mat. Phys. [**17**]{}, 217 (1995); [**17**]{}, 325 (1996).
M. Combescot, Shiue-Yuan Shiau, and Yia-Chung Chang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 206403 (2011).
J. Shumway and D.M. Ceperley, Sol. St. Comm. [**134**]{}, 19 (2005).
A.I. Bobrysheva, S.A. Moskalenko, and Yu.M. Shvera, Phys. Stat. Solidi B [**147**]{}, 711 (1988)
D. Snoke, J.P. Wolfe, and A. Mysyrowicz, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**59**]{}, 827 (1987).
D.W. Snoke, J.P. Wolfe, and A. Mysyrowicz, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 11171 (1990).
J.-L. Lin and J.P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev.Lett. [**71**]{}, 1222 (1993).
K. E. O’ Hara, L. Ó Súilleabháin, and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 10565 (1999).
D.W. Snoke, in [*Quantum Gases: Finite Temperature and Non-Equilibrium Dynamics*]{} (Vol. 1, Cold Atoms Series), N.P. Proukakis, S.A. Gardiner, M.J. Davis, and M.H. Szymanska, eds. (Imperial College Press, London, 2012).
D. Snoke and P. Littlewood, [Physics Today]{} [**63**]{}, 42 (August, 2010).
K. E. O’ Hara and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 12909 (2000).
D.W. Snoke, J.P. Wolfe, and D.P. Trauernicht, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 5266 (1990).
S. Denev and D.W. Snoke, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 085211 (2002).
S. Denev, Y. Liu, and D.W. Snoke, [*Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Semiconductor Physics*]{}, (World Scientific, Singapore, 2003), p. H31.
G.M. Kavoulakis and Gordon Baym, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 16625 (1996).
K. Yoshioka, T. Ideguchi, and M. Kuwata-Gonokami, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 033204 (2007).
T. Tayagaki, A. Mysyrowicz, and M. Kuwata-Gonokami, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 245127 (2006).
K. Yoshioka, T. Ideguchi, A. Mysyrowicz, and M. Kuwata-Gonokami, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 041201R (2010).
E. Fortin, S. Fafard and A. Mysyrowicz, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**70**]{}, 3951 (1993).
A. Mysyrowicz, E. Fortin, E. Benson, S. Fafard and E. Hanamura, [ Solid State Comm.]{} [**92**]{}, 957 (1994).
E. Benson, E. Fortin and A. Mysyrowicz, [ Phys. Stat. Sol.]{} (b) [**191**]{}, 345 (1995).
A. Mysyrowicz, E. Benson, E. Fortin, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**77**]{}, 896 (1996).
A.D. Jackson and G.M. Kavoulakis, Europhys. Lett. [**59**]{}, 807 (2002).
A.E. Bulatov and S.G. Tikhodeev, [ Phys. Rev.]{} B [**46**]{}, 15058 (1992).
G.A. Kopelevich, N.A. Gippius and S.G. Tikhodeev, [ Proc. 22d Int. Conf. Phys. Semiconductors]{}, D.J. Lockwood, ed., (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995), p. 61.
G.A. Kopelevich, S.G. Tikhodeev and N.A. Gippius, [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.]{} [**109**]{}, 2189 (1996).
S.G. Tikhodeev, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**78**]{}, 3225 (1997).
J.C. Hensel and R.C. Dynes, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**39**]{}, 969 (1977).
M. Greenstein and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. B [**24**]{}, 3318 (1981).
A. Mysyrowicz, private communication.
See D. Snoke and C. Tejedor, Solid State Comm. [**134**]{}, 1 (2005).
A.V. Soroko and A.L. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 165310 (2002).
Z. Vörös, V. Hartwell, D.W. Snoke, L. Pfeiffer and K. West, J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. [**19**]{}, 295216 (2007).
A. R. Beattie and P. T. Landsberg, Proc. Roy. Soc. A [**249**]{}, 16 (1958)
B. K. Ridley, [*Quantum Processes in Semiconductors*]{} (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1982).
A. Haug, Sol. State Commun. [**22**]{}, 537 (1977); A. Haug, Sol. State Electr. [**21**]{}, 128 (1978).
A. Das and R. Al-Jishi, Phys. Lett. A [**141**]{}, 186 (1989).
P. L. Gourley and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. B [**24**]{}, 5970 (1981);
H. Yoshida, H. Saito, and S. Shionoya, Phys. Stat. Sol. B [**104**]{}, 331 (1981).
W. Vassen, et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. [**84**]{}, 175 (2012).
P.E. Shaw, A. Ruseckas, J. Peet, G.C. Bazan, and I.D. Samuel, Adv. Funct. Mater. [**20**]{}, 155 (2010).
G.M. Akselrod, Y.R. Tischler, E.R. Young, D.G. Nocera, and V. Bulovic, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 113106 (2010).
N. Caswell and P. Y. Yu, Phys. Rev. B [**25**]{}, 5519 (1981).
J. I. Jang, K. E. O’ Hara, and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 195205 (2004).
J.P. Wolfe and J.I. Jang, Sol. State Commun. [**134**]{}, 143 (2005).
G.M. Kavoulakis and A. Mysyrowicz, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 16619 (2000).
Y. Liu and D. Snoke, Sol. State Commun. [**140**]{}, 208 (2006).
K. E. O’ Hara, J. R. Gullingsrud, and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 10872 (1999).
K. Johnsen and G.M. Kavoulakis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 858 (2000).
D. Hulin, A. Mysyrowicz, and C. Benoît à la Guillaume, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**45**]{}, 1970 (1980)
A. Mysyrowicz, D. Hulin, and C. Benoît à la Guillaume, J. Luminescence [**24/25**]{}, 629 (1981).
D. W. Snoke and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 7876 (1990).
J. T. Warren, K. E. O’ Hara, and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 8215 (2000).
A. Jolk, M. Jörger, and C. Klingshirn, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 245209 (2002).
J. I. Jang and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 045211 (2006).
B.A. Danilchenko, D.V. Kazakovtsev, and M.I. Slutskii, Phys. Lett. [**138**]{}, 77 (1989).
J.A. Shields and J.P. Wolfe, Z. Phys. [**75**]{}, 11 (1989).
D. P. Trauernicht and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. B [**33**]{}, 8506 (1986).
A. Jolk and C.F. Klingshirn, Phys. Status Solidi B [**206**]{}, 841 (1998).
D.W. Snoke and J.D. Crawford, Phys. Rev. E [**52**]{}, 5796 (1995).
G.M. Kavoulakis, Gordon Baym, and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 7227 (1996).
G.M. Kavoulakis, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 035204 (2001).
F. I. Kreingol’d and V. L. Makarov, Fiz. Tekh. Poluprovodn. [**8**]{}, 1475 (1974) \[Sov. Phys. Semicond. [**8**]{}, 962 (1975)\].
H.-R. Trebin, H. Z. Cummins, and J. L. Birman, Phys. Rev. B [**23**]{}, 597 (1981).
S. A. Moskalenko and A. I. Bobrysheva, Fiz. Tverd. Tela [**4**]{}, 1994 (1962) \[Sov. Phys.-Solid State [**4**]{}, 1462 (1963)\].
K. Yoshioka, E. Chae, and M. Kuwata-Gonokami, Nature Comm. [**2**]{}, 328 (2011).
T.W. Hijmans, Yu. Kagan, G.V. Shlyapnikov, and J.T.M. Walraven, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 12886 (1993).
H. Soltz and D. Semkat, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 081302 (2010).
S. Sobkowiak, D. Semkat, H. Stolz, T. Koch, and H. Fehske, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 064505 (2010).
C. Sandfort, J. Brandt, C. Finke, D. Fröhlich, and M. Bayer, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 165215 (2011).
R. Balili, B. Nelsen, D.W. Snoke, L. Pfeiffer, and K. West, Physical Review B [**79**]{}, 075319 (2009).
Z. Vörös, D.W. Snoke, L. Pfeiffer, and K. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 016403 (2009).
D.G. Fried, T.C. Killian, L. Willmann, D. Landhuis, S.C. Moss, D.Kleppner, and T.J. Greytak, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 3811 (1998).
G.M. Kavoulakis, Y.-C. Chang, and Gordon Baym, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 7593 (1997).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
-
- '[^1]'
-
-
-
bibliography:
- 'Lattice2017\_114\_BLOSSIER.bib'
title: 'On the $D^*_s$ and charmonia leptonic decays '
---
---------------------
[LPT-Orsay-17-57]{}
[MS-TP-17-18]{}
---------------------
Introduction {#intro}
============
The discovery at LHC of the Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV has been a major milestone in the history of Standard Model (SM) tests: the spontaneous breaking of electroweak symmetry generates masses of charged leptons, quarks and weak bosons. A well-known issue with the SM Higgs is that the quartic term in the Higgs Lagrangian induces for the Higgs mass $m_H$ a quadratic divergence in the hard scale of the theory: it is related to the so-called hierarchy problem. Several scenarios beyond the SM are proposed to cure the issue. Minimal extensions of the Higgs sector contain two complex scalar isodoublets $\Phi_{1,2}$ that, after the spontaneous breaking of the electroweak symmetry, lead to 2 charged particles $H^\pm$, 2 CP-even particles $h$ (SM-like Higgs) and $H$ and 1 CP-odd particle $A$. In that class of scenarios, quarks are coupled to charged Higgs through a right-handed current and to the CP-odd Higgs through a pseudoscalar current. Phenomenological consequences have recently received a lot of attention. On the one hand, several tests of lepton flavour universality have shown some hints of anomaly with respect to the SM expectations, especially for the ratios $R_{D^{(*)}}\equiv \frac{\Gamma(B\to D^{(*)} \tau \nu_\tau)}{\Gamma(B \to D^{(*)} \ell \nu_\ell)}, \ell=e,\mu$ [@Lees:2012xj; @Huschle:2015rga; @Aaij:2015yra]: semileptonic decays with $\tau$ lepton in final states can have a non-SM contribution from the exchange of a right-handed current that is not helicity suppressed. Changing the spectator quark of the $b\to c$ flavour transition, it is worth investigating ratios $R_{D^{(*)}_s}$, for instance at Belle-2, assuming on the theory side a very good control on hadronic properties of $B_s$, $D_s$ and $D^*_s$ mesons. On the other hand, the leptonic decay of pseudoscalar quarkonia, highly suppressed in the SM because it occurs *via* quantum loops, can be reinforced by a new tree-level contribution mediated by a light CP-odd Higgs boson [@Fullana:2007uq]: any enhanced observation with respect to the SM expectation would be a clear signal of New Physics. Obviously the hadronic inputs to constrain the CP-odd Higgs coupling to heavy quarks are the decay constant of pseudoscalar quarkonia.
Lattice analysis {#sec-1}
================
Our work has been performed using a subset of the CLS ensembles with ${\rm N_f}=2$ ${\cal O}(a)$ improved Wilson-Clover fermions, whose parameters are collected in Table \[tabsim\]. Two lattice spacings $a_{\beta=5.5}=0.04831(38)$ fm and $a_{\beta=5.3}=0.06531(60)$ fm, resulting from a fit in the chiral sector [@Lottini:2013rfa], are considered; we have taken simulations with pion masses in the range $[190\,, 440]$ MeV. The charm quark mass has been tuned after a linear interpolation of $m^2_{D_s}$ in $1/\kappa_c$ at its physical value [@Heitger:2013oaa], after having fixed the strange quark mass [@Fritzsch:2012wq]. The statistical error is estimated from the jackknife procedure: 2 successive measurements are sufficiently separated in trajectories along the Monte-Carlo history to neglect autocorrelation effects. We have computed quark propagators in two-point correlation functions using stochastic sources that are different from zero in a timeslice that changes randomly for each measurement; we have applied spin dilution and the one-end trick to reduce the stochastic noise [@Foster:1998vw; @McNeile:2006bz].
id $\quad\beta\quad$ $(L/a)^3\times (T/a)$ $\kappa_{\rm sea}$ $a~(\rm fm)$ $m_{\pi}~({\rm MeV})$ $Lm_{\pi}$ $\kappa_s$ $\kappa_c$
---- ------------------- ----------------------- -------------------- -------------- ----------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
E5 5.3 $32^3\times64$ $0.13625$ 0.065 $440$ 4.7 $0.135777$ $0.12724$
F6 $48^3\times96$ $0.13635$ $310$ 5 $0.135741$ $0.12713$
F7 $48^3\times96$ $0.13638$ $270$ 4.3 $0.135730$ $0.12713$
G8 $64^3\times128$ $0.13642$ $190$ 4.1 $0.135705$ $0.12710$
N6 $5.5$ $48^3\times96$ $0.13667$ $0.048$ $340$ 4 $9.136250$ $0.13026$
O7 $64^3\times128$ $0.13671$ $270$ 4.2 $0.136243$ $0.13022$
: Parameters of the simulations: bare coupling $\beta = 6/g_0^2$, lattice resolution, hopping parameter $\kappa$, lattice spacing $a$ in physical units, pion mass, number of gauge configurations and bare charm quark masses.[]{data-label="tabsim"}
Two-point correlation functions under investigation are $C_{\Gamma \Gamma'}(t)=\frac{1}{V} \sum_{\vec{x},\vec{y}} \langle [\bar{c}\Gamma Q](\vec{y},t) [\bar{Q}\gamma_0 \Gamma' \gamma_0 c](\vec{x},0)\rangle$, $Q=c$ or $s$, where $V$ is the spatial volume of the lattice, $\langle ... \rangle$ the expectation value over gauge configurations and interpolating fields $\bar{c} \Gamma Q$ are not always local. As a preparatory step we have examined different possibilities to find the best basis of operators, combining levels of Gaussian smearing, interpolating fields with a covariant derivative $\bar{c} \Gamma \vec{\gamma}\cdot \vec{\nabla} Q$ and operators that are odd under time parity. Solving the Generalized Eigenvalue Problem (GEVP) [@Michael:1985ne; @Luscher:1990ck] is a key point in our analysis.\
Looking at the literature on lattice studies of charmonia, we have noticed that people tried to mix together the operators $\bar{c} \Gamma c$ and $\bar{c} \gamma_0 \Gamma c$ in a unique GEVP system [@Liu:2012ze; @Becirevic:2014rda]: according to us, that approach raises questions. To explain our puzzle, we take the example of the interpolating fields $\{P=\bar{q} \gamma_5 q,\;\; A_0=\bar{q} \gamma_0 \gamma_5 q\}$; we have the following asymptotic behaviours: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\langle P(t)P(0) \rangle, \langle A_0(t) A_0(0)\rangle &\stackrel{t\to \infty}{\longrightarrow}&{\rm cosh}[m_P(T/2-t)],\\
\nonumber
\langle P(t)A_0(0) \rangle, \langle A_0(t) P(0)\rangle&\stackrel{t\to\infty}{\longrightarrow} &{\rm sinh}[m_P(T/2-t)].\end{aligned}$$ The matrix of $2\times 2$ correlators of the GEVP is then $$\nonumber
C(t)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\langle P(t)P(0) \rangle&\langle A_0(t)P(0) \rangle\\
\langle P(t)A_0(0) \rangle&\langle A_0(t)A_0(0) \rangle \end{array}\right]\quad {\rm GEVP}:
C(t) v_n(t,t_0)=\lambda_n(t,t_0) C(t_0) v_n(t,t_0).$$ In the general case, the spectral decomposition of $C_{ij}(t)$ is $$\nonumber
C_{ij}(t)=\sum_n Z^i_n Z^{*j}_n [D_{ij}\rho^{(1)}_n(t) + (1-D_{ij}) \rho^{(2)}_n(t)],\; D_{ij}=0\;{\rm or}\;1,$$ with $\rho^{(1),(2)}(t) \sim e^{-m_Pt}$, ${\rm cosh}[m_P(T/2-t)]$, ${\rm \sinh}[m_P(T/2-t)]$. The dual vector $u_n$ to $Z's$ is defined by $\sum_j Z^{*j}_m u^j_n = \delta _{mn}$. Inserted in the GEVP, it gives $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\sum_j C_{ij}(t)u^j_n &=&\sum_{j,m} Z^i_m Z^{*j}_m u^j_n [D_{ij}\rho^{(1)}_m(t) + (1-D_{ij}) \rho^{(2)}_m(t) ]\\
\nonumber
&=&\rho^{(2)}_n(t) Z^i_n + \sum_m (\rho^{(1)}_m(t)-\rho^{(2)}_m(t))Z^i_m \sum_j D_{ij} Z^{*j}_m u^j_n\end{aligned}$$ If $D_{ij}$ is independent of $i,j$, we can write $$\nonumber
C(t)u_n = \rho(t) Z_n,\quad \lambda_n(t,t_0)=\frac{\rho_n(t)}{\rho_n(t_0)}.$$ Approximating every correlators by sums of exponentials forward in time may face caveats. A toy model with 3 states in the spectrum helps to understand this issue:
spectrum
----------
1.0
1.25
1.44
----------------------------
Matrix of couplings
$\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
0.6&0.25&0.08\\
0.61&0.27&0.08\\
0.58&0.24&0.08\\
\end{array}
\right]$
----------------------------
----------------------------
time behaviour of $C_{ij}$
$\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
\cosh&\sinh&\cosh\\
\sinh&\cosh&\sinh\\
\cosh&\sinh&\cosh\\
\end{array}
\right]$
----------------------------
The effective mass got from solving the GEVP reads $am_{eff, n}=\ln\left(\frac{\lambda_n(t,t_0)}{\lambda_n(t+a,t_0)}\right)$. In our numerical application, we have chosen $T/a=64$, $t_0/a=3$ and compared $2\times 2$ and $3 \times 3$ subsystems: results can be seen in Fig. \[fig:toymodel\].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Effective masses, in lattice units, obtained from the $2\times 2$ subsystem (left panel) and the $3 \times 3$ subsystem (right panel) of our toy model, with $T=64$ and $t_0=3$.[]{data-label="fig:toymodel"}](plots/eigenvalueqcd.pdf "fig:"){width="4.5cm"} ![Effective masses, in lattice units, obtained from the $2\times 2$ subsystem (left panel) and the $3 \times 3$ subsystem (right panel) of our toy model, with $T=64$ and $t_0=3$.[]{data-label="fig:toymodel"}](plots/eigenvalueqcd_b.pdf "fig:"){width="4.5cm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our observation is that until $t=T/4$ there is no effect of neglecting the time-backward contribution in the correlation function. So it is certainly safe for the ground state or the first excitation. On another side one might wonder what might happen with a dense spectrum when one extracts the energy of the $3^{\rm rd}$ or a higher excited state.\
Building a basis of operators with $\{\bar{c} \Gamma c; \bar{c} \Gamma \vec{\gamma} \cdot \vec{\nabla} c\}$ could be beneficial and it was already explored [@Dudek:2010wm; @Mohler:2012na]. But there are sometimes bad surprises, a good example is the pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar correlator $C(t)=\langle [\bar{c} \gamma^5 \vec{\gamma} \cdot \vec{\nabla} c](t)
[\bar{c} \gamma^5 \vec{\gamma} \cdot \vec{\nabla} c](0) \rangle$. Indeed, we have found that the “diagonal" contribution $A(t)=\sum_i \langle [\bar{c} \gamma^5 \gamma_i \nabla_i c](t)[\bar{c} \gamma^5 \gamma_i \nabla_i c](0) \rangle$ cancels with the “off-diagonal" contribution $B(t)=\sum_{i\neq j} \langle [\bar{c} \gamma^5 \gamma_i \nabla_i c](t)[\bar{c} \gamma^5 \gamma_j \nabla_j c](0) \rangle$, resulting in a correlator $C(t)$ very noisy and compatible with zero.\
Eventually we have considered 4 Gaussian smearing levels for the quark fields $c$ and $s$, including no smearing, to build $4\times 4$ matrix of correlators without any covariant derivative and no operator of the $\pi_2$ or $\rho_2$ kind [@Dudek:2010wm], from which we also extract the ${\cal O}(a)$ improved hadronic quantities we examine. Solving the GEVP for the pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar and vector-vector matrices of correlators $$C_{PP}(t)v^P_n(t,t_0)=\lambda^P_n(t,t_0) v^P_n(t,t_0)C_{PP}(t_0), \quad
C_{VV}(t)v^V_n(t,t_0)=\lambda^V_n(t,t_0) v^V_n(t,t_0)C_{VV}(t_0),$$ we obtain the correlators that will have the largest overlap with the $n^{\rm th}$ excited state as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\tilde{C}^n_{A_0 P}(t) &=& \sum_i C_{A^L_0 P^{(i)}}(t) v^{P,i}_n(t,t_0),\\
\nonumber
\tilde{C}^n_{P P}(t) &=& \sum_i C_{P^L P^{(i)}}(t) v^{P,i}_n(t,t_0),\\
\nonumber
\tilde{C}'^n_{P P}(t) &=& \sum_{i,j} v^{P,i}_n(t,t_0) C_{P^{(i)} P^{(j)}}(t) v^{P,j}_n(t,t_0),\\
\nonumber
\tilde{C}^n_{V V}(t) &=& \frac{1}{3} \sum_{i,k} C_{V^L_k V^{(i)}_k}(t) v^{V,i}_n(t,t_0),\\
\nonumber
\tilde{C}'^n_{VV}(t) &=& \frac{1}{3} \sum_{i,j,k} v^{V,i}_1(t,t_0) C_{V^{(i)}_k V^{(j)}_k}(t) v^{V,j}_n(t,t_0),\\
\nonumber
\tilde{C}^n_{TV}(t) &=& \frac{1}{3} \sum_{i,k} C_{T^L_{k0} V^{(i)}_k}(t) v^{V,i}_n(t,t_0).\\
\nonumber
\tilde{C}^n_{\delta PP}(t) &=& \frac{\tilde{C}^n_{PP}(t+1)-\tilde{C}^n_{PP}(t-1)}{2a},\\
\nonumber
\tilde{C}^n_{\delta TV}(t) &=& \frac{\tilde{C}^n_{TV}(t+1) - \tilde{C}^n_{TV}(t-1)}{2a},\\\end{aligned}$$ and their symmetric counterpart with the exchange of operators at the source and at the sink, and with the quark bilinears $P=\bar{c}\gamma_5 Q$, $A_0=\bar{c}\gamma_0\gamma_5 Q$, $V_k=\bar{c}\gamma_k Q$ and $T_{k0}=\bar{c}\gamma_k\gamma_0 Q$. In those expressions the label $L$ refers to a local interpolating field while sums over $i$ and $j$ run over the 4 Gaussian smearing levels.
$D_s$ sector {#subsec-1}
------------
To perform the analysis of heavy-strange 2-pt correlation functions, because of large fluctuations, we have decided to use generalized eigenvectors *at fixed time* $t_{\rm fix}$, $v^{P(V)}_1(t_{\rm fix}, t_0)$, to perform the corresponding projection. In practive we have chosen $t_{\rm fix}/a=t_0/a+1$ but we have checked that the results do not depend of this $t_{\rm fix}$. From the time behaviour of the projected correlators and using appropriate ratios to cancel normalization factors, we have everything to extract the matrix elements of interest, after renormalization and ${\cal O}(a)$ improvement. In the left panel of Fig. \[fig:massDs\] we plot the effective masses of the $D_s$ and $D^*_s$ mesons for the set F7. One can see that our plateaus are satisfying. As shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:massDs\] we have checked that at the physical point $m_{D^*_s}$ is compatible with the experimental value 2.112 GeV, with cut-off effects limited to 0.5% at $\beta=5.3$; we have obtained $m_{D^*_s}=2.106(13)(13)\,{\rm GeV}$, where the first error is statistical and the second error accounts for the uncertainty on the lattice spacing. Extrapolations at the physical point of $f_{D_s}$, $f_{D^*_s}$ and $f_{D^*_s}/f_{D_s}$ are displayed in Fig. \[fig:decayDs\]: done linearly in $m^2_\pi$ and $a^2$, they are all quite mild. Cut-off effects on $f_{D_s}$ are limited to 1% at $\beta=5.3$ while they are quite stronger for $f_{D^*_s}$, of the order of 7%: they propagate in the ratio $f_{D^*_s}/f_{D_s}$ with an effect of 6%. We will quote as the main preliminary result the ratio $$\nonumber
f_{D^*_s}/f_{D_s}=1.14(3),
$$ where the systematic error coming from the uncertainty on lattice spacings is negligible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Effective masses $am_{D_s}$ and $am_{D^*_s}$ extracted from a $4\times 4$ GEVP for the lattice ensemble F7 (left panel); we also plot the plateaus in the chosen fit interval. Extrapolation at the physical point of $m_{D^*_s}$ linear in $m^2_\pi$ and $a^2$ (right panel).[]{data-label="fig:massDs"}](plots/mDsF7.pdf "fig:"){width="4.5cm"} ![Effective masses $am_{D_s}$ and $am_{D^*_s}$ extracted from a $4\times 4$ GEVP for the lattice ensemble F7 (left panel); we also plot the plateaus in the chosen fit interval. Extrapolation at the physical point of $m_{D^*_s}$ linear in $m^2_\pi$ and $a^2$ (right panel).[]{data-label="fig:massDs"}](plots/mDsstarCL.pdf "fig:"){width="4.5cm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Extrapolation at the physical point of $f_{D_s}$ (left panel), $f_{D^*_s}$ (middle panel) and $f_{D^*_s}/f_{D_s}$ (right panel)by linear expressions in $m^2_\pi$ and $a^2$.[]{data-label="fig:decayDs"}](plots/fDsCL.pdf "fig:"){width="4.5cm"} ![Extrapolation at the physical point of $f_{D_s}$ (left panel), $f_{D^*_s}$ (middle panel) and $f_{D^*_s}/f_{D_s}$ (right panel)by linear expressions in $m^2_\pi$ and $a^2$.[]{data-label="fig:decayDs"}](plots/fDsstarCL.pdf "fig:"){width="4.5cm"} ![Extrapolation at the physical point of $f_{D_s}$ (left panel), $f_{D^*_s}$ (middle panel) and $f_{D^*_s}/f_{D_s}$ (right panel)by linear expressions in $m^2_\pi$ and $a^2$.[]{data-label="fig:decayDs"}](plots/fDsstarfDsCL.pdf "fig:"){width="4.5cm"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far there are only 2 lattice estimates of $f_{D^*_s}/f_{D_s}$ at $N_f=2$ by ETMC [@Becirevic:2012ti] and us, and 2 other have been performed at $N_f=2+1$ by HPQCD [@Donald:2013sra] and $N_f=2+1+1$ by ETMC [@Lubicz:2017asp]. We collect the various results in Fig. \[fig:collectionfDs\]. In the past it was thought it could be a quantity where quite large quenching effects of the strange quark show up with an amount larger than 10%, because the first result from ETMC is around 1.25. Our finding would tend to the conclusion that it is less pronounced: still, the trend is to have less spin breaking effects when more flavours are active.
![Collection of lattice results of $f_{D^*_s}/f_{D_s}$.[]{data-label="fig:collectionfDs"}](plots/collectfDsstarfDs.pdf){width="7cm"}
Charmonia sector {#subsec-2}
----------------
We proceed in the same way as in the previous subsection to extract proterties of pseudoscalar and vector charmonia, including those of radial excitations. In Fig. \[fig:massescharmonia\] we plot effective masses of the $\eta_c$, $\eta_c(2S)$, $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ mesons for the set F7. One can see that our plateaus are pretty long for the ground states but are unfortunately shorter for the radial excitations. The latter are acceptable for a qualitative exploration but not for a precision measurement. We show in Fig. \[fig:massphysical\] the extrapolation to the physical point of $m_{\eta_c}$ and $m_{J/\psi}$: the dependence on $m^2_\pi$ and $a^2$ is mild, with cut-off effects almost negligible. However the contribution to the meson masses besides the mass term $2m_c$ is difficult to catch. At the physical point $m_{\eta_c}$ and $m_{J/\psi}$ are compatible with the experimental values 2.983 GeV and 3.097 GeV: $m_{\eta_c}=2.980(2)(18)$ GeV and $m_{J/\psi}=3.085(4)(19)$ GeV, where the first error is statistical and the second error accounts for the uncertainty on the lattice spacing: the latter clearly dominates and hides a possible mismatch between our extrapolated results at the physical point and experiment. We display in Fig. \[fig:decay\] extrapolations at the physical point of $f_{\eta_c}$ and $f_{J/\psi}$: they are mild, cut-off effects on $f_{\eta_c}$ are of the order of 4% at $\beta=5.3$ while they are stronger for $f_{J/\psi}$, about 10%. We get as preliminary results $$\nonumber
f_{\eta_c}=394(4)(2)\, {\rm MeV}, \quad f_{J/\psi}=406(5)(3)\, {\rm MeV},
$$ where the systematic error comes from the uncertainty on lattice spacings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Effective masses $am_{\eta_c}$ and $am_{\eta_c(2S)}$ (left panel), $am_{J/\psi}$ and $am_{\psi(2S)}$ (right panel) extracted from a $4\times 4$ GEVP for the lattice ensemble F7; we also plot the plateaus in the chosen fit interval.[]{data-label="fig:massescharmonia"}](plots/metacF7.pdf "fig:"){width="4cm"} ![Effective masses $am_{\eta_c}$ and $am_{\eta_c(2S)}$ (left panel), $am_{J/\psi}$ and $am_{\psi(2S)}$ (right panel) extracted from a $4\times 4$ GEVP for the lattice ensemble F7; we also plot the plateaus in the chosen fit interval.[]{data-label="fig:massescharmonia"}](plots/mjpsiF7.pdf "fig:"){width="4cm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Extrapolation at the physical point of $m_{\eta_c}$ (left panel) and $m_{J/\psi}$ (right panel) by linear expressions in $m^2_\pi$ and $a^2$.[]{data-label="fig:massphysical"}](plots/metacCL.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![Extrapolation at the physical point of $m_{\eta_c}$ (left panel) and $m_{J/\psi}$ (right panel) by linear expressions in $m^2_\pi$ and $a^2$.[]{data-label="fig:massphysical"}](plots/mjpsiCL.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Extrapolation at the physical point of $f_{\eta_c}$ (left panel) and $f_{J/\psi}$ (right panel) by linear expressions in $m^2_\pi$ and $a^2$.[]{data-label="fig:decay"}](plots/fetacCL.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![Extrapolation at the physical point of $f_{\eta_c}$ (left panel) and $f_{J/\psi}$ (right panel) by linear expressions in $m^2_\pi$ and $a^2$.[]{data-label="fig:decay"}](plots/fjpsiCL.pdf "fig:"){width="5cm"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One can derive a phenomenological estimate of $f_{J/\psi}$. Indeed, using the expression of the electronic decay width $$\nonumber
\Gamma(J/\psi \to e^+e^-)=\frac{4\pi}{3}\frac{4}{9} \alpha(m^2_c)\frac{f^2_{J/\psi}}{m^2_{J/\psi}},$$ the experimental determination of the $J/\psi$ mass and width and setting $\alpha_{\rm em}(m^2_c)=\frac{1}{134}$, one gets $f^{``{\rm exp}"}=407(6)$ MeV.
So far there are only 2 lattice estimates of the $\eta_c$ and $J/\psi$ charmonia decay constants at $N_f=2$ by ETMC [@Becirevic:2013bsa] and us, and a third computation have been performed at $N_f=2+1$ by HPQCD [@Colquhoun:2014ica]. We collect the various results in Fig. \[fig:collectfetac\].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Collection of lattice results of $f_{\eta_c}$ (left panel) and $f_{J/\psi}$ (right panel).[]{data-label="fig:collectfetac"}](plots/collectfetac.pdf "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![Collection of lattice results of $f_{\eta_c}$ (left panel) and $f_{J/\psi}$ (right panel).[]{data-label="fig:collectfetac"}](plots/collectfjpsi.pdf "fig:"){width="7cm"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately the situation is not as promising for radial excited states. With small cut-off effects, of the order of 5%, we have obtained $m_{\eta_c(2S)}/m_{\eta_c} \gg (m_{\eta_c(2S)}/m_{\eta_c})^{\rm exp}$ and $m_{\psi(2S)}/m_{J/\psi} \gg (m_{\psi(2S)}/m_{J/\psi})^{\rm exp}$. The situation is even more confusing for the ratios of decay constants : $f_{\eta_c(2S)}/f_{\eta_c} < 1$ while $f_{\psi(2S)}/f_{J/\psi} >1$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was granted access to the HPC resources of CINES and IDRIS under the allocations 2016-x2016056808 and 2017-A0010506808 made by GENCI. This work was partly supported by the grant [HE 4517/3-1]{} (J. H. and M. P.) of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
[^1]: Speaker,
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the total and baryonic mass distributions in deflector number 31 of the Cambridge And Sloan Survey Of Wide ARcs in the skY (CASSOWARY). We confirm spectroscopically a four-image lensing system at redshift 1.4870 with VLT/X-shooter observations. The lensed images are distributed around a bright early-type galaxy at redshift 0.683, surrounded by several smaller galaxies at similar photometric redshifts. We use available optical and X-ray data to constrain the deflector total, stellar, and hot gas mass through, respectively, strong lensing, stellar population analysis, and plasma modelling. We derive a total mass projected within the Einstein radius $R_{\mathrm{Ein}}=70$ kpc of $(40 \pm 1)\times 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$, and a central logarithmic slope of $-1.7 \pm 0.2$ for the total mass density. Despite a very high stellar mass and velocity dispersion of the central galaxy of $(3 \pm 1) \times 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$ and $(450 \pm 80$) km s$^{-1}$, respectively, the cumulative stellar-to-total mass profile of the deflector implies a remarkably low stellar mass fraction of 20% (3%–6%) in projection within the central galaxy effective radius $R_{e}=25$ kpc ($R=100$ kpc). We also find that the CSWA 31 deflector has properties suggesting it to be among the most distant and massive fossil systems studied so far. The unusually strong central dark matter dominance and the possible fossil nature of this system renders it an interesting target for detailed tests of cosmological models and structure formation scenarios.'
author:
- |
C. Grillo$^{1}$[^1], L. Christensen$^{1}$, A. Gallazzi$^{1,2}$ and J. Rasmussen$^{1,3}$\
$^{1}$Dark Cosmology Centre, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Juliane Maries Vej 30, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark\
$^{2}$INAF - Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, Largo Enrico Fermi 5, 50125 Firenze, Italy\
$^{3}$Department of Physics, Technical University of Denmark, Risø Campus, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark
date: 'Accepted. Received; in original form'
title: 'Measuring the total and baryonic mass profiles of the very massive CASSOWARY 31 strong lens. A fossil system at $z \simeq 0.7$?[^2]'
---
\[firstpage\]
gravitational lensing: strong – dark matter – galaxies: structure – galaxies: stellar content
Introduction
============
Strong gravitational lensing has become a powerful tool that can be used to address a number of problems in modern cosmology and galaxy evolution (e.g., @bar10 [@tre10b]). Given the fact that the gravitational deflection of light is determined only by the gravitational field through which light propagates, the gravitational lensing effect is independent of the nature of the matter and of its state. This implies that lensing is able to measure both dark and baryonic matter, in equilibrium or far out of it. From the image configuration of a lensing system the total mass of the lens, within a cylinder with a diameter of the average image separation and centred on the lens, can be estimated very accurately. Mass measurements with a precision of a few percent can be achieved by means of detailed lens models in multiple image systems (e.g., @gri10c [@zit12]). These are by far the most precise mass determinations in extragalactic astronomy. Strong gravitational lensing has already yielded groundbreaking results detecting low-mass dark-matter sub-haloes without visible stars in a few lens galaxies (e.g., @veg10 [@veg12]). Thanks to the combination of strong gravitational lensing with stellar dynamics and/or population synthesis models (e.g., @gri12 [@new12; @bar12; @son12]), the prospects for making a step forward in our understanding of the nature of dark matter are very promising. The combination of these different mass diagnostics has also proved to be extremely successful in the exploration of several other astrophysical and cosmological topics, such as the study of the inner projected dark over total mass fractions (e.g., @gri09 [@aug09; @eic12]), stellar initial mass function (e.g., @gri09 [@tre10; @spi11]), and tilt of the Fundamental Plane (e.g., @gri09 [@gri10b]) of massive early-type galaxies and the investigation of the values of the cosmological parameters (e.g., @gri08c [@schw10; @suy10; @suy13]).
In this paper, we study the total and baryonic mass distributions of the deflector number 31 (CSWA 31) of the Cambridge And Sloan Survey Of Wide ARcs in the skY (CASSOWARY) survey (@bel09). This complex strong lensing system was first analysed by @brewer11, using a diffusive nested sampling technique for the lens modelling and focussing on the reconstruction of the unlensed source profiles and deflector total mass distribution. The remarkably large Einstein radius of 70 kpc of this system makes it an ideal candidate to investigate the still relatively unexplored amount and distribution of dark matter in the central regions of galaxy groups (e.g., @lim09 [@gri11]). We present here a significant improvement in the characterisation of the internal structure of this deflector by including new spectroscopic data. In particular, by measuring the redshift of the main lensing system, we obtain accurate estimates of the projected stellar-to-total mass profile in the deflector inner regions.
The manuscript is organised as follows. In Sect. 2, we present our spectroscopic observations obtained with VLT/X-shooter. In Sect. 3, we perform a strong lensing analysis to determine the deflector total mass profile. In Sect. 4, we estimate the deflector baryonic mass profile, both in terms of luminous (stellar) and hot gas components. In Sect. 5, we discuss why the CSWA 31 deflector is an unconventional strong lens and a potential fossil system. In Sect. 6, we summarise the main results. Throughout this work we assume $H_{0}=70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{m}=0.3$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$. In this model, 1$\ $ corresponds to a linear size of 7.08 kpc at the deflector redshift of $z_{\mathrm{sp}}=0.683$.
Observations
============
![Colour-composite image (38 $\times$ 38 , i.e., 269 $\times$ 269 kpc on the deflector plane) of the strong lensing system CASSOWARY 31 obtained by combining the Gemini/GMOS $g$, $r$, and $i$ bands. []{data-label="fig1"}](test_colour_crop2.ps){width="48.00000%"}
[cccccc]{} Object & R.A. & Dec. & $z_{\mathrm{ph}}$ & $d\,^{a}$ & $\theta_{e,i}$\
& (J2000) & (J2000) & & () & ()\
BG & 09:21:25.74 & 18:10:17.3 & $0.64 \pm 0.04\,^{b}$ & 0.0 & 3.54\
G1 & 09:21:25.89 & 18:10:09.2 & $0.71 \pm 0.09$ & 8.2 & 0.29\
G2 & 09:21:25.37 & 18:10:30.5 & $0.78 \pm 0.22$ & 13.7 & 2.36\
G3 & 09:21:26.24 & 18:10:32.1 & $0.78 \pm 0.05$ & 16.3 & 1.13\
G4 & 09:21:24.82 & 18:10:28.9 & $0.73 \pm 0.09$ & 17.5 & 0.48\
Relative to the BG luminosity centre.
Spectroscopic redshift $z_{\mathrm{sp}}=0.683$.
The CSWA 31 strong lensing system was observed with GMOS on Gemini South on February 21, 2009 (programme ID GS-2009A-Q-64; @brewer11), and the data were retrieved through the Gemini science archive. The total integration times were 20 minutes per filter in the $g$, $r$ and $i$-band split into 4, 4 and 8 exposures, respectively, with offsets between each exposure. The data were reduced and combined using standard methods, and a colour image of the system is presented in Fig. \[fig1\]. In this figure, we label the five innermost and most massive galaxies that we associate with the deflector (i.e., BG and G1-G4) and the lensed objects (i.e., i1-i4 and j1) that will be discussed in the following. The brightest galaxy (BG) coordinates from the Gemini data and spectrum from the SDSS are shown, respectively, in Table \[tab1\] and Fig. \[fig4\]. In the same table, we also list the Gemini coordinates of the four galaxies (G1-G4), detected in the SDSS, with photometric redshift values $z_{\mathrm{ph}}$ that are consistent, given the errors, with the spectroscopic redshift value $z_{\mathrm{sp}}=0.683$ of the BG, their projected distances $d$ from the luminosity centre of the BG and the values of their $i$-band effective angles $\theta_{e,i}$, estimated by fitting the SDSS luminosity profiles.
To determine spectroscopic redshifts of the multiply imaged sources we obtained slit spectra with VLT/X-shooter [@vernet11] on April 26, 2012 (programme ID 089.A-0222(A)) using several different pointings. Despite poor observing conditions with variable seeing, high wind and humidity, we were able to secure spectra of three of the lensed images (i1, i3, and j1). In a first observational configuration, we nodded between images i1 and j1 with exposures of 900 seconds on each position in an ABBA sequence. The objects were placed on the X-shooter 11-long slit in such a way that the alternate position could be used for the sky subtraction in the NIR, while in the UVB and VIS the background sky was measured in the same slit. The chosen slit widths were 1.0/0.9/0.9 arcsec in the UVB, VIS and NIR arms, respectively. In a second configuration, we obtained a single integration of 900 seconds on image i3 and a faint blue galaxy 16.5 away from the centre of the BG. For the sky subtraction, we used a separate integration of 900 seconds of a nearby blank sky region. Due to a higher seeing the slit widths were increased to 1.3/1.2/1.2 arcsec in the three arms.
The data were reduced with the ESO pipeline version 1.3.7 [@modigliani10]. The entire wavelength range from 300 to 2500 nm was examined for the presence of emission lines to measure the redshift of the sources. Typically, the continuum emission was very faint and could only be recognised in binned versions of the 2D spectra [see @christensen12]. In the spectrum of images i1 and i3, we detect a single bright line in the NIR. This emission line is interpreted as H$\alpha$ at $z=1.4870\pm0.0003$. Weaker lines corresponding to \[NII\] $\lambda\lambda$6548,6586 can also be seen, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig2\] in the apposite wavelength range of the observed two-dimensional spectrum. H$\beta$ and \[OIII\] are detected at the 5- and 4-sigma significance level in the extracted 1D spectra, respectively, at the wavelengths corresponding to the previously cited redshift. The 1D spectra of the two exposures of the different images shown in Fig. \[fig2\] prove that the two objects are lensed multiple images of the same background source. The spectrum of image j1 reveals a single, bright emission line at 18859.4 [Å]{}. No other emission lines are detected in the entire wavelength range. By binning the UVB spectrum by a factor of 500 in the spectral direction, we detect the continuum emission at least down to approximately 4000 [Å]{}, suggesting a redshift $z<2.3$. The most likely interpretation is therefore that the single emission line is H$\alpha$ at $z=1.8737\pm0.0003$.
![SDSS spectrum of the BG measured with a 3-diameter fibre. Several emission and absorption lines are identified and used to estimate a redshift value $z_{\mathrm{sp}}$ of 0.683.[]{data-label="fig4"}](sdss_spec.ps){width="46.00000%"}
![From the bottom, two-dimensional and one-dimensional spectra of image i1 around the redshifted H$\alpha$ and \[NII\] lines. The one-dimensional spectrum of image i3 is also shown for comparison offset along the y-axis. The residuals from strong sky emission lines are masked.[]{data-label="fig2"}](CSWA31b_2dspec.ps){width="50.00000%"}
Total mass measurements through strong lensing modelling
========================================================
[ccccc]{} Model & $b\,^{a}$ & $q$ & $\theta_{q}$ & $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}$\
& () & & (deg) &\
SIE & 9.0$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}\,[_{-2\%}^{+2\%}]$ & 0.53$^{+0.05}_{-0.04}\,[_{-8\%}^{+9\%}]$ & $-$46$^{+1}_{-1}\,[_{-2\%}^{+2\%}]$ &\
EPL & 14$^{+6}_{-3}\,[_{-21\%}^{+43\%}]$ & 0.73$^{+0.08}_{-0.10}\,[_{-14\%}^{+11\%}]$ & $-$45$^{+1}_{-1}\,[_{-2\%}^{+2\%}]$ & $-$1.7$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}\,[_{-12\%}^{+12\%}]$\
Note that Gravlens provides the value of the lens strength $b$ multiplied by a function $f(\cdot)$ of the minor-to-major axis ratio, $q$, and of the exponent of the three-dimensional density distribution, $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}$ (see @kee01a [@kee01b]).
In this section we focus on the measurement of the projected total mass profile of the deflector by modelling the observed multiple images.
We use the public code Gravlens[^3] (@kee01a) to perform our analysis. We describe the total mass distribution of the deflector in terms of a one-component model, chosen to be either a singular isothermal ellipsoid (SIE) or an elliptical power-law (EPL) profile (for further details on these mass profiles, see @kee01b). We fix the total mass centre of the deflector to the luminosity centre of the BG. Since images i1, i2, i3, and i4 have very similar colours (see Fig. \[fig1\]), we assume that i2 and i4 are additional multiple images of the source at redshift 1.4870 (see Sect. 2) that is lensed into i1 and i3. We approximate the four multiple images i1-i4 to point-like objects and conduct a standard strong lensing chi-square optimisation on the model parameters (e.g., @gri08b [@gri10c; @gri11]) with three and two degrees of freedom for the SIE and EPL models, respectively. We adopt a positional uncertainty of 0.3 (corresponding to two image pixels) on all image positions and repeat the strong lensing analysis starting from the measurements of the luminosity peaks of the multiple images in each of the three ($g$, $r$, and $i$) available Gemini images. We obtain best-fitting (minimum) $\chi^{2}$ values of 10.8 and 9.0, respectively, for the SIE and EPL models. This translates into average differences between observed and model-predicted positions of approximately three pixels per image. Given the approximation to point-like objects centred on their luminosity peaks for the extended images and the assumption of a single total mass component fixed on the deflector luminosity centre, we conclude that our simplified modelling choices can reproduce well the observations and do not need to be further refined, having as main goal here the measurement of the projected total mass profile of the deflector. In particular, we decide to avoid introducing an unnecessary, at this stage, external shear term for the following reasons: first, as discussed, the strong lensing configuration can be reconstructed in a satisfactory way by a single total mass component; second, the limited number of degrees of freedom available from the use of only four multiple images would not allow to disentangle the contribution of a possible external shear term from that of the main deflector mass ellipticity; third, an external shear term would not affect the projected total mass estimates, that are the most important quantities for the deflector mass decomposition presented in Sect. 5.1.
To estimate the statistical errors on the projected total mass profile, we rerun the chi-square optimisation on 3000 resampled positions of the multiple images. For these last quantities, we assume normal distributions with mean and standard deviation values equal to the observed positions and adopted positional uncertainties, respectively. We calculate the median values and the 68% (95%) confidence level (CL) intervals of the lens parameters by removing from the 3000 optimised values the 480 (75) lower and higher values and show the results in Table \[tab2\]. We remark that the values of the total mass minor-to-major axis ratio, $q$, and of the position angle of the major axis, $\theta_{q}$, are in line with those derived from a fit to the extended light distribution in the $i$-band of the BG ($q_{BG} = 0.47 \pm 0.01$ and $\theta_{q,BG} = -41 \pm 1$). We notice that the reconstructed total mass distribution does not show an unusually large elongation, further supporting the adequacy of a one-component model (without external shear) to represent the deflector total mass. We also find that the total mass has a slightly less elliptical distribution than the light (of the BG), as already observed in several previous strong lensing studies (e.g., @bar11 [@son12]). For the more general EPL model, we estimate a total mass value $M_{\mathrm{T}}$ of $(4.0 \pm 0.1)\times 10^{13}$ M$_{\odot}$ projected within a cylinder of radius of 70 kpc, which is the approximate value of the Einstein radius $R_{\mathrm{Ein}}$ of this strong lensing system. We plot in the top panel of Fig. \[fig3\] the median, 68% and 95% CL values of the cumulative total projected mass of the deflector (we have checked that the differences between the reconstructed SIE and EPL total mass profiles do not have a significant impact on our overall conclusions). From the results of the same resampling analysis, we also estimate a median value of $-1.7$ and a 68% CL uncertainty of 0.2 for the three-dimensional, radially averaged, logarithmic slope of the total density profile $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}= d \log [\rho_{\mathrm{T}}(r)] / d \log (r)$ of the deflector (see Table \[tab2\]), without assuming any prior on this parameter. The inspection of the $\chi^{2}$ distribution as a function of the parameter $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}$ analogously reveals a rather sharply peaked global minimum at approximately $-1.7$. Furthermore, we will show in Sect. 5.1 that this measurement is consistent, given the errors, with the outcome of an initial lensing$+$dynamics study.
We have explicitly tested through simulations that our resampling technique with point-like images allows to recover for the deflector not only the total projected mass within the Einstein radius, but also the slope of the total mass density profile with sufficient accuracy (i.e., the true and reconstructed values agree well within the uncertainties). This is possible because the four multiple images observed in CSWA 31 are not all located at the same projected distance from the deflector centre (see Fig. 1). The position of image i4, significantly closer than the other images to the adopted mass centre of the deflector (see also Fig. 4), is particularly useful to estimate the slope of the deflector total mass density. In detail, we have simulated three strong lensing configurations very similar to that of the quad in the CSWA 31 system and measured the values of the deflector total density slopes with the same method used above. We have chosen three different values, i.e. $-1.7$, $-2.0$, and $-2.3$, of the density slope $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the elliptical power-law profile adopted to describe the total mass distribution of the deflector and left all the other parameters of the deflector unchanged. The source has been fixed approximately at the reconstructed position of the source for the quad of the CSWA 31 system. The redshifts of deflector and source have been chosen equal to those of the CSWA 31 system. For each of the three models we have used the ray-tracing equation to obtain the positions of the corresponding four multiple images and estimated the approximate Einstein radii of the systems as the mean distances of the images from the deflector centre. Then, for each model, we have resampled 1000 times the positions of the four images assuming normal distributions with mean and standard deviation values equal to the positions previously derived and 0.3$\,$ and minimised the chi-square varying the deflector parameters and starting from the approximate Einstein radius values and an initial value of $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}$ of $-2$. We have used the optimised deflector parameters to calculate the median values and the 68% CL intervals of $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}$. We can always find the true values of $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}$ within our measured 68% CL intervals and the median values of the estimated $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}$ are relatively close to the corresponding true values, despite some modest sistematic bias towards larger values. The origin of this small overestimation of the median values might be associated to the particular geometrical configuration of the multiple images chosen in our simulations to mimic the CSWA 31 system or to the slightly asymmetric shape of the $\chi^2$ distribution as a function of $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}$ (less steep on the side of larger values of $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}$). Considering that we never use in our analysis a single value of $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}$, but always the 68% and 95% CL intervals for this parameter, we are confident that the measurements presented in this work for $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}$ in CSWA 31 are robust and not significantly biased. As already mentioned, the remarkably good consistency of the lensing-only and lensing+dynamics (see Sect. 5.1) results for the value of $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}$ in CSWA 31 reinforces this last point.
We notice that j1 seems to have colours similar to those of the radially extended image located close in projection to the BG, between i1 and i4. If j1 and this object were multiple images of the same source at $z = 1.8737$ (see Sect. 2), according to our lensing models we would expect to observe two additional images, like in the i1-i4 system. If instead a counter image of j1 were the tangentially elongated object angularly adjacent to G2 (as assumed in @brewer11), we would also predict the presence of other multiple images near i2. We do not detect any clear four-image system for j1 in the actual data. Because of the not obvious geometrical configuration of the lensing system to which j1 belongs, we decide not to include this last system in our models until new photometric and/or spectroscopic data become available.
Baryonic mass measurements
==========================
In this section we concentrate on the estimate of the baryonic (stellar and hot gas) matter component associated with the deflector.
Composite stellar population modelling
--------------------------------------
Optical colors are known to correlate well with the galaxy effective mass-to-light ratio [e.g., @BdJ01; @zib09]. In order to derive constraints on the stellar mass content of the deflector we interpret the SDSS optical photometry of the five members listed in Table \[tab1\] by means of a Monte Carlo library of star formation histories (SFH) and dust attenuation adopting a Bayesian approach, as in @gal05. The SFHs are modelled with exponentially declining laws on top of which random bursts[^4] can occur with a probability such that 50% of the models in the library experience a burst in the last 2 Gyr [see also @Salim05]. Attenuation by dust follows the [@CF00] model and is parametrized by the total effective optical depth $\tau_V$ experienced by young stars in their birth clouds (which can vary between 0 and 6) and the fraction $\mu$ contributed by the interstellar medium (which can vary between 0.1 and 1). Our library of models is constructed adopting a [@chabrier03] IMF, however for the following analysis we decide to rescale the derived stellar masses to a [@sal55] IMF, assuming a conversion factor of 1.8. This is motivated by the results of several recent analyses (e.g., @gri09; @van10; @gri10b; @tre10; @con12), according to which massive early-type galaxies (as those studied here) are better represented by a bottom-heavy stellar IMF.
Because of the low and very uncertain flux level in the $u$ and $g$ bands, resulting in colours inconsistent with the other colours at redder wavelengths predicted by the models, we decide to discard the observed magnitudes in these two bands and use only the observed $r, i, z$ SDSS model magnitudes, corrected for foreground galactic reddening (see also @gri09 [@gri11]). These are compared with those computed on all the model spectra in the library. The stellar mass of each model is obtained by multiplying the mass currently present in stars (i.e. not including the fraction returned to the ISM by evolved stars) with the scaling factor to the observed fluxes. We then construct the probability density function of stellar mass, the median of which is our fiducial $M_\ast$ estimate while the $16^{th}$ and $84^{th}$ percentiles define the 1-$\sigma$ confidence interval. The results are summarized in Table \[tab\_mstar\].
We find a very high stellar mass of approximately $\rm 3\times10^{12}\,M_\odot$ for the BG with a formal uncertainty of approximately $40$%, and stellar masses around or above $\rm 10^{11}\,M_\odot$ for other three members of the system, albeit with very large uncertainties. We explored the systematic effects on the derived stellar masses due to our assumptions for the model library. In particular we repeated the fit 1) using only metallicities around solar, 2) excluding bursty SFHs or 3) assuming very low levels of dust attenuation. In Table \[tab\_mstar\] we provide the difference between our default fit and the modified one as an estimate of the possible systematic uncertainty. We find that the assumption on metallicity does not affect the results, as the red colors of the galaxies require a high metallicity. Removing the younger component introduced by the bursts typically provides higher stellar masses by up to 0.1 dex. Assuming negligible dust attenuation results in lower stellar masses by 0.1 dex for the BG and more than 0.2 dex for the other members. We note however that models without dust hardly reach the red $r-i$, $i-z$ observed colours providing thus a worse fit to the data.
Finally, we mention that according to the recent study by @cap12 the most massive ellipticals might have a maximal IMF, resulting in stellar mass-to-light ratios approximately 1.5 times higher than those obtained from a Salpeter IMF. In our system, this difference would apply at most to the BG galaxy. The other, smaller, galaxies should have a lighter IMF, thus bringing their estimated mass to lower values than for a Salpeter IMF. The final effect on the stellar mass profile shown in Fig. \[fig3\] would be a small shift of 0.17 dex higher than what we find now (the contribution of the other galaxies would be even smaller). We notice that this possible shift can be accommodated by our present 95% CL interval plotted in Fig. \[fig3\]. Therefore, this would not change significantly our final results.
[|l|c|r|r|r|]{} Object & log$(M_*/$M$_\odot)$ & $\rm \Delta$$_{Z=Z_\odot}$ & $\rm \Delta_{no bursts}$ & $\rm \Delta_{no dust}$\
BG & $12.48^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$ & $-0.02$ & $-0.09$ & $+0.10$\
G1 & $10.84^{+0.34}_{-0.38}$ & $-0.02$ & $+0.10$ & $+0.20$\
G2 & $11.27^{+0.35}_{-0.37}$ & $ 0.00$ & $+0.04$ & $+0.24$\
G3 & $11.89^{+0.27}_{-0.22}$ & $ 0.00$ & $-0.10$ & $+0.27$\
G4 & $11.34^{+0.33}_{-0.28}$ & $+0.01$ & $-0.06$ & $+0.24$\
![Cumulative stellar, $M_*$, and total (derived for the EPL model), $M_{\mathrm{T}}$, masses (on the top) and their ratio, $M_*/M_{\mathrm{T}}$, (on the bottom) projected within cylinders of radii $R$. The dotted lines represent the median values; the dashed and solid lines show the 68% and 95% CL intervals, respectively. The four grey arrows (two of them overlap) locate the projected distances of the observed multiple images i1-i4 from the BG luminosity centre; the black arrow indicates the Einstein radius $R_{\mathrm{Ein}}$ of the strong lensing system.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig01b.ps "fig:"){width="46.00000%"} ![Cumulative stellar, $M_*$, and total (derived for the EPL model), $M_{\mathrm{T}}$, masses (on the top) and their ratio, $M_*/M_{\mathrm{T}}$, (on the bottom) projected within cylinders of radii $R$. The dotted lines represent the median values; the dashed and solid lines show the 68% and 95% CL intervals, respectively. The four grey arrows (two of them overlap) locate the projected distances of the observed multiple images i1-i4 from the BG luminosity centre; the black arrow indicates the Einstein radius $R_{\mathrm{Ein}}$ of the strong lensing system.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig03b.ps "fig:"){width="46.00000%"}
X-ray emission modelling
------------------------
To estimate the mass of any hot intracluster medium (ICM) within the central regions, we searched for known X-ray sources close to the BG. X-ray data for this field are limited to those of the [*ROSAT*]{} All-Sky Survey (RASS), in which the nearest detected source lies $(26\pm 13)\arcsec$ away from the BG position. With only 7 net counts, the source is listed as point-like but with a poorly constrained spatial extent. The X-ray error circle includes none of the CSWA 31 candidate members but does overlap with an SDSS galaxy at unknown redshift. If representing extended cluster emission with a spectrum described by a thermal plasma (APEC) model, the quoted RASS hardness ratios of the source would imply a gas temperature $T>2$ keV for any subsolar metallicity. However, the hardness ratios can be equally well reproduced by a (potentially intrinsically obscured) power-law spectrum with photon index $\Gamma < 2$, characteristic of AGN. Furthermore, the spatial offset from the BG/deflector centre of $(26\pm 13)\arcsec$ would correspond to a projected distance of $(184\pm
92)$ kpc at $z=0.683$, implying an offset between the dark matter and X-ray peaks comparable to that of the famous Bullet cluster [@clow06]. This large offset, combined with the presence of a galaxy within the X-ray error circle, the fact that a power-law nature of the X-ray spectrum cannot be excluded, and that the emission appears point-like (albeit with low robustness), lead us to conclude that this source is unlikely to represent ICM emission from CSWA 31.
The region covered by Fig. \[fig3\] would appear point-like in RASS, so any ICM signal within this aperture must have a count rate below that of the nearby source discussed above. This constraint can be translated into a limit on the corresponding gas mass for a given ICM temperature. To this end, we first assume that the total mass profile in Fig. \[fig3\], when corrected for the stellar contribution, can be described by an NFW profile [@nava97] with concentration parameter, $c_{200} < 10$. Using the inferred $M_{\rm T}$ and $M_{\rm
*}$ within $R=150$ kpc as constraints, this would suggest a total dark matter mass of $M_{\rm DM} > 6 \times 10^{14}$ M$_\odot$ within the resulting $R_{500} > 1.0$ Mpc. For this mass limit, the observed $M$–$T_{\rm X}$ relation for X-ray selected clusters, corrected for self-similar redshift evolution [@vikh06], would suggest $T \ga 6$ keV. Using these constraints, and assuming any subsolar ICM metallicity, a [ pimms]{}[^5] calculation shows that the absence of detectable ICM emission in the RASS data implies $L_{\rm X} < 4 \times 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (0.5–2 keV rest-frame) and $M_{\rm gas} < 3 \times 10^{12}$ M$_\odot$ within $R=150$ kpc. This indicates that within this aperture only a minor fraction of our estimated $M_{\rm T}$ could be in the form of hot gas and that the stellar component is the main baryonic component.
Discussion
==========
CSWA 31 as an unusual deflector
-------------------------------
We estimate here the variation in the deflector stellar-to-total mass fraction $M_{*}/M_{\mathrm{T}}$ projected within cylinders of increasing aperture values $R$ from the BG centre. We use the total mass measurements obtained in Sect. 3 for the EPL model (the different adoption of the SIE model would not change appreciably the following conclusions) and the galaxy $i$-band effective angles $\theta_{e,i}$ and stellar masses $M_{*}$ that are listed, respectively, in Tables \[tab1\] and \[tab\_mstar\]. We build pixellated grids of projected stellar mass assuming that the latter is well traced by the light and that the de Vaucouleurs profiles with effective angles $\theta_{e,i}$ for BG and G1-G4 are good representations of their light distributions. We bootstrap the galaxy stellar mass values according to the statistical uncertainties (see Sect. 4.1). We sum the contribution of each galaxy, calculate the cumulative projected stellar mass profile (see Fig. \[fig3\], on the top), and divide it by the cumulative projected total mass profile. We plot the radial dependence of the ratio $M_{*}/M_{\mathrm{T}}(<R)$ and its 68% CL errors on the bottom of Fig. \[fig3\]. As expected, we observe that the relative error on the total mass estimate increases moving away from the Einstein radius of the system and that the stellar-to-total mass fraction decreases rapidly towards the outer regions of the deflector. This translates into a significant amount of dark-matter present already at relatively small distances from the BG centre, given the upper limit on the hot gas mass provided in the previous section. More quantitatively, at a projected distance of 25 kpc, i.e. at the value of the BG effective radius, only approximately 20% of the total mass is in the form of stellar mass. In the interval $R=100$–150 kpc, the 68% CL values of $M_{*}/M_{\mathrm{T}}(<R)$ do not vary significantly and range between 3% and 6%. Furthermore, if we neglect the hot gas contribution between 10 and 50 kpc and estimate here the dark matter profile of the deflector as the difference between the total and stellar mass components, we find that, assuming a simplified spherical power-law profile, the three-dimensional inner logarithmic slope of the dark matter halo $\gamma_{\mathrm{DM}}= d \log [\rho_{\mathrm{DM}}(r)] / d \log (r)$ is equal to $-1.5 \pm 0.2$. Interestingly, this value is consistent with that averaged over a sample of massive early-type galaxies (@gri12).
The results of our strong lensing plus stellar population analysis (assuming a Salpeter IMF) can equivalently be interpreted as a very high projected dark over total mass fraction of about 80% within a cylinder of radius given by the effective radius of the BG galaxy. Taken at face value, this dark matter fraction appears exceptional when compared to central dark matter fractions estimated for low- and intermediate-redshift massive galaxies, either from strong lensing analysis or dynamical modelling. In particular, @gri09 (see also @aug10) from a combined strong lensing and stellar population analysis of 57 early-type galaxies from the SLACS survey, and assuming a Chabrier IMF, derive dark over total mass fractions, projected within approximately half the values of the galaxy effective radii, that vary between 0.4 and 0.7 over a stellar mass range of $10^{10.5}$–$10^{12}M_\odot$. Similar central dark matter fractions are found in five higher-redshift lenses with an analogous analysis performed by @mor11. Stellar population analyses combined with dynamical mass estimates of SDSS early-type galaxies also provide central projected dark over total mass fractions between 0.2 and 0.7, over a similar mass range and assuming a Chabrier IMF (@gal06; @gri10a). These values are consistent with the typical central three-dimensional dark-matter fractions estimated by dynamical modelling by @tor12, but higher than those obtained by @cap12b with 3D JAM dynamical modelling of 260 early-type galaxies in the ATLAS3D survey and without any assumption on the universality of the IMF. Thus, also considering the different IMF assumptions, the central dark over total mass fraction of CSWA 31 is at the highest end (or larger) than those typically measured in early-type galaxies of similar mass.
We should however keep in mind on the one hand the very high stellar mass of the BG analysed here and on the other the high-density environment in which it resides. Both these points could make an important difference in the expected amount of dark matter. The amount of dark matter that we measure in CSWA 31 is likely the sum of the halo of the BG and of a more extended halo of the group, which would clearly provide more dark matter than that estimated for early-type galaxies in lower density environments (although we note that no significant environmental dependence is detected by @tor12). @gas07 modelled the mass profiles of 16 galaxy groups with X-ray data and they found that a non-negligible stellar mass component is required in only half of their sample. For these systems the central dark over total mass fractions are on average approximately 60% (from their figures 3, 4, 5, 6 and the effective radii in their table 2). Our system, with a BG about an order of magnitude more massive than those in @gas07, has a dark matter fraction higher than their average (interestingly, in @gas07, the central dark matter fraction reaches 90% only in the system with the least massive BG). A central dark matter fraction similar to what we derive in CSWA 31 is instead found in the fossil group RXC2315.7$-$0222 (@dem10), where we infer a value of 86% according to their NFW+stars fit in figure 6 and assuming an effective radius of 16 kpc (S. Zibetti, private communication).
Next, we use the SDSS spectrum shown in Fig. \[fig4\] to estimate the stellar velocity dispersion $\sigma_{*}$ of the BG. The signal-to-noise ratio per pixel of the spectrum is relatively low and varies approximately from 3 at 6500 [Å]{} to 5 at 8000 [Å]{}. We use the pixel-fitting method of @cappellari04 by first shifting the spectrum to the rest-frame from the measured redshift $z=0.683$ and compare the rest-frame spectrum at wavelengths 3820-5290 [Å]{} with template stellar spectra from the MILES library [@sanchez-blazquez06; @falcon-barroso11]. The resulting stellar velocity dispersion value is remarkably large $(450\pm80)$ km s$^{-1}$ with a best-fit that gives a value of reduced $\chi^2$ equal to 1.03. We caution that this last result might change if a higher signal-to-noise spectrum were available, but, we also notice that such a high stellar velocity dispersion is consistent with an extrapolation of the $\sigma$-$M_{*}$ relation observed in massive early-type lens galaxies (e.g., @aug10). We remark that according to the estimated values of $M_{*}$ and $\sigma_{*}$ the BG might be among the most massive central galaxies identified so far and offer an interesting case for testing galaxy formation physics at the extreme end of the galaxy mass function (e.g., @mar12; @tho12). Moreover, following the prescriptions detailed in [@agn13], i.e. assuming a power-law, spherical, total density profile for the deflector and using the virial theorem and the ray-tracing equation, we find that the combination of the dynamics and lensing observables provides an estimate of $\gamma_{\mathrm{T}}$ of $-1.65 \pm 0.05$, almost completely insensitive to any orbital anisotropy assumption and projection effect. This result is consistent with the values presented in Sect. 3 and obtained from strong lensing only. An unambiguous confirmation of the existence at intermediate redshifts of objects with values of $\sigma_{*}$ of approximately 500 km s$^{-1}$ would open some interesting cosmological questions about the star formation history of massive early-type galaxies and the value of the inner slope of their dark matter haloes (e.g., @loe03).
CSWA 31 as a possible fossil system
-----------------------------------
The stellar component of the CSWA 31 core is heavily dominated by that of the BG, with a magnitude difference with respect to the second brightest galaxy, G3, of $\Delta m_{12} = 2.1 \pm 0.2$ and $1.9 \pm
0.1$ mag in the observer-frame $r$- and $i$-band, respectively. As such, CSWA 31 is optically reminiscent of “fossil” groups/clusters, defined as systems with $\Delta m_{12} \ge 2.0$ in rest-frame $R$ within a projected radius of $0.5 \, R_{200}$, and with an X-ray luminosity from intergalactic gas of $L_{\rm X} >
10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (@jon03).
To test whether CSWA 31 can in fact be classified as a fossil, we first note that our inferred upper limit on $L_{\rm X}$ within $R=150$ kpc is two orders of magnitude above the value of the @jon03 criterion. In the absence of deeper X-ray data, we hence cannot exclude that the system is consistent with this fossil criterion. Moreover, the $L_{\rm X}$ criterion was originally imposed in order to ensure the presence of a group-scale dark matter halo, but this is clearly already established from our lensing analysis. The second requirement, $\Delta m_{12} \ge 2.0$ within $0.5 \, R_{200}$, can be tested with the aid of our extrapolation of the total mass profile from Section 4.2. This suggests a value of $0.5 \, R_{200} = 0.7$–1.5 Mpc for a plausible range in NFW concentration parameters of $c_{200} =
3$–10 (with lower $c$ corresponding to higher $R_{200}$). We therefore searched for potential group members within $R \le
1.5$ Mpc from the BG in projection, requiring them to be brighter than G3 and having a photometric redshift consistent with the spectroscopic value of the BG. A search within SDSS $i$-band data (which most closely match rest-frame $R$ at these redshifts) returned two such objects, at $z_{\mathrm{ph}}=0.63 \pm 0.08$ and $0.73 \pm 0.11$, with projected radii $R = 760$–1040 kpc and for which $\Delta m_{12}=1.6$–1.8 mag. Under the assumption of an NFW mass profile, these galaxies would reside within $0.5 \, R_{200}$ for $c < 10$ and $< 5$, respectively, and so would violate the fossil criterion if belonging to CSWA 31. However, given the large uncertainties associated with extrapolating the mass profile out to such large radii from the BG centre, it is entirely possible that these two galaxies are located well beyond the true value of $0.5 \, R_{200}$. Verification of the fossil status of CSWA 31 would thus require a more reliable assessment of the value of $R_{200}$ from, e.g., weak lensing or X-ray data, along with spectroscopic redshift estimates of these two galaxies to assess their possible group/cluster membership.
With the available data, we can only identify CSWA 31 as a [ *candidate*]{} fossil system. If confirmed, it would be among the most distant and massive fossils explored in detail so far [@ulm05; @kho06], and represent only the second such system studied with lensing methods [@sch10]. Deep X-ray data would be required to test whether CSWA 31 meets the fossil X-ray criterion and is indeed a dynamically evolved system with an undisturbed hot gas morphology, as generally anticipated for fossils. It is also relevant to note that the large values of $\Delta m_{12}$ in these systems are commonly explained in terms of dynamical friction having caused all central intermediate-mass galaxies to be cannibalized by the BG. However, for galaxies on circular orbits, the timescale for this to occur in CSWA 31 would almost certainly exceed the age of the universe at $z
\approx 0.7$ [@don05]. Confirmation of the presence of such a massive fossil already at these redshifts would therefore impose valuable constraints on the galaxy infall geometry and general formation history of fossils.
Conclusions
===========
We have studied the gravitational lensing system CSWA 31 in which a bright early-type galaxy at redshift 0.683 (with several nearby, smaller companions) acts as primary lens on a background source. The observed four lensed images of this source provide a large Einstein radius of approximately 70 kpc. We have modelled available photometric and spectroscopic data, in the optical and X-ray wavelength ranges, to explore the deflector total and baryonic mass components, through a joint strong gravitational lensing, composite stellar population and X-ray emission analysis. The main results of this work can be summarized as follows:
- From the detected emission lines in our new VLT/X-shooter data, we derive a source redshift of 1.4870.
- For the deflector, we measure a total mass value projected within the Einstein radius of $(40 \pm 1)\times 10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$ and an inner three-dimensional logarithmic slope of the total mass density of $-1.7 \pm 0.2$.
- For the brightest galaxy, we obtain very high values of stellar mass and velocity dispersion of, respectively, $(3 \pm 1)$ $\times$ $10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$ (assuming a Salpeter stellar IMF) and $(450 \pm 80$) km s$^{-1}$ (inside the SDSS 3-diameter fibre).
- We find an upper limit of approximately $3 \times 10^{12}$ M$_\odot$ within $R=150$ kpc for the hot gas mass component of the deflector.
- We measure low projected stellar-to-total mass fractions of 20% and 3–6% within apertures equal to, respectively, 25 kpc (i.e., the effective radius of the brightest galaxy) and 100 kpc.
We remark that atypical strong lensing systems as CSWA 31 are particularly useful to test our understanding of the baryonic and dark-matter mass assembly history of cosmological structures, as imprinted in the mass profile, in the currently accepted $\Lambda$CDM scenario. The high stellar mass value of the brightest galaxy and the large magnitude gap between this and the other lens galaxies might classify CSWA 31 as the most distant fossil candidate studied in detail so far. Improved data on the multiple image systems, on the possible hot gas X-ray emission, and on the central stellar velocity of the brightest galaxy of CSWA 31 would allow to combine effectively the different mass diagnostics in order to measure more precisely the inner steepness and mass of the dark matter halo associated with the deflector. These results would offer invaluable information to be compared against cosmological simulations.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The Dark Cosmology Centre is funded by the DNRF. L.C. acknowledges the support of the EU under a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship, contract PIEF-GA-2010-274117. A.G. acknowledges funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n$^\circ$ 267251 “Astronomy Fellowships in Italy” (AstroFIt). We also acknowledge the use of data from the SDSS data base (http://www.sdss.org/). We thank K. Denney for helping in carrying out the observations and A. Agnello for useful discussions.
[99]{}
Agnello A., Auger M. W., Evans N. W., 2013, MNRAS, 429, 35 Auger M. W., Treu T., Bolton A. S., Gavazzi R., Koopmans L. V. E., Marshall P. J., Bundy K., Moustakas L. A., 2009, ApJ, 705, 1099 Auger M. W., Treu T., Bolton A. S., Gavazzi R., Koopmans L. V. E., Marshall P. J., Moustakas L. A., 2010, ApJ, 724, 511 Barnabè M., Czoske O., Koopmans L. V. E., Treu T., Bolton A. S., 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2215 Barnabè M. et al., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1073 Bartelmann M., 2010, CQGra, 27, 233001 Bell E. F., de Jong R. S., 2001, ApJ, 550, 212 Belokurov V., Evans N. W., Hewett P. C., Moiseev A., McMahon R. G., Sanchez S. F., King L. J., 2009, MNRAS, 392, 104 Brewer B. J., Lewis G. F., Belokurov V., Irwin M. J., Bridges T. J., Evans N. W., 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2521 Cappellari M., Emsellem E., 2004, PASP, 116, 138 Cappellari M. et al., 2012a, Nature, 484, 485 Cappellari M. et al., 2012b, arXiv:1208.3522 Chabrier G., 2003, PASP, 115, 763 Charlot S., Fall S. M., 2000, ApJ, 539, 718 Christensen L. et al., 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1953 Clowe D., Brada[č]{} M., Gonzalez A. H., Markevitch M., Randall S. W., Jones C., Zaritsky D., 2006, ApJ, 648, 109 Conroy C., van Dokkum P., 2012, ApJ, 760, 61 D[é]{}mocl[è]{}s J., Pratt G. W., Pierini D., Arnaud M., Zibetti S., D’Onghia E., 2010, A&A, 517, 52 D’Onghia E., Sommer-Larsen J., Romeo A. D., Burkert A., Pedersen K., Portinari L., Rasmussen, J., 2005, ApJ, 630, 109 Eichner T., Seitz S., Bauer A., 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1918 Falc[ó]{}n-Barroso J., S[á]{}nchez-Bl[á]{}zquez P., Vazdekis A., Ricciardelli E., Cardiel N., Cenarro A. J., Gorgas J., Peletier R. F., 2011, A&A, 532, A95 Gallazzi A., Charlot S., Brinchmann J., White S. D. M., Tremonti C. A., 2005, MNRAS, 362, 41 Gallazzi A., Charlot S., Brinchmann J., White S. D. M., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1106 Gastaldello F., Buote D. A., Humphrey P. J., Zappacosta L., Bullock J. S., Brighenti F., Mathews W. G., 2007, ApJ, 669, 158 Grillo C. et al., 2008, A&A, 486, 45 Grillo C., Lombardi M., Bertin G. 2008, A&A, 477, 397 Grillo C., Gobat R., Lombardi M., Rosati P., 2009, A&A, 501, 461 Grillo C., 2010, ApJ, 722, 779 Grillo C., Gobat R., 2010, MNRAS, 402, 67 Grillo C., Eichner T., Seitz S., Bender R., Lombardi M., Gobat R., Bauer A., 2010, ApJ, 710, 372 Grillo C., Christensen L., 2011, MNRAS, 418, 929 Grillo C., 2012, ApJ, 747, 15 Jones L. R., Ponman T. J., Horton A., Babul A., Ebeling H., Burke, D. J., 2003, MNRAS, 343, 627 Keeton C. R., 2001a, arXiv:astro-ph/0102340 Keeton C. R., 2001b, arXiv:astro-ph/0102341 Khosroshahi H. G., Maughan B. J., Ponman T. J., Jones L. R., 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1211 Limousin M. et al., 2009, A&A, 502, 445 Loeb A., Peebles P. J. E., 2003, ApJ, 589, 29 Maraston C. et al., 2012, arXiv:1207.6114 Modigliani A. et al., 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7737, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series More A., Jahnke K., More S., Gallazzi A., Bell E. F., Barden M., H[ä]{}u[ß]{}ler B., 2011, ApJ, 734, 69 Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, ApJ, 490, 493 Newman A. B., Treu T., Ellis R. S., Sand D. J., 2013, ApJ, 765, 25 Salim S. et al., 2005, ApJ, 619, 39 Salpeter E. E., 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 S[á]{}nchez-Bl[á]{}zquez P. et al., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 703 Schirmer M., Suyu S., Schrabback T., Hildebrandt H., Erben T., Halkola A., 2010, A&A, 514, A60 Schwab J., Bolton A. S., Rappaport S. A., 2010, ApJ, 708, 750 Sonnenfeld A., Treu T., Gavazzi R., Marshall P. J., Auger M. W., Suyu S. H., Koopmans L. V. E., Bolton A. S., 2012, ApJ, 752, 163 Spiniello C., Koopmans L. V. E., Trager S. C., Czoske O., Treu T., 2011, MNRAS, 417, 3000 Suyu S. H., Marshall P. J., Auger M. W., Hilbert S., Blandford R. D., Koopmans L. V. E., Fassnacht C. D., Treu T., 2010, ApJ, 711, 201 Suyu S. H. et al., 2013, ApJ, 766, 70 Thomas D. et al., 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1383 Tortora C., La Barbera F., Napolitano N. R., de Carvalho R. R., Romanowsky A. J., 2012, MNRAS, 425, 577 Treu T., 2010, ARA&A, 48, 87 Treu T., Auger M. W., Koopmans L. V. E., Gavazzi R., Marshall P. J., Bolton A. S., 2010, ApJ, 709, 1195 Ulmer M. P. et al., 2005, ApJ, 624, 124 van Dokkum P., Conroy C., 2010, Nature, 468, 940 Vegetti S., Koopmans L. V. E., Bolton A., Treu T., Gavazzi R., 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1969 Vegetti S., Lagattuta D. J., McKean J. P., Auger M. W., Fassnacht C. D., Koopmans L. V. E., 2012, Nature, 481, 341 Vernet J. et al., 2011, A&A, 536, A105 Vikhlinin A., Kravtsov A., Forman W., Jones C., Markevitch M., Murray S. S., Van Speybroeck L., 2006, ApJ, 640, 691 Zibetti S., Charlot S., Rix H.-W., 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1181 Zitrin A. et al., 2012, ApJ, 749, 97
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Based on data from the X-shooter GTO observations collected at the European Southern Observatory VLT/Kuyuen telescope, Paranal, Chile, under the programme ID 089.A-0222(A).
[^3]: http://redfive.rutgers.edu/$\sim$keeton/gravlens/
[^4]: The formation time is required to be younger than the age of the Universe at the redshift of the BG, $z=0.683$. The star formation timescale can vary between 0 and 1 Gyr$^{-1}$. The fraction of stellar mass produced in a burst is logarithmically distributed between 0.03 and 4, and the duration of the burst can vary between $3\times10^7$ and $3\times10^8$ yr. The models span a range of metallicities from 0.1 to 2 times solar.
[^5]: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Tools/w3pimms.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Conclusions
===========
Almost all networks operate with partial network information at different nodes, requiring nodes to make distributed decisions. While a rich literature exists on design of network protocols and their analysis, there is no prior work to understand the impact of distributed decisions on Shannon-theoretic capacity region. In this paper, we laid foundation to characterize partial network information and studied the impact in several network connectivities. Seeking universal optimality, where local decisions with certain side information are always globally optimal, we discovered that there appears to be a critical minimum information required for the network to allow globally optimal decisions. Our current approach is compound capacity based and our next step is to understand impact of partial information on fading interference channels.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider secrecy obtained when one transmits on a Gaussian Wiretap channel above the secrecy capacity. Instead of equivocation, we consider probability of error as the criterion of secrecy. The usual channel codes are considered for transmission. The rates obtained can reach the channel capacity. We show that the “confusion” caused to the Eve when the rate of transmission is above capacity of the Eve’s channel is similar to the confusion caused by using the wiretap channel codes used below the secrecy capacity.'
author:
-
-
-
title: On Secrecy above Secrecy Capacity
---
Probability of error, Secrecy, Equivocation, Strong converse.
Introduction
============
Information theoretic security is being widely studied in recent times ([@liang], [@blo]). It provides fundamental limits of secret communication. Unlike in cryptography, the information theoretic techniques, are not based on complexity of computational hardness of certain problems. Furthermore, information theoretic security can also be used in a system along with cryptographic techniques to add additional layers of protection to the information transmission or to achieve key agreement and/or distribution.
Information theoretic formulations for ‘reliable communication’ and ‘secrecy’ were provided in classic papers of Shannon [@shannon] and [@shannon1949]. A secret communication system model considers reliable transmission of information from the transmitter to the intended receiver but this information should not be decoded by the eavesdropper. Shannon characterized reliable communication using average probability of error and ‘secrecy’ using equivocation. The properties of equivocation are also discussed in [@shannon1949]. Shannon considered the case of perfect secrecy when equivocation $H(W|Z^n)=H(W)$, where $W$ is the message transmitted, and $Z^n$ is the received symbol at the eavesdropper. This of course implies $I(W;Z^n)=0$. A weaker form of secrecy is $I(W,Z^n) \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$ [@blo]. It is further weakened to $ I(W;Z^n)/n \to 0$ in [@maurer]. This implies that the average probability of error to the eavesdropper goes to 1.
In this set-up of ‘secret communication’ a natural definition of secrecy would be that the intended receiver decodes the message with average probability of error going to zero and the eavesdropper decodes the message with average probability of error going to one. Recently a similar notion of secrecy is also considered in [@jean] and [@mclaughlin]. In [@jean] this notion is used to obtain lattice codes which satisfy such secrecy criteria. In [@mclaughlin] it is pointed out that obtaining practical codes satisfying equivocation criterion is very challenging. Therefore they obtain LDPC codes which can provide high *probability of error to Eve* at comparatively low transmir power. We consider this definition in this paper and study the achievable rates on wiretap channel and show that this natural definition leads to improved transmission rates. Then we relate the secrecy obtained via usual codes in this setup to the secrecy obtained via the wiretap codes. We also relate the probability of error at the eavesdropper to equivocation. In the following we survey the related literature.
‘Wiretap channel’ introduced and studied by Wyner [@wyner1975], captures the physical communication secrecy problem. ‘Wiretap channel’ is modelled as a degraded broadcast channel and assumes that the channel between the transmitter and the receiver is better than the channel from the transmitter to the eavesdropper. Wyner’s work was extended by Leung and Hellman [@hellman1976] to the Gaussian channel. Csiszàr and Körner [@csizar1980] considers a general discrete memoryless broadcast channel, and shows that the secrecy capacity is positive if the main channel to the intended user is more capable than of the eavesdropper, and zero if the wiretapper’s channel is less noisy. Practical coding schemes using LDPC codes for wiretap channel are available in [@thangaraj]. The secrecy over a fading channel was studied in [@gopala2008]. In [@bloch2008], a wire-tap channel with slow fading is studied where an outage analysis with full CSI of the eavesdropper and imperfect CSI of the eavesdropper was performed. It is shown that in wireless channels fading helps to provide secrecy rates even if the average SNR of the main channel is poor compared to the eavesdropper’s channel.
Our notion of secrecy will be related to equivocation based secrecy via converse results in Information theory. The usual converse result considers average probability of error and is called ‘weak converse’. It shows that for a discrete memoryless channel when $R>C$ the probability of decoding error is bounded away from zero [@fin]. The strong converse shows that the maximum probability of decoding error of a MAP (Maximum Aposteriori Probability) decoder tends to one as block length goes to infinity [@wolf]. We will use strong converse to formulate the coding schemes. We will also show that the confusion caused by the usual coding schemes to the eavesdropper is not much different from that caused by wiretap codes.
Fano’s inequality provides a tight lower bound on the error probability in terms of the conditional entropy. A tight upper bound on the error probability in terms of conditional entropy is provided in [@meh] which also finds relations between probability of error in a MAP decoder and the conditional entropy. Relation between error probability and conditional entropy are also provided in [@ho]. We will use these to get bounds on the equivocation at the Eve for our scheme.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section II, we define the model and notation. In Section III, we provide our coding-decoding schemes using average probability of error as the measure of both reliability and secrecy. We show that using these codes one attains secrecy close to that of the wiretap codes. Section IV finds the relation between the chosen criterion of probability of error and equivocation. Section V extends the results to a Gaussian fading channel. We conclude the paper in Section VI.
Model and Notation
==================
We consider a Gaussian Wiretap system (Fig. \[fig1\]) where a transmitter Alice wants to communicate the message to a legitimate receiver Bob. There is also an eavesdropper, Eve, who is trying to get access to the message sent to Bob. The transmitter chooses message $W$ for transmission from a set $\mathcal{W} = \{1, 2,..., M\}, M=2^{nR}$, with uniform distribution. These messages are encoded into codewords $(X_{1}, ..., X_{n})$ with a power constraint $E[X^2] \le P$. At time $i$, Alice transmits $X_i$, Bob receives $Y_{i}=X_{i}+N_{1i}$ and the eavesdropper receives $Z_{i}=X_{i}+N_{2i}$. The noise sequences $\{N_{1i}\}$ and $\{N_{2i}\}$ are assumed to be independent of $\{X_i\}$ and also of each other. Also, we assume that $N_{1i} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_1^2)$ and $N_{2i} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_2^2)$ and $\sigma_1^2 < \sigma_2^2$, where $\mathcal{N}(a,b)$ denotes Gaussian density with mean $a$ and variance $b$. The decoder at Bob estimates the transmitted message as $\tilde{W}$ from $Y^{n} \equiv \{Y_{1}, ..., Y_{n}\}$. It is assumed that Bob as well as Eve know the chosen codebooks. We use $P_e^n(B)$ and $P_e^n(E)$ to denote the average probability of decoding error for block length $n$ at Bob and Eve respectively for the MAP decoder. Our secrecy requirement is that $P_e^n(B) \rightarrow 0$ and $P_e^n(E) \rightarrow 1$.
Capacity Results
================
In this section we characterize the achievable rates for the model in Figure \[fig1\]. Let $C_1= 0.5 \log (1+ P/\sigma_1^2)$ and $C_2=0.5 \log (1+ P/\sigma_2^2)$. Since $\sigma_1^2 <\sigma_2^2$, $C_1 > C_2$. The proof of the following proposition, although simple is given for sake of completeness.
[**[Proposition]{}**]{}: All rates $R$ such that $0<R<C_1$ are achievable for a Gaussian wiretap channel such that the probability of decoding error, $P_e^n(B)$, at Bob goes to zero and the probability of decoding error, $P_e^n(E)$, at eve goes to one as, $n \to \infty$.
[**[Proof]{}**]{}: Consider the region $C_2<R<C_1$. In this region, as in the case of a usual Gaussian channel, we generate $n$ length $iid$ Gaussian codewords with $X \sim \mathcal{N}(0,{P})$. It can be proved using the channel coding theorem for the Gaussian channel [@cover] that any rate $R <C$ can be achieved for the Gaussian channel from Alice to Bob. The condition $R <C_1$ ensures reliable communication from Alice to Bob ensuring that $P_e^n(B) \to 0$ exponentially as $n\to \infty$. Also since $R>C_2$, by the strong converse to the coding theorem (in [@ari] it is proved for discrete alphabet channels but the result extends to the continuous alphabet channels, see, e.g., [@verd]) the average probability of decoding error for any decoder goes to one exponentially as $n\to \infty$. As this happens for any codebook, it is valid for the chosen codebook that gives reliable communication from Alice to Bob.
Now consider the region $0<R<C_2$. In this region we use coding-decoding schemes as above but with reduced power $\overline{P} < P$ such that $0.5 \log (1+ \overline{P}/\sigma_2^2)< R < 0.5 \log (1+ \overline{P}/\sigma_1^2)$. This ensures that we achieve reliable transmission to Bob and secrecy at Eve. $\blacksquare$
Hence any rate $0<R<C$ is achievable with Bob getting the message reliably and eve’s probability of error as large as we wish. The block length $n$ should be chosen large enough to satisfy any target probability of error to Bob and Eve. For example suppose we need $P_e^n(B)<\beta _1$ and $P_e^n(E)>\beta _2$. Then for $P_e^n(E)>\beta _2$, rate $R$ and block length $n$ should be such that ([@poorverdu])
$$R > C_2 - \sqrt{\frac{V}{n}}Q^{-1}(\beta _2) + \frac{\mathrm{log}n} {2}$$
where $Q$ is the function,
$$Q(x) = \frac{}{} \int _{x}^{\infty }e^{-\frac{y^2}{2}}dy ,$$
$V$ is the channel dispersion,
$$V = \frac{S_2}{2} \frac{S_2 + 2}{(S_2 +1)^2} \log _2e$$
and $S_2=P/\sigma _2^2$, the $SNR$ for Eve. Also, for $P_e^n(B)<\beta _1$, $n$ and $R$ should satisfy the inequality in (Theorem 41, [@poorverdu]). These bounds are very accurate even for small $n$. From (1) we see that $R$ does not even need to exceed $C_2$. This improves the rate over the secrecy capacity definition based on equivocation ([@liang]): $$\label{eqn1}
C= 0.5 \log (1+ P/\sigma_1^2)-0.5 \log (1+ P/\sigma_2^2).$$
The equivocation based secrecy systems employ a stochastic encoder whereas in our scheme all rates $ 0 <R < C_1$ can be achieved by the usual encoders employing random codebooks (in practice one can use LDPC and Turbo codes to obtain rates close to $C_1$). For equivocation based schemes also one can get the required probability of error to Bob and Eve by ensuring large enough block length $n$. However the rate obtained can be quite low and it requires more complex encoders.
Numerical Example {#numerical-example .unnumbered}
-----------------
For $\sigma_1^2=0.1$, $\sigma_2^2=1.5$, and $P=20dB$, $P_e^n(B)$ and $P_e^n(E)$ are plotted in Fig 2 for $n=50,100$ and 200. For $P^n_e(B)$ Gallagers random coding bound and for $P_e^n(E)$ Arimoto’s lower bound are plotted (see section IV for these bounds).
In the following we discuss the capacity achieving encoding and decoding of Theorem 1 and show how it provides security close to the equivocation based schemes. Our arguments are general and can be used for non-Gaussian DMC Wiretap channels also.
To achieve rate $R$, $C_1 >R>C_2$, we select an input distribution $P_X$ such that $I(X;Y)>R>I(X;Z)$ where $X \sim P_X$ and $Y$ and $Z$ are the corresponding channel outputs to Bob and Eve respectively. We generate a codebook with $X_1, ..., X_n$ $iid$ $\sim P_X$, $2^{nR}$ independent codewords, where $n$ is chosen such that Bob’s block-probability of error is less than a target value. Bob and Eve can use decoders based on (weak) joint typicality which are asymptotically optimal. Then if Eve receives $Z^n$ on transmission of codeword $X^n$ corresponding to (say) message $1$, probability that $Z^n$ is jointly typical with a codeword corresponding to another codeword is $2^{-nI(X;Z)}$. Let $N$ be the number of codewords other than that of message 1 that are jointly typical with $Z^n$. Let $A_k$ be the event that the $k^{th}$ codeword is jointly typical with $Z^n$. Then
$$N = \sum _{k=2}^{2^{nR}} 1_{\{A_k =1\}}$$
and $\mathsf{E}[N] = (2^{nR}-1)2^{-nI(X;Z)}$.
Since random variable $1_{\{A_k=1\}}$ has an exponential moment, we can also show that $P[|N-\mathsf{E}[N]|>\epsilon]$ decays (super) exponentially with $n$, to zero:
$$P[\mid N-\mathsf{E}[N]\mid>\delta ]\leq e^{-s\delta} 2^{-2^{nR}(n(R-I(X;Z))-\frac{s}{\mathrm{ln}2}}$$
for any $\delta>0$ and any $s>0$ for all $n$ such that $n(R-I(X;Z))>\frac{s}{\mathrm{ln}2}$. Then, for all $n$, $N+1$(including message $1$ also) will be very close to $2^{n(R-I(X;Z))}$. By symmetry, if Eve has no other information, she should select any one of these codewords. Therefore, probability that Eve selects message 1 $\approx 2^{-n(R-I(X;Z))} $. Since $R$ can be taken close to $C_1$ and $I(X;Z) \leq C_2$, probability of error for the Eve can be $2^{-n(C_1-C_2)}$ which is the maximum rate at which Eve’s probability of error decays in the equivocation based secrecy also (when there is *strong* secrecy: $I(X^n;Z^n) \rightarrow 0$). Interpreting secrecy this way is one way of explaining why *strong* secrecy is stronger than *weak* secrecy: $\frac{1}{n}I(X^n;Z^n) \rightarrow 0 $.
For the AWGN Wiretap channel, using sphere packing arguments, one can again connect how the standard coding techniques relate to the secrecy based coding techniques. If the messages are uniformly distributed, ML decoder is optimal. Suppose Eve uses ML decoder. If $x_1(1), ..., x_n(1)$ is transmitted, for ML decoding Eve’s decoder decodes as message $\hat{m}$ on receiving $Z^n$ if $$\hat{m} = arg min \sum _{k=1}^{n} \left(Z_k -x_k (\hat{m})\right)^2.$$ This can be reinterpreted as $\sum_{k=1}^{n}(Z_k-x_k(\hat{m}))^2 < r^2$ for $r$ an appropriate constant. Since $$Z_k - x_k (1) = N_{2k}$$ where ${N_{2k}, k\geq 1}$ is $iid \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma _2^2)$ the receiver noise at Eve, $N_{2k}^2$ are $\chi ^2$-central distributed random variables with finite exponential moments in a neighbourhood of $0$. Thus, by ([@heath]) $$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \beta ^n P\left[\sup_{k\geq n} \mid \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k N_{2i}^2 - \sigma _2^2 \mid >\delta\right] <\infty$$ for any $\delta >0$ and for some $\beta >1$. In particular $P\left[ |\sum_{i=1}^n N_{2i} - n\sigma_2^2| > n\delta\right] \rightarrow 0$ exponentially. Therefore, for a reasonable probability of error, Eve must have $r>\sqrt{n}\sigma_2$ for even moderate values of $n$. Since again, from the above argument $\sum_{k=1}^n Z_k^2 $ is close to $n(P+\sigma_2^2)$ for any transmitted codeword, maximum number of spheres with radius $\sqrt{n}\sigma_2$, within this sphere is
$$\frac{\left(\sqrt{n(P+\sigma_2^2)}\right)^n}{\sqrt{n\sigma_2^2}} = \left(1+\frac{P}{\sigma_2^2}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}.$$
Since we have $2^{nR}$ codewords, in one sphere of radius $\sqrt{n}\sigma_2$ we will have $$\frac{2^{nR}}{\left(1+\frac{P}{\sigma_2^2}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}} = 2^{n(R-C_2)}$$ codewords. Thus Eve will confuse with $2^{n(R-C_2)}$ codewords if $r\geq\sqrt{n}\sigma_2$. This is the same number we obtained above if the decoder uses joint typicality.
In equivocation based security Eve is confused by mapping at the stochastic encoder a message into *multiple* codewords. In the above coding scheme, a stochastic encoder *may not* be used, but still the decoder at Eve is *confused* among multiple codewords. The only difference is that unlike in equivocation case the codewords now with which Eve confuses represent *real messages* (i.e, carry useful information) for Bob thus increasing the transmission rate for Bob. Furthermore, importantly, since in equivocation based approach the total number of messages to be sent is $2^{nR} < 2^{n(C_1-C_2)}$, Eve confuses among $2^{nR}$ messages only, which is no more than the number we obtained in our approach. Thus in a way, the secrecy(confusion) our approach is providing is *no less* than in the equivocation case although we can transmit at rates upto $C_1$.
It will perhaps be useful in our setup that if two messages $W_1$ and $W_2$ are ’close’ to each other in some meaningful way then they should be coded into $X^n$ sequences which are not close to each other in Euclidean space (for AWGN channel, similar care can be taken for other channels). Actually it seems to be the typical case for codes with rates close to capacity.
Wyner [@wyner1975] also discusses the rate region $(R,R_e)$ where $R_e = \limsup_{n \rightarrow \infty}\frac{H(W|Z^n)}{n}$. These Rates in fact turn out to be $R\leq C_1$ and $R_e \leq C_1 - C_2$. Our codebook using the usual point to point capacity achieving code also meets these criteria. But considering secrecy from probability of error point of view advocates using rate point $(C_1,C_1-C_2)$ (in fact sending at rate upto $C_1$ in which *all messages* are secure from Eve) unlike the equivocation view where $(C_1-C_2,C_1-C_2)$ is the preferred point ([@liang], [@elgamal]).
Relation between probability of error and Equivocation
======================================================
In order to further relate our coding scheme to equivocation based secrecy, in this section we compute equivocation at Bob and Eve for our coding.
When $C_2<R<C_1$, $P_e^n(B) \rightarrow 0$, exponentially and $P_e^n(E) \rightarrow 1$ exponentially. By Fano’s inequality [@cover]
$$\label{eqn2}
H(W|Y^n) \le H(P_e^n(B)) + P_e^n(B) nR$$
where $H(p) = -p\log (p) -(1-p)\log (1-p)$. If $P_e^n(B) \leq e^{-\alpha n}$ then, expanding $H(p)$ at $p=0$ via Taylor series we get $H(p)=p^{\prime}\log ((1-p^{\prime})/p^{\prime})$ for some $p^{\prime} \in (0,p)$ and hence $H(P_e^n(B) \leq \alpha ne^{-\alpha n}$. Thus $H(W|Y^n)$ decays exponentially too. Similarly, the upper bound (\[eqn2\]) for $H(W\mid Z^n)$ goes to $nR$ exponentially.
From [@meh] we get more refined results. For Bob, for any $0\leq \rho \leq 1$, $$\label{bob_exp}
H(W\mid Y^n) \leq \left(1+\frac{1}{\rho}\right)e^{-n[E_0(\rho,p)-\rho R]}$$ where $p$ is the distribution of $X$, $E_0(\rho,p)$ is the Gallager’s random coding exponent ([@gal]),
$$\label{gall_bnd}
E_0(\rho,p)=-\mathrm{log}\left( \int_y \left( \int_x p(x)p(y\mid x)^{\frac{1}{1+\rho}}dx \right)^{1+\rho}dy\right)$$
and $p(y\mid x)$ is the channel transition function. Thus, $H(W\mid Y^n) \rightarrow 0$ exponentially.
For Eve, since $I(W;Z^n)\leq nC_2$, $\frac{1}{n}H(W\mid Z^n) \geq R-C_2$ for all codebooks.
A more accurate lower bound on $H(W\mid Z^n)$ can be obtained from [@meh], Theorem 1,
$$\label{merhav_lb}
H(W\mid Z^n)\geq \phi ^*(\pi (W\mid Z^n)),$$
where $\phi^*$ is a piecewise linear, continuous, non-decreasing, convex function provided in [@meh] and $\pi (W\mid Z^n)$ is the average probability of error for the MAP decoder at Eve. $\pi (W\mid Z^n)$ in (\[merhav\_lb\]) can be replaced by the Arimoto’s lower bound ([@ari])
$$\label{prob_err_lb}
\pi(W\mid Z^n) \geq 1-e^{-n\left(E_0(\rho,p)-\rho R\right)}, ~~~~0\geq \rho \geq -1.$$
Minimizing the exponent with respect to $p$ and maximizing w.r.t $\rho$ provides a universal lower bound.
Fading channel
==============
A fading wiretap channel model can be mathematically represented as: $$\label{model1}
Y_{i}= {h}_{i}X_{i} + N_{1i},$$ $$\label{model2}
Z_{i}={g}_{i}X_{i} + N_{2i},$$ where ${h}_{i}, ~{g}_{i}$ are the normalized complex channel gains from Alice to Bob and Eve respectively at instant $i$. We assume that these gains are available at Alice, Bob and Eve. We take $\sigma_1^2=\sigma_2^2=1$. Also denote the instantaneous power gains by $q(i)= |h(i)|^2$ and $r(i)= |g(i)|^2$. The rest of the model is same as in Section II. For this case the capacity achieving signalling scheme based on equivocation at Eve is to transmit at instances when $q > r$ and adapt the instantaneous power according to $q$ and $r$. The capacity is [@gopala2008]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn9}
C_s&=& \int_0^\infty\int_{r}^\infty[ \log(1+q P^*(q, r))-\nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~~~~\log(1+rP^*(q, r))]f(q)f(r)dq dr\end{aligned}$$ where $E[P^*(q,r)] = P$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn10}
P^*(q,r) &=& 0.5 [ \sqrt{(1/r-1/q)^2+ 4/\lambda(1/r-1/q)}+ \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(1/r+1/q)]^{+}\end{aligned}$$ and $\lambda$ is chosen to satisfy the power constraint with equality.
Now we extend our proposition to include fading. We use a scheme similar to that in [@gopala2008] but with the condition $P_e^n(B) \to 0$ and $P_e^n(E) \to 1$ as $n \to \infty$. We can make the following claim: All rates $R$ such that $0<R<C_1$ are achievable for a Gaussian wiretap channel such that the probability of decoding error, $P_e^n(B)$, at Bob goes to zero and the probability of decoding error, $P_e^n(E)$, at eve goes to one as, $n \to \infty$ where
$$\label{eqn11}
C_1= \sup_{P(q,r)} \int_0^\infty\int_{r}^\infty[\log(1+q P(q, r))]f(q)f(r)dq dr.$$
.The optimal power allocation is ’water-filling’ w.r.t. the distribution of $q$ conditioned on $q>r$ (i.e., we transmit only when $q>r$ and optimize power for this case).
Conclusions
===========
This paper uses a new notion of secrecy for improving the rates in a Gaussian wire-tap channel. This new notion is based on using probability of error as the measure of secrecy at both the intended receiver and also the eavesdropper. In such a set up, it is shown that the random codes used for point to point communication can be used to provide secrecy as well. We relate this notion of secrecy to the equivocation based secrecy. The results are also extended to a fading channel.
We believe that this notion of secrecy is strong enough for practical purposes (and in a way can provide secrecy equivalent to the equivocation based approach) , but uses usual channel codes and provides the maximum possible rates for reliable transmission to the intended receiver. Although we have shown these concepts on a Wiretap channel, these ideas can obviously be used on other channels as well.
[1]{}
S. Arimoto, “On the Converse to the Coding Theorem for Discrete Memoryless Channels," *IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory.*, May, 1973.
J. C. Belfiore and F. Oggier, “Secrecy Gain: a Wiretap Lattice Code Design," *ISITA 2010*.
M. Bloch, J. Barros, M.R.D. Rodrigues, S.W. McLaughlin, “Wireless information-theoretic security," *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 2515–2534, June 2008.
M. Bloch and J. Barros, “Physical layer security," *Cambridge Univ. Press*, 2011.
T. Cover and J.A. Thomas, “Elements of information theory," *John Wiley and Sons*, 2ed., 2006.
I. Csiszàr and J.Korner, “Broadcast channels with confidential messages," *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 82, no. 23, pp. 339–348, May 1978.
A. E. Gamal, Y. H. Kim, “Network Information Theory," *Cambridge University Press, New York, USA*, 2011.
R. M. Fano, “Transmission of Information," *MIT press*, 1961.
M. Feder and N. Merhav, “Relations Between Entropy and Error Probability," *IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory.*, VOL. 40, NO. 1, Jan. 1994.
A. Feinstein, “ Foundations of information theory," *McGraw-Hill, N.Y.*, 1954.
R.G. Gallagar, “Information Theory and Reliable Communication," *John Wiley and Sons*, 1968.
A. J. Goldsmith and P. P. Varia, “Capacity of Fading Channels with Channel Side Information," *IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory.*, Vol. 43, No. 6, Nov. 1997.
P. K. Gopala, L. Lai, H. El Gamal, “On the secrecy capacity of fading channels," *IEEE Trans. Info. Theory*, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 4687–4698, October 2008.
C. R. Heathcote, “Complete exponential convergence and some related topics," *Jounal of Applied Probability*, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 217–256, August 1967
S. W. Ho and S. Verdu, “On the Interplay Between Conditional Entropy and Error Probability," *IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory.*, Vol. 56, No. 12, Dec. 2010.
D. Klinc, J. Ha, S.W. McLaughlin, J. Barros and and B. J. Kwak, “LDPC Codes for the Gaussian Wiretap Channel," *IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security*, Vol. 6, No. 8, pages 532- 540 September 2011.
S. K. Leung-Yan-Cheong and M. E. Hellman, “Gaussian wire-tap channel," *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 82, no. 24 (4), pp. 451–456, July 1978.
Y. Liang, H.V. Poor, S. Shamai, “Information theoretic security," *Foundations and Trends in Communications and Information Theory*, vol. 5, no. 4-5 (2008), pp. 355–580, 2009.
U. M. Maurer and S. Wolf, “Information-theoretic key agreement: From weak to strong secrecy for free," *Proceedings of the EUROCRYPT 2000 on Advances in Cryptology*,, vol. 1807, pp. 352�368, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2000.
A. J. Menezes, P. C. V. Oorschot, and S. A. Vanstone, “Handbook of applied cryptography," *Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press*, 1996.
Y. Polyanskiy, H.V. Poor and S. Verd�u, ”Channel Coding rate in the finite block length regime," *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.*, VOL 56, No. 5, May 2010.
Y. Polyanskiy and S. Verd�u, “Arimoto Channel Coding Converse and R�enyi Divergence," *48 Annual Allerton Conference*, Monticello, IL, 2010.
C.E Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication," *Bell System Technical Journal*, vol. 27, pp. 379�423, 623-656, July, October, 1948.
C.E. Shannon, “Communication of secrecy systems," *Bell Syst. Tech. J.*, vol. 28, pp. 656–-715, October 1949.
C. E. Shannon, “Probability of error for optimal codes in a Gaussian channel," *Bell system Technical Journal.*, Vol. 38, No. 3, May 1959.
A. Thangaraj, S. Dihidar, A.R. Calderbank, S.W. McLaughlin, and J. M. Merolla, “Applications of LDPC Codes to the Wiretap Channel," *IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory.*, Vol. 53, No. 8, August 2007.
J. Wolfowitz, “Codinq Theorems of Information Theory," *Prentice-Hall N J*, 2 ed Engelwood Cliffs, 1964.
A. Wyner, “The wire-tap channel," *Bell Syst. Tech. J.*, vol. 54, pp. 1355–-1387, 1974.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
$^{\ast}$Cognitive Science Research Group, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK\
{c.santosarmendariz, m.purver}@qmul.ac.uk\
$^{\dagger}$Department of Knowledge Technologies, Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia\
{senja.pollak, nikola.ljubesic}@ijs.si\
$^{\ddagger}$University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Computer and Information Science, Slovenia\
{matej.ulcar, marko.robnik}@fri.uni-lj.si\
$^{\diamondsuit}$Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki, Finland\
[email protected]\
$^{\mathsection}$Department of Data Analysis, Texta, Estonia\
[email protected]\
bibliography:
- 'CoSimLex.bib'
title: 'CoSimLex: A Resource for Evaluating Graded Word Similarity in Context'
---
Introduction
============
Recent work in language modelling and word embeddings has led to a sharp increase in use of context-dependent models such as ELMo [@PetersEtAl18ELMO] and BERT [@devlin2019bert]. These models, by providing representations of words which depend on the surrounding context, allow us to take account of the effects not only of discrete differences in word sense but of the more graded effects of context. However, evaluation of these models has generally been in terms of either their performance as language models, or their effect on downstream tasks such as sentiment classification [@PetersEtAl18ELMO]: there are few resources available which allow evaluation in terms of the properties of the embeddings themselves, or in terms of their ability to model human perceptions of meaning. There are established methods to evaluate word embedding models intrinsically via their ability to reflect human similarity judgements (see e.g. WordSim-353 [@finkelstein2002placing] and SimLex-999 [@HillEtAl15SimLex]) or model analogies [@mikolov2013efficient]; however, these have generally ignored context and treated words in isolation. The few that do provide context (e.g. SCWS [@huang2012improving] and WiC [@pilehvar2019wic]) focus on word sense and discrete effects, thus missing some of the effects that context has on words in general, and some of the benefits of context-dependent models. To evaluate current models, we need a way to evaluate their ability to reflect similarity judgements *in context*: how well do they model the effects that context has on word meaning?
In this paper we present our ongoing efforts to define and build a new dataset that tries to fill that gap: **CoSimLex**. CoSimLex builds on the familiar pairwise, graded similarity task of SimLex-999, but extends it to pairs of words as they occur in context, and specifically provides two different shared contexts for each pair of words. This will provide a dataset suitable for intrinsic evaluation of state-of-the-art contextual word embedding models, by testing their ability to reflect human judgements of word meaning similarity in context, and crucially, the way in which this varies as context is changed. It goes beyond other existing context-based datasets by taking the *gradedness* of human judgements into account, thus applying not only to polysemous words, or words with distinct senses, but to the phenomenon of context-dependency of word meaning in general. In addition the new dataset is multi-lingual, and includes four less-resourced European languages: Croatian, Estonian, Finnish and Slovene.
The dataset will be used as the gold standard for the final evaluation of a currently running task at SemEval2020: **Task 3 Graded Word Similarity in Context**.[^1]
Background {#sec:bg}
==========
From the outset, our main motivation for the development of this dataset came from an interest in the cognitive and psychological mechanisms by which context affects our perception of the meaning of words. There have been many different ways in the literature to look at this phenomenon, which lie in the intersection of several different fields of research, and a detailed discussion of the different approaches to this problem is out of the scope of this paper; here, we present two of the most prominent ideas that helped define what we were trying to capture, and made an impact in the design of the dataset and its annotation process. We then look at previous datasets that deal with similarity in context.
Contextual Modulation
---------------------
Within the field of lexical semantics, proposed an interesting compromise between those linguists that saw words as associated with a number of discrete senses and those that thought that the perceived discreteness of lexical senses is just an illusion. He distinguishes two different manners in which sentential context modifies the meaning of a word. First, the context can select for different discrete senses; if that is the case, the word is described as *ambiguous*, and the process is referred as **contextual selection of senses**. The second way works within the scope of a single sense, modifying it in an unlimited number of ways by *highlighting* certain semantic traits and *backgrounding* others. This process is called **contextual modulation of meaning**, and the word is said to be *general* with respect to the traits that are being modulated. This effect is by nature not discrete but continuous and fluid, and since every word is *general* to some extent: it can be argued that a word has a different meaning in every context in which it appears.
Some examples can help to see the different ways in which these phenomena work in real life:
1. We finally reached the bank.
2. At this point, the bank was covered with brambles.
3. Sue is visiting her pregnant cousin.
4. Arthur poured the butter into a dish.
In the first sentence the context doesn’t really help us to select a sense for the word *bank*. This creates some tension: because bank is such an ambiguous word, we need to select a sense in order for the sentence to properly work. This is an example of *ambiguity* as opposed to *generality*. In the second sentence one of the senses is clearly more *normal* than the other. sees the evaluation of *contextual normality* as the main mechanism for sense selection. In the third sentence, the word *cousin* could in principle refer to a male or a female. The context is clearly telling us that we are talking about a female cousin, however in this case *cousin* is a *general* word that includes male, female, but as well tall, short, happy and sad cousins. The meaning of *cousin* is being *modulated* by the context to promote the “female” trait; but notice that the sentence “Sue is visiting her cousin” doesn’t create any tension: *cousin* is not ambiguous in the true sense. The last sentence is another example of *contextual modulation* highlighting the “liquid” trait for *butter*. It is interesting to notice that in this case not only “liquid” is highlighted, related traits like “warm” can be highlighted as a consequence.
These two processes happen very commonly together, with the same context forcing a sense and then modulating its expression. Many different explanations have been proposed for the emergence of these discrete senses, and some may have their origins in very commonly modulated meaning but, according to Cruse, once a discrete sense is established it become some different to *contextual modulation* and follows different rules:
1. John prefers bitches to dogs.
2. ? John prefers bitches to canines.
3. ? Mary likes mares better than horses.
Here the first sentence works because one of the discrete senses associated to the word *dog* refers only to male dogs. This cannot be explained by *contextual modulation*. If that was the case the second sentence, which replaces *dog* with *canine*, would work and *canine* would be modulated in the same way than *dog* was. The fact that neither *canine* nor *horse* can be modulated in this same way indicates that meaning modulation and sense selection are two, strongly interconnected, but distinctive mechanisms of contextual variability.
Given this, it seems clear that the contextual selection of senses would modify human judgements of similarity. For example, the word *bank*, when used in a context which selects its financial institution sense, should be scored as more similar to other kinds of financial institution (e.g. *building society*) than when in a context which selects the geographic sense of the word. However, we should also expect that a word like *butter*, when contextually modulated to highlight its “liquid”, “hot” and “frying” traits, should score more similar to *vegetable oil* than when contextually modulated to highlight its “animal sourced”, “dairy”, and “creamy” traits. This kind of hypothesis would be testable given a new context-dependent similarity dataset.
Interestingly, Cruse doesn’t find the contrast between polysemy and homonymy particularly helpful, and dislikes the use of these terms because they promote the idea that the primary semantic unit is some common lexeme and each of the different senses are just variants of it. He instead believes the primary semantic unit should be the *lexical units*, a union of a single sense and a lexical form, and finds it more useful to look at the contrast between discrete and continuous semantic variability. It is true that homonymous words will always fall into the discrete category, but most common understandings of polysemy would include both discrete and continuous variations.
Salience Manipulation
---------------------
Until now we have looked at contextual variability as an exclusively linguistic phenomenon, a point of view rooted in lexical semantics. We looked at how the context of the sentence affects the meaning of the word. In contrast, cognitive linguistics, and the more specific cognitive semantics, look at language and meaning as an expression of human cognition more generally [@evans2018].
This approach champions concepts, more specifically *conceptual structures*), as the true recipient of meaning, replacing words or lexical units. These linguistic units no longer refer to objects in an external world but to concepts in the mind of the speaker. Words get their meaning only by association with *conceptual structures* in our minds. The process by which we construct meaning is called conceptualisation, an embodied phenomenon based in social interaction and sensory experience.
Cognitive linguists gravitate to themes that focus on the flexibility and the ability of the interaction between language and conceptual structures to model continuous phenomena, like prototyping effects, categories, metaphor theory and new ways to look at polysemy. Within the cognitive tradition, the idea of *conceptual spaces*, characterised by *conceptual dimensions*, has been especially influential [@gardenfors2000; @gardenfors2014geometry]. These dimensions can range from concrete ones like weight, temperature and brightness, to very abstract ones like awkwardness or goodness. Once a domain, or selection of dimensions is established, a concept is defined as a region (usually a convex one) of the conceptual space. An example would be to define the colour *brown* as a region of a space made of the dimensions *Red*, *Green* and *Blue*. This geometric approach lends itself perfectly to model phenomena like prototyping (central point of the region), similarity (distance), metaphor (projection between different dimensions) and, more importantly for our concerns here, fluid changes in meaning due to the effects of context.
use conceptual spaces to look at *meaning negotiation* in conversation. They investigate the mechanisms, consciously or unconsciously, employed by the people involved in conversation to negotiate meaning of vague predicates, in order to satisfy the coordination needed for communication. These tools help them to decide areas in which they don’t agree as well. All these processes work by manipulating the conceptual dimensions in which meaning is represented. We will refer to them as **salience manipulation** because their main role is to dynamically rise or lower the perceived importance of certain conceptual dimensions.
The main mechanism by which speakers can modify salience of conceptual dimensions are the automatic *priming* effects described by, for example, : mentioning specific words early in the conversation can make the dimensions associated with such words more relevant. Speakers can also explicitly try to remove dimensions from the domain in order to promote agreement, or bring in new dimensions by using *metaphoric projections*. Because metaphors can be understood as mappings that transfer structure from one domain to another, they can introduce new dimensions and meaning to the conversation.
> The lion Ulysses emphasizes Ulysses’ courage but hides his condition of a castaway in Ogiya. Thus metaphors act by orienting communication and selecting dimensions that may be more or less favorable to the speaker. By suggesting that a storm hit the financial markets, a bank manager can move the conversation away from dimensions pertaining to his own responsibilities and instead focus on dimensions over which he has no control. [@warglien2015meaning]
From this perspective, then, the change in meaning is no longer a change in the meaning of a specific word, but a change in the mind of the hearer (or reader), a change in their *mental state* triggered by their interaction with the context. In addition, the expectation that priming is the main mechanism for modifying salience has its own implications: found that priming effects are much stronger in the context of as natural dialog as possible, when speakers had no time constraints and could respond at their own pace.
This has implications for the design of our dataset and annotation methodology: it is crucial for us to create an annotation process in which the annotator interacts with the context, and does so in as natural a way as possible, before they rate the similarity. Because priming is an automatic process, them knowing that they should be annotating similarity in context becomes a lot less important.
One last interesting consequence of looking at this type of contextual effect is that because the change is in the mind of the annotator, the words that we are rating don’t need to be part of the context. From the classical lexical semantics perspective, meaning change comes from the interaction between the word and the rest of the context; but the cognitive approach suggests that if the context triggers changes in the salience of conceptual dimensions related to particular words being annotated, we should see change in the scoring of similarity even if those words are not explicitly present in the context. Our goal in this dataset is therefore to create an annotation process that allows us to capture both of these possible contextual phenomena.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
**Word1: population & **Word2: people & **SimLex: $\mu$ 7.68 $\sigma$ 0.80\
**Context1 & & **Context1: $\mu$ 6.49 $\sigma$ 1.40\
\
**Context2 & & **Context2: $\mu$ 7.73 $\sigma$ 1.77\
\
**************
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
Existing Datasets
-----------------
There are a few examples of datasets which take context into account. However, so far these have been motivated by discrete *sense disambiguation*, and therefore take a view of word meaning as discrete (taking one of a finite set of senses) rather than continuous; they are therefore not suited for the more graded effects we are interested to look into.
The **Stanford Contextual Word Similarity (SCWS)** dataset [@huang2012improving] does contain graded similarity judgements of pairs of words in the context of organically occurring sentences (from Wikipedia). However it was designed to evaluate a discrete multi-prototype model, so the focus was on the contexts selecting for one of the word senses. This resulted in them presenting each of the two words of the pair in their own distinct context. From our point of view this approach has some drawbacks: First, even in the cases where they annotated the same pair twice, we find ourselves with four different contexts, each affecting the meaning of each of the instances of the words independently, and it is not possible to produce a systematic comparison of contextual effects on pairwise similarity. Second, beyond the independent lexical semantics of each word being affected by their independent *local context*, the annotator is being presented with two completely independently occurring contexts at the same time. Even if the two context did organically occur on their own, this combination of the two didn’t, and we have seen before how crucial we think keeping the interaction with the context as natural as possible is. There is no easy way to know how this newly assembled *global context* affects the cognitive state of the annotators and their perception of similarity. The same goes for the contextually-aware models trying to predict their results. Joining the contexts before feeding them to the model could create conflicting, difficult to predict effects, but feeding each context independently is fundamentally different to what humans annotators were presented with.
In addition to these limitations of the independent contexts approach, the scores found in SCWS show a worryingly low inter-rater agreement (IRA), measured as the Spearman correlation between different annotators. As pointed out by [@pilehvar2019wic], the mean IRA between each annotator and the average of the rest, which is considered a human-level upper bound for model’s performance, is 0.52; while the performance of a simple context-independent model like word2vec [@mikolov2013efficient] is 0.65. Examining the scores more in detail, we find that many scores show a very large standard deviation, with annotators rating the same pair very differently. One possible reason for this may lie in the annotation design: the task itself does not directly enforce engagement with the context, and the words were presented to annotators highlighted in boldface, making it easy to pick them out from the context without reading it; thus potentially leading to a lack of engagement of the annotators with the context. A lot of these limitations were addressed by the more recent **Words-in-Context (WiC)** dataset [@pilehvar2019wic]. With a more direct and straightforward take on word sense disambiguation, each entry of the dataset is made of two lexicographer examples of the same word. The entry is completed with a positive value (T) if the word sense in the two examples/context is the same, or with a negative value (F) if the contexts point to different word senses. One advantage of this design is that it forces engagement with the context; another is that it creates a task in which context-independent models like word2vec “would perform no better than a random baseline”. Human annotators are shown to produce healthy inter-rater agreement scores for this dataset. However the dataset is again focused in looking at discrete word senses and cannot therefore capture continuous effects of context in the judgements of similarity between different words.
These datasets are also available only in English, and do not allow models to be evaluated across different languages.
Dataset and Task Design
=======================
CoSimLex will be based on pairs of words from SimLex-999 [@HillEtAl15SimLex]; the reliability and common use of this dataset makes it a good starting point and allows comparison of judgements and model outputs to the context-independent case. For Croatian, Estonian and Finnish we are using existent translations of Simlex-999 [@Mrksic.etal2017; @venekoski2017finnish; @KittaskThesis2019]. In the case of Slovene, we have produced our own new translation, following the methodology used by for Croatian.
The English dataset consists of 333 pairs; the Croatian, Estonian, Finnish and Slovene datasets of 111 pairs each. Each pair is rated within two different contexts, giving a total of 1554 scores of contextual similarity. This poses a difficult task: to find suitable, organically occurring contexts for each pair; this task is more pronounced for languages with less resources, and as a result the selection of pairs is different for each language.
Each line of CoSimLex will be made of a pair of words selected from Simlex-999; two different contexts extracted from Wikipedia in which these two words appear; two scores of similarity, each one related to one of the contexts; and two scores of standard deviation. Please see Figure \[fig:example\] for an example from our English pilot.
#### Evaluation Tasks and Metrics
The first practical use of CoSimLex will be as a gold standard for the public SemEval 2020 task 3: *Graded Word Similarity in Context*. The goal of this task is to evaluate how well modern context-dependent embeddings can predict the effect of context in human perception of similarity. In order to do so we define two subtasks and two metrics:
#### Subtask 1 - Predicting Changes:
In subtask 1, participants must predict the *change* in similarity ratings between the two contexts. In order to evaluate it we calculate the difference between the scores produced by the model when the pair is rated within each one of the two contexts. We do the same with the average of the scores produced by the human annotators. Finally we calculate the uncentered Pearson correlation. A key property of this method is that any context-independent model will predict no change and get strongly penalised in this task.
#### Subtask 2 - Predicting Ratings:
In subtask 2, participants must predict the absolute similarity rating for each pair in each context. This will be evaluated using Spearman correlation with gold-standard judgements, following the standard evaluation methodology for similarity datasets [@HillEtAl15SimLex; @huang2012improving]. Good context-independent models could theoretically give competitive results in this task, however we still expect context-dependent models to have a considerable advantage.
-------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
**Word1: čovjek (adult male) & **Word2: dijete (child) & **\
**Context1 & & **Context1: $\mu$ 2.5 $\sigma$ 1.76\
\
\
**Context2 & & **Context2: $\mu$ 4.25 $\sigma$ 0.95\
\
\
**************
-------------------------------------------------------------- -- --
Annotation Methodology
======================
As starting point for our annotation methodology, we adapted the annotation instructions used for SimLex-999. This way we benefit from its tested method of explaining how to focus on *similarity* rather than *relatedness* or *association* [@HillEtAl15SimLex]. For English we adopted a modified version of their crowd-sourcing process: we use *Amazon Mechanical Turk*, with the same post-processing and cleaning of the data (a necessary step when working with this kind of crowd-sourcing platform), and achieve similarly good inter-annotator agreement. For the less-resourced languages, crowdsourcing is not a viable option due to lack of available speakers, and we recruit annotators directly. This means fewer annotators (for Croatian and Slovene, 12 annotators vs 27 in English), however the average quality of annotation is a lot higher and the data requires less post-processing - see Section \[sec:status\] for details.
Finding Suitable Contexts
--------------------------
For each word pair we need to find two suitable contexts. These contexts are extracted from each language’s Wikipedia. They are made of three consecutive sentences and they need to contain the pair of words, appearing only once each. English is by far the easiest language to work with, not only because of the amount and quality of the text contained in the English version of Wikipedia but because the other four languages are highly inflected (Croatian, Estonian, Finnish and Slovene). In order to overcome this we work with data from [@11234/1-1989][^2] which contains tokenised and lemmatised versions of Wikipedia for 45 languages.
We first find all the possible candidate contexts for each word pair, and then select those candidates that are most likely to produce different ratings of similarity. The differences are expected to be small, especially in words that don’t present several senses and are not highly polysemous, so we need a process that has the most chances of finding contexts that make a difference. We use a dual process in which we use ELMo and BERT to rate the similarity between the target pair within each of the candidate contexts. Then we select the 2 contexts in which ELMo scored the pair as the most similar, and the 2 contexts in which it scored them as most different. We do the same using BERT scores. This gives us 4 contexts in which our target words are scored as very similar by the models and 4 contexts in which they are scored as very different.
The final selection of two contexts is made by expert human annotators, one per language. We construct online surveys with these 8 contexts and ask them to select the two in which they think the word pair is the most and the least similar, trying to maximise the potential contrast in similarity. In addition, we ask them how much potential for a difference they see in the contexts selected. This gives us not only the contexts we need, but a predicted performance and direction of change for use in later analysis.
In the case of less resourced languages, the smaller size and lower quality of the Wikipedia text resources require some extra steps to ensure the quality of the final annotation. For these languages we run the contexts through a set of heuristic filters to try to remove badly constructed ones. In addition we produce 16 candidates instead of 8 for the expert annotators to choose from, and we add the possibility for them to delete parts of the context in order to make them easier to read. Adding text is not allowed, in order to ensure that contexts are natural.
Contextual Similarity Annotation
--------------------------------
The next step is to obtain the contextualised similarity annotations. Our goal is to capture the kind of contextual phenomena discussed in Section \[sec:bg\]: lexical meaning modulation and conceptual salience manipulation. In order to maximise our chances we define three goals:
- We want the interaction with the context to be as natural as possible, so as to maximise priming effects and capture the potential change in the salience of conceptual dimensions.
- We need a way in which annotators have the chance to account for lexical modulation within the sentence.
- We need to avoid the apparent lack of engagement we saw in the SCWS annotators.
With these goals in mind we designed a two-step mixed annotation process. Our online survey interface is composed of two pages per pair of words and context (each annotator scores only one of the contexts). In the first page the annotators are presented with the context, and asked to read it and come up with two words “inspired by it”. Once this is complete, the second page shown presents the context again, but with the pair of words now highlighted in bold; they are now asked to rate the similarity of the pair of words within the sentence.
The second page is the main scoring task; it is designed to capture changes in scores of similarity due both to lexical modulation and — because we hope the annotators are still primed by their recent previous engagement with the context — the changes in the salience of conceptual dimensions. The separate task on the first page is intended to make annotators engage fully with the whole context, while maintaining a natural interaction with it to maximise any priming effects. One of the possible problems we identified in the the SCWS annotation process is the fact that the words were always highlighted in bold, making it easy for annotators (Amazon Mechanical Turk workers) to just look at the pair of words in isolation and to not read the rest of the contexts. Our initial task is designed to prevent this (the words are not bold in the first page).
In English, given the resources available, we follow SimLex-999 closely: we will use Amazon Mechanical Turk to get 27 annotators per pair and context. Annotators do not score the same pair twice: 27 annotators score the pair within one context and another 27 in the other. This means the whole dataset can be annotated at the same time. Reliability of annotations will be ensured by an adapted version of SimLex-999’s post-processing, which includes rating calibration and the filtering of annotators with very low correlation to the average rating. In addition, we will use responses to the first annotation question to check annotator engagement with the context text and thus filter low quality raters.
For Croatian, Estonian, Finnish and Slovene we recruit annotators directly: this means we have less of them (12 vs 27) but we expect the quality of the annotation to be better (and pilots confim this – see below). It also means, howeve, that we must use the same annotators to rate the two contexts of each pair. This has an avantage, because it controls for the variation in the particular judgement of different annotators, but means that we introduce a week’s delay in between annotations in order to make sure they don’t remember, and are influenced by, their own previous score.
Current Status {#sec:status}
==============
#### Methodology prototyping
We have run three pilots with 13 pairs of words each to confirm the annotation design and methodology. Each study tested a slight variation: in the first pilot, annotators rated *relatedness* in addition to similarity; the second focused on similarity, and tested the use of contexts related to the target words but not containing them; the third experimented with marking the target words in the context paragraphs using boldface font.
The first pilot confirmed that (as with SimLex) similarity is a more useful metric for this task than relatedness, displaying a higher inter-annotator agreement and more variation between contexts; we therefore use similarity as the basis of our dataset, as described above.
The results of the second pilot saw significant contextual effects in many examples, including some in which the target words weren’t included in the contexts. This indicates that our method seems suitable for capturing priming effects and salience manipulation, or at least some kind of cognitive effects different from lexical contextualisation. The third pilot showed much lower agreement and lower difference between contexts: we take this as confirmation of our suspicion (from analysis of SCWS) that marking the target words makes it easy for annotators to ignore the rest of the context paragraph, and therefore use the two-stage annotation methodology described above, in which target words are *not* initially marked.
#### Results
The results from tests so far are very promising in terms of both the difference in judgements between contexts, and inter-annotator agreement. In the English pilot with the closest design to the current one (the second pilot described above), we collected 27 different ratings for each pair and each context: see Table \[tab:eng-pilot\] for detailed results. In addition to the English pilots we have run two pilots in Croatian and Slovene. Please see Table \[tab:cro-pilot\] and Figure \[fig:croatian\] for the general results of the Croatian pilot and one of the best examples that came from it respectively.
Inter-rater agreement (IRA) was measured as Spearman correlation between each rating and the average: for the English, pilot, the mean was $\rho$ = 0.79, with average standard deviation $\sigma$ = 1.6; these compare well to other related datasets (SimLex-999 $\rho$ = 0.78, SCWS $\rho$ = 0.52). IRA was very high for the Slovene pilot $\rho$ = 0.82; significantly lower but still reasonable for the Croatian one $\rho$ = 0.68.
In the English pilot, about a third of the pairs show a significant difference in the ratings between contexts, as assessed by a Mann-Whitney U test at $p<0.05$. The Slovene and Croatian pilots are very small (6 annotators per pair/context) and it is currently difficult to know how significant their results are (but see Table \[tab:cro-pilot\] for indications as to the most likely differences); they have however provided invaluable feedback on methods required for the particularities of these highly inflected, less-resourced languages.
At the moment of writing this paper we are preparing to run a second round of pilots in Croatian and Slovene to test the design presented in the previous section. In the pilots so far, annotators were not asked explicitly to rate the words “within the contexts”; while this should have encouraged pure priming effects, minimizing lexical modulation effects, and the fact that we obtained significant differences is encouraging, we expect that larger and more reliable differences will be obtained if annotators are explicitly told to consider the contexts. Our new pilots therefore use a more explicit question about similarity “in the context of the sentence” in order to promote strong lexical effects.
Word1 Word2 SimLex Context1 Context2 STDev\_SL STDev\_C1 STDev\_C2
------------- ---------- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------- -----------
captain sailor 5.00 5.20 6.44 1.43 1.93 1.77
corporation business 9.02 9.24 9.51 1.44 0.78 0.69
god spirit 7.30 5.65 5.30 1.63 2.47 1.90
guilty ashamed 6.38 7.78 6.14 0.47 1.88 1.73
lawyer banker 1.88 1.62 2.54 1.18 1.51 2.01
leader manager 7.27 8.08 7.65 1.43 1.19 1.34
population people 7.68 6.49 7.73 0.80 2.37 1.92
rabbi minister 7.62 7.85 8.11 1.35 2.29 1.21
sheep cattle 4.77 4.37 4.47 0.47 2.36 2.04
task woman 0.68 0.15 0.15 0.34 0.42 0.40
wealth prestige 6.07 5.20 6.67 1.55 2.05 1.74
Word1 Word2 Predicted Potential Context1 Context2 STDev\_C1 STDev\_C2
---------- ----------- ----------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
bog duh Noticeable difference 3.75 2.50 0.96 2.17
čovjek dijete Small difference 2.50 4.25 1.76 0.96
ideja slika Noticeable difference 3.33 2.00 2.16 0.82
nedavan nov Big difference 4.17 3.25 1.47 2.22
područje regija Small difference 5.50 5.33 0.58 0.82
presudan važan Small difference 5.33 5.00 0.82 0.82
rijeka dolina Noticeable difference 0.33 0.75 0.82 0.50
škola pravo Noticeable difference 1.75 0.50 2.22 0.84
sunce nebo Small difference 1.50 2.50 1.87 1.73
uništiti izgraditi Small difference 0.25 0.83 0.50 1.60
velik težak Noticeable difference 3.75 1.67 1.71 2.66
znati vjerovati Small difference 2.25 2.17 1.71 1.72
Conclusion
==========
The growing use of context-dependent language models and representations in NLP motivates the need for a dataset against which they can be evaluated, and which can test their ability to reflect human perceptions of context-dependent meaning. CoSimLex will provide such a dataset, and do so across a number of less-resourced languages as well as English. The full dataset will be available for the evaluation stage of Semeval2020 at the beginning of February 2020, and be made public when the competition is over (before the LREC2020 conference).
Acknowledgements
================
This paper is supported by European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 825153, project EMBEDDIA (Cross-Lingual Embeddings for Less-Represented Languages in European News Media). The first author is also supported by the EPSRC and AHRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Media and Arts Technology (EP/L01632X/1).
Bibliographical References {#reference}
==========================
[^1]: https://competitions.codalab.org/competitions/20905
[^2]: http://hdl.handle.net/11234/1-1989
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a simple method for the detection of Bessel beams with arbitrary radial and azimuthal indices, and then demonstrate it in an all-digital setup with a spatial light modulator. We confirm that the fidelity of the detection method is very high, with modal cross-talk below 5%, even for high orbital angular momentum carrying fields with long propagation ranges. To illustrate the versatility of the approach we use it to observe the modal spectrum changes during the self-reconstruction process of Bessel beams after encountering an obstruction, as well as to characterize modal distortions of Bessel beams propagating through atmospheric turbulence.'
address: |
$^{1}$University of Carthage, Engineering School of Communication of Tunis (Sup’Com), GreS’Com Laboratory, Ghazala Technopark, 2083, Ariana, Tunisia\
$^{2}$CSIR National Laser Centre, P.O. Box 395, Pretoria 0001, South Africa\
$^{3}$School of Physics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X54001, Durban 4000, South Africa
author:
- 'Abderrahmen Trichili,$^{1}$ Thandeka Mhlanga,$^{2,3}$ Yaseera Ismail,$^{3}$ Filippus S. Roux,$^{2}$ Melanie McLaren,$^2$ Mourad Zghal,$^{1}$ and Andrew Forbes,$^{2,3}$'
title: Detection of Bessel beams with digital axicons
---
[99]{} J. Durnin,“Exact solutions for nondiffracting beams. I. The scalar theory,” (4), 651-654 (1987). J. Durnin, J. J. Miceli, and J. H. Eberly, “Diffraction-Free Beams,” (15), 1499-1501 (1987). D. McGloin, and K. Dholakai, “Bessel beams: diffraction in new light,” Contemp. Phys.[**46**]{}(1),15-28 (2005). M. Mazilu, D. J. Stevenson, F. Gunn-Moore, and K. Dholakia “Light beats the spread: non-diffracting beams,” Laser Photon. Rev. [**4**]{}(4), 529-47 (2010). A.Dudley, M.Lavery, M. Padgett, A. Forbes, “Unraveling Bessel Beams," Opt. Photon. News, [**24**]{}(6), 22-29 (2013) M. McLaren, T. Mhlanga, M. J. Padgett, F. S. Roux, and A. Forbes, “Self-healing of quantum entanglement after an obstruction,” Nat. Commun. [**5**]{}:3248 (2014).
M. McLaren, M. Agnew, J. Leach, F. S. Roux, M. J. Padgett, R. W. Boyd, and A. Forbes, “Entangled Bessel-Gaussian beams, ” (21), 23589-23597 (2012). H. C. Ramírez, R. R. Alarcón, F. J. Morelos, P. A. Q. Su, J. C. G. Vega, and A. B. U’Ren, “Observation of non-diffracting behavior at the single-photon level, ” (28), 29761-29768 (2012). F. Gori and G. Guattari, “Bessel-Gauss beams,” (6), 491-495 (1987). M. A. Mahmoud, M. Y. Shalaby, and D. Khalil, “Propagation of Bessel beams generated using finite-width Durnin ring,” (2), 256-263 (2013). R. M. Herman and T. A. Wiggins, “Production and uses of diffractionless beams,”(6), 932-942 (1991). J. Alrt and K. Dholakia, “Generation of high-order bessel beams by use of an axicon,” , 277-301 (2000). A. Vasara, J. Turunen, and A. T. Friberg, “Realization of general nondiffracting beams with computer-generated holograms,”(11), 1748-1754 (1989). C. Paterson, R. Smith, “Higher-order Bessel waves produced by axicon-type computer-generated holograms,” , 121-130 (1996). R. Bowman, N. Muller, X. Zambrana-Puyalto, O. Jedrikiewicz, P. Di Tramapani, and M.J. Padgett, “Efficient generation of Bessel beam arrays by means of an SLM,” Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics [**199**]{}, 159-166 (2011). Z. Y. Rong, Y. J. Han, S. Z. Wang, and Cheng-Shan Guo, “Generation of arbitrary vector beams with cascaded liquid crystal spatial light modulators,” (2), 1636-1644 (2014). R. Vasilyeu, A. Dudley, N. Khilo, and A. Forbes, “Generating superpositions of higher-order Bessel beams," (26), 23389-23395 (2009). A. Dudley, Y. Li, T. Mhlanga, M. Escuti, and A. Forbes, “Generating and measuring nondiffracting vector Bessel beams," (17), 3429-3432 (2013). A. Dudley, T. Mhlanga, M. Lavery, A. McDonald, F. S. Roux, M. J. Padgett, and A. Forbes, “Efficient sorting of Bessel beams, ” (1), 165-171 (2013). A. Mourka, M. Mazilu, E. M. Wright, and K. Dholakia “Modal characterization using principal component analysis: application to Bessel, higher-order Gaussian beams and their superpositions,” Scientific Reports [**3**]{}, 1422 (2013). M. Mazilu, A. Mourka, T. Vettenburg, E. M. Wright, and K. Dholakia “Simultaneous determination of the constituent azimuthal and radial mode indices for light fields possessing orbital angular momentum,” Appl. Phys. Lett. [**100**]{}, 231115 (2012). I. Litvin, M. McLaren, and A. Forbes, “A conical wave approach to calculating Bessel-Gauss beam reconstruction after complex obstacles,” , 1078-1082 (2009). Z. Bouchal, J.Wanger, M. Chulpl, “Self-reconstruction of a distorted nondiffracting beam,” , 207-211 (1998). I. A. Litvin, A. Dudley, F. S. Roux, and A. Forbes, “Azimuthal decomposition with digital holograms,” (10), 10996-11004 (2012). A. Janssen, S. van Haver, P. Dirksen, J. Braat,“Zernike representation and strehl ratio of optical systems with numerical aperture,”J. Mod. Opt. [**55**]{}(7), 1127-1157 (2008). J. Ou, Y. Jiang, J. Zhang, H. Tang, Y. He, S. Wang, J. Liao, “Spreading of spiral spectrum of Bessel-Gaussian beam in non-Kolmogorov turbulence,” , 95-99 (2014). W. Nelson, J. P. Palastro, C. C. Davis, and P. Sprangl, “Propagation of Bessel and Airy beams through atmospheric turbulence,” (3), 603-609 (2014).
Introduction
============
Since their discovery in 1987 by Durnin[@Durnin1; @Durnin2], Bessel beams have been extensively studied due to their nominally non-diffracting behaviour and their ability to self-reconstruct after encountering an obstruction [@twist; @mazilu1; @sorter2] . These beams are characterized by a radial wave vector ($k_{r}$) and azimuthal index ($\ell$), which results from their helical wave front structure. As a result Bessel beams carry orbital angular momentum (OAM), even down to the single photon level[@obstruction3; @photon1; @photon2]. However an ideal Bessel beam requires an infinite amount of energy; this beam is practically approximated in a finite region by Bessel Gaussian (BG) Beams[@BGbeam]. Such beams have been generated using annular ring-slits in the far field[@Durnin2; @Durnin3], axicons in the near field[@axicon1; @axicon2], as well as the digital equivalent of both[@SLM1; @SLM2; @SLM3; @SLM4]. These beams have been further explored by generating their superpositions[@superposition], and converting them into vector BG beams[@BG]. An emerging area of research is optical communication with the spatial modes of light, where Bessel beams are also mooted to play a role, yet very little work has been done on the topic of two-dimensional detection of such modes [@sorter; @mazilu2; @mazilu3].
In this paper we demonstrate the detection of Bessel beams by a simple scheme comprising only a helical axicon and a lens. We outline the concept, illustrate how it may be implemented optically and then demonstrate it with digitally encoded phase-only holograms. We apply the tool to the self-healing process of Bessel beams after an obstruction as well as to Bessel beams propagating through turbulence, and observe the changing radial and azimuthal spectrums for the first time. Our results will be relevant to future studies in optical communication with Bessel beams. Such fields are interesting for communication purposes since they carry OAM over extended distances in a nominally non-diffracting manner, and hence may be advantageous for signal delivery to distance receivers.
Theoretical background {#theory}
======================
Bessel-Gaussian modes
---------------------
The Bessel-Gaussian (BG) modes [@BGbeam] in polar coordinates, are given by $$E_{\ell}^{BG}(r,\Phi,z)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}J_{\ell}\left( \frac{z_{R}k_{r}r}{z_{R}-iz} \right)\exp ( i\ell\Phi-ik_{z}z)\exp \left
(\frac{ik_{r}^{2}z w_{0}^{2}-2kr^{2}}{4(z_{R}-iz)} \right),
\label{bgmode}$$ where $\ell$ is the azimuthal index (a signed integer), ${\rm J}_{\ell}(\cdot)$ is the Bessel function of order $\ell$; $ k_{r}$ and $k_{z}$ are the radial and longitudinal wave numbers. The initial radius of the Gaussian profile is $w_{0}$ and the Rayleigh range is $z_{R}=\pi w_{0}^{2}/\lambda$. The propagation constant $k$ and the parameters $k_{r}$ and $k_{z}$ are related by $k^{2} = k_{r}^{2} + k_{z}^{2}$. While BG modes are nominally non-diffracting, they nevertheless have a finite propagation distance when generated in the laboratory, given by
$$z_{max} = \frac{w_{0}\lambda}{2\pi k_{r}}.
\label{zmax}$$
Bessel beams also exhibit reconstruction of the amplitude and phase of the beam after encountering an obstruction [@obstruction; @obstruction2]. For such beams, there is a minimum distance behind an obstacle of radius $R_{obs}$ before reconstruction occurs. This distance represents the shadow region which is given by $$z_{min}=\frac{2\pi R_{obs}}{k_{r}\lambda}.$$
The BG modes form a complete orthonormal basis in terms of which an arbitrary paraxial laser beam may be expanded. In the case of Bessel beams we note that there are two indices used to describe the field: the discrete parameter, $\ell$, and the continuous parameter $k_r$. The former determines the helicity of the wavefronts and is related to the OAM content of the field, while the latter determines the spacing of the intensity rings observed in Bessel beams.
Concept
-------
The task is to find the modal content of the field for all values of $\ell$ and $k_r$, which we will show can be achieved with a simple optical set-up comprising a lens and a digital hologram encoded to represent an axicon. Recall that a Gaussian beam illuminating an axicon produces a BG beam as the output. From the reciprocity of light the reverse process must convert a BG beam back into a Gaussian beam. Herein lies the possibility of detecting particular BG modes, since Gaussian modes may readily be detected by single mode fibers. The concept is shown schematically in Fig. \[concept\]. Consider first a ray-based analysis following a heuristic argument: an incoming Gaussian mode is converted by the first axicon to a BG mode of radial wavevector $k_r = k (n-1) \gamma$, where $n$ is the refractive index of the axicon and $\gamma$ is the axicon cone angle. This results in conical refraction at an angle $\theta = (n-1)\gamma = k_r/k$. If this BG mode passes through an identical (reversed) axicon, then the refracted rays are collimated, or equivalently, the Gaussian mode is generated again. If, on the other hand, the cone angle of the second axicon does not match the cone angle of the incoming BG beam, then the outgoing rays will not be perfectly corrected and equivalently a pure Gaussian mode will not be formed. This detection is therefore $k_r$ specific and is reminiscent of a conventional lens telescope but with conical axicons rather than spherical lens. With the addition of a spiral plate with transmission function $\exp(i\ell \phi)$ the detection method becomes specific to the BG order $\ell$ as well.
![A diagram illustrating the generation and the detection of Bessel-Gaussian beams. (a) The BG beam is generated using a programmed hologram of an axicon, illuminating by a Gaussian beam, and exists in a finite region, $z_{max}$. An obstacle placed in the center of the BG region obstructed the generated beam for a minimum distance, $z_{min}$, after which the BG mode reconstructs. (b-e) experimental beam images of a Bessel beam of order $\ell=1$ at four different positions. (f) The BG beam is detected at the far field of a programmed hologram of a second axicon.[]{data-label="concept"}](concept.eps){width="12cm"}
This heuristic argument made more concrete by considering the problem from a physical optics perspective and employing digital holograms for the detection. The detection hologram may be written as $$t_{SLM} = \exp(i \tilde{k}_r r - i\ell \phi),
\label{axtr}$$
where the first term represents an axicon to detect a BG with a radial wavevector of $\tilde{k}_r$ and the second term specifies the order, $\ell$. Such a hologram is shown in Fig. \[spekbess\] (a) and the BG mode that it will detect in Figs. \[spekbess\] (b) and (c). An inner product measurement is performed optically with the same set-up by considering the signal at the origin of the focal plane of the lens [@OAM1]. The resulting signal can be calculated numerically from $$g_{out} = {\cal F} \left\{ E_{\ell}^{BG} \right\} \otimes {\cal F} \left\{ t_{SLM} \right\} ,
\label{axconv}$$ where $g_{out}$ represents the field at the output plane (focal plane of the lens), $\cal F$ is the Fourier transform, $\otimes$ denotes the convolution process and $E_{\ell}^{BG}$ is the incoming BG beam defined in (\[bgmode\]). The angular spectrum of a BG mode and the Fourier transform of the transmission function both have the shape of an annular ring. Provided that the radii of these annular rings (which represent the $k_{r}$ values of the modes) are equal, the convolution of these rings will produce a bright spot with a Gaussian profile in the center of the output plane, as shown in Fig. \[spekbess\] (d). This central peak is surrounded by a ring of twice the radius.
![Experimental images of (a) a digital hologram for the detector of a BG mode with $\ell= 3$ and (b) a BG mode profile of $\ell= 3$ and (c) its Fourier transform (annular ring). The signal at the detector is shown for the scenarios of (d) matching $k_r$ and $\ell$ and (e) matching in $\ell$ but no matching in $k_r$. The black and white insets show the theoretical results.[]{data-label="spekbess"}](f2d.eps){width="10cm"}
If there is a mismatch in the respective radii ($ k_{r}$ values) the central spot will itself become a small ring with a low intensity in the center, which will cause a negligible signal on the detector, as shown in Fig. \[spekbess\] (e). To quantify this we note that the width of the annular ring (${\cal F} \left\{ E_{\ell}^{BG} \right\}$) is governed by the radius of the Gaussian envelope of the BG mode. On the other hand, the width of the ring due to ${\cal F} \left\{ t_{SLM} \right\}$ is determined by the size of the SLM and is therefore much smaller than the corresponding width for the BG mode. We’ll therefore assume that the ring for the axicon transmission function is vanishingly thin. The convolution of the two rings produces a function consisting of two rings with radii that are respectively equal to the sum and difference of the radii of the original rings. Thus if the original radii were equal the convolution produces a central spot. Conversely, if these original radii differ the intensity at the center of the output is given by $\exp[-(\Delta R/w_0)^2]$, where $\Delta r$ is the difference between the original radii. For $\Delta R > 1.5 w_0$ the intensity at the center is essentially zero and the corresponding functions are considered to be orthogonal. Likewise, if the $\ell$ value of the BG mode is different from that of the transmission function of the SLM, they won’t canceled during the convolution process. Such a mismatch in $\ell$ values will cause the central peak in the convolution to have a phase singularity in the center and thus a central intensity null, which will produce a negligible signal on the detector. Hence the BG mode detection method is sensitive to both radial ($k_{r}$) and azimuthal ($\ell$) indices.
Experimental Setup and Results
==============================
The experimental realization of the BG mode decomposition comprises of two parts: (1) the generation of a BG beam with known parameters (modal profile) and (2) the detection of this beam by modal analysis. This is accomplished by the optical system shown in Fig. \[setup\], where the created BG beam on $\mathrm{SLM_{1}}$ is assumed to be our “unknown” beam. A HeNe laser was expanded with a 3$\times$ telescope and directed onto a spatial light modulator (SLM), denoted as $\mathrm{SLM_{1}}$, with a beam width of $w_0 = 1$ mm. The SLM (Holoeye, PLUTO-VIS, $1920 \times 1080$ pixels, with a pixel pitch of $8 \mu$m) was calibrated for a $2\pi$ phase shift at a wavelength of 633 nm. $\mathrm{SLM_{1}}$ was programmed with the conical phase of an axicon, plus a helical phase with an azimuthal index $\ell$ ranging from -10 to 10.
![A schematic of the experimental setup for accomplishing the decomposition of a Bessel field. The Lenses $\mathrm{L_{1}}$, $\mathrm{L_{2}}$, $\mathrm{L_{3}}$, $\mathrm{L_{4}}$ and $\mathrm{L_{5}}$ have focal lengths $f_{1}=100$ mm, $f_{2}=300$ mm, $f_{3}=500$ mm, $f_{4}$ =$500$ mm and $f_{5}$=150 mm, respectively. A is the filtering aperture. $\mathrm{SLM_{1}}$ and $\mathrm{SLM_{2}}$ denote the two spatial light modulators and M represents a mirror. The detector was a CCD camera.[]{data-label="setup"}](setup1.eps){width="10cm"}
The resulting image was filtered through the $4f$ imaging system, and propagated a distance of $z_{max} = 340$ mm (for $k_r = 31250$ rad/m) onto the detection SLM, denoted as $\mathrm{SLM_{2}}$, where the transmission function was scanned through the spectrum of $\ell$ and $k_r$ values and the resulting signal detected by a CCD camera placed after a Fourier transforming lens ($\mathrm{L_5}$).
![(a) Bessel beam radial, $ k_{r}$, decomposition for $\ell=1$. Units of $k_r$ are rad/pixel. (b) Bessel beam azimuthal, $\ell$, decomposition for $ k_{r}=0.25$ rad/pixel.[]{data-label="graphs"}](f4edited.eps){width="10cm"}
A full modal decomposition was done in $\displaystyle k_{r}$ and $\ell$ at the plane $\displaystyle z = z_{max}$ with the results shown in Fig. \[graphs\] (a) and Fig. \[graphs\] (b). The uncertainty in detection of the order $\ell$ is clearly negligible while that for the radial wavevector is approximately 5% (one std dev). It is clear that a wide range of Bessel modes can be detected quickly and accurately with this scheme. Next, we illustrate the versatility of our approach by applying it to two perturbation studies: the self-healing of Bessel beams after an obstacle and the propagation of Bessel beams through turbulence. We use our detection method to experimentally observe the change in modal spectrum during these processes.
Bessel Reconstruction
---------------------
A circular opague disk, with a radius of $R_{obs}=300$ $\mu$m, was used as the obstruction. The disk was initially placed at $\frac{3}{4} z_{max}$ for a BG of $ k_{r}=0.25$. The detection was done at $z = \frac{3}{4} z_{max}$ while the disk was moved away from the detection plane until exceeding the self-healing distance of $z_{min}=9.5$ cm. The radial and azimuthal spectrum was measured before the obstruction and then at various distances after the obstruction until the self-healing process completed. We observed (see Fig. \[withoutobstruction\]) minimal azimuthal distortion of the mode due to the obstruction, but significant broadening of the radial modes. This broadening reduces as the beam self-heals, returning to the initial spectrum after the self-healing distance. While the self-healing of Bessel beams has been studied extensively before, this is the first time that the process has been observed using modal analysis.
![(a) Azimuthal decomposition ($\ell$ detection) of the fully obstructed beam and (b) $k_{r}$ decomposition without an obstruction and then at three planes with the obstruction.[]{data-label="withoutobstruction"}](obstructiondetection.eps){width="10cm"}
Bessel propagation through turbulence
-------------------------------------
Finally, we applied our tool to the study of Bessel beams propagating through turbulence, a topic that has received much theoretical attention of late. We simulated atmospheric turbulence using a diffractive plate encoded for Kolmogorov turbulence, which for the purposes of this study we characterize by the Strehl ratio [@SR]. The turbulence plate was placed at $\frac{1}{2} z_{max}$ and the detector at $z = z_{max}$. Two turbulence strengths were used corresponding to Strehl ratios of SR = 0.2 and SR = 0.03, with the impact on the Bessel modes shown in Fig. \[turbulence1\]. Without the plate the results are identical to those shown earlier: narrow $k_r$ and $\ell$ spectrums with little cross-talk, as seen in Figs. \[turbulence2\] (a) and (b). At medium turbulence levels (SR = 0.2), the $k_r$ spectrum broadens and so does the OAM spectrum \[Figs. \[turbulence2\] (a) and (c)\], becoming wider \[Figs. \[turbulence2\] (a) and (d)\] as the turbulence becomes very strong (SR = 0.03). These results are consistent with that predicted by theory[@turbulence1; @turbulence2], and serves to illustrate the versatility of the tool.
![Images of a Bessel-Gaussian mode profile for $\ell= 1$ (a) without turbulence, after passing a turbulence of (b) SR=0.2 and (c) SR=0.03.[]{data-label="turbulence1"}](turbulenceimages.eps){width="10cm"}
![ (a) $k_{r}=0.25$ rad/pixel decomposition for different strehl ratio’s. (b) $\ell$ decomposition spectrum without turbulence. (c) and (d) $\ell$ decomposition spectrum for SR=0.2 and SR=0.03, respectively.[]{data-label="turbulence2"}](turbulence.eps){width="10cm"}
Conclusion
==========
We have presented a versatile technique to experimentally realize the detection of Bessel beams using digital axicons programmed on a spatial light modulator. We have shown the ability to distinguish both the radial and azimuthal indices of such beams, a core requirement for optical communication protocols if the bit rate per photon is to be increased by exploiting all the degrees of freedom of spatial modes. In addition we have considered two applications of the tool and observed the modal changes to an incoming Bessel beam due to both amplitude and phase perturbations resulting from an opaque obstacle and a turbulence plate, respectively. The ability to modally resolve such fields will find uses in both quantum and classical studies.
Acknowledgment
==============
This work has been supported by African Laser Centre (ALC) project “Towards spatial mode control in fibres for high bit rate optical communication”. The authors wish to thank Angela Dudley for useful advice.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Guanfeng Liang and Nitin Vaidya\
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and\
Coordinated Science Laboratory\
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign\
[email protected], [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'PaperList.bib'
title: |
Network-Aware Byzantine Broadcast\
in Point-to-Point Networks using Local Linear Coding [^1]
---
[^1]: This research is supported in part by Army Research Office grant W-911-NF-0710287 and National Science Foundation award 1059540. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies or the U.S. government.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'auto\_generated.bib'
title: 'Measurement of differential and integrated fiducial cross sections for Higgs boson production in the four-lepton decay channel in $\Pp \Pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7$ and $8\TeV$'
---
=1
$Revision: 330691 $ $HeadURL: svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/HIG-14-028/trunk/HIG-14-028.tex $ $Id: HIG-14-028.tex 330691 2016-03-04 18:47:55Z alverson $
Introduction {#sec:IntroductionPAS}
============
The observation of a new boson consistent with the standard model (SM) Higgs boson [@Englert:1964et; @Higgs:1964ia; @Higgs:1964pj; @Guralnik:1964eu; @Higgs:1966ev; @Kibble:1967sv] was reported by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations in 2012 [@Aad:2012tfa; @Obs:2012gu]. Subsequent measurements confirmed that the properties of the new boson, such as its couplings and decay width, are indeed consistent with expectations for the SM Higgs boson [@Chatrchyan:2013lba; @Aad:2013wqa; @CMS:2014ega; @Aad:2015gba; @Aad:2015zhl] (and references given therein).
In this paper we present measurements of the integrated and differential cross sections for the production of four leptons via the $\PH \to 4\ell$ decays ($\ell = \Pe$, $\mu$) in pp collisions at centre-of-mass energies of 7 and 8. All cross sections are measured in a restricted part of the phase space (fiducial phase space) defined to match the experimental acceptance in terms of the lepton kinematics and topological event selection. The ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ denotes the Higgs boson decay to the four-lepton final state via an intermediate pair of neutral electroweak bosons. A similar study of the Higgs boson production cross section using the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ decay channel has already been performed by the ATLAS Collaboration [@Aad:2014tca], while measurements in the $\PH \to 2\gamma$ decay channel have been reported by both the ATLAS and CMS collaborations [@Aad:2014lwa; @CMS:HIG-14-016].
The integrated fiducial cross sections are measured using $\Pp \Pp$ collision data recorded with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC corresponding to integrated luminosities of [$5.1\fbinv$]{} at 7and [$19.7\fbinv$]{} at 8. The measurement of the ratio of cross sections at 7 and 8is also performed. The differential fiducial cross sections are measured using just the 8data, due to the limited statistics of the 7data set. The cross sections are corrected for effects related to detector efficiency and resolution. The fiducial phase space constitutes approximately 42% of the total available phase space, and there is no attempt to extrapolate the measurements to the full phase space. This approach is chosen to reduce the systematic uncertainty associated with the underlying model of the Higgs boson properties and production mechanism. The remaining dependence of each measurement on the model assumptions is determined and quoted as a separate systematic effect. Due to the strong dependence of the cross section times branching fraction on the mass of the Higgs boson ($m_{\PH}$) in the region around 125, the measurements are performed assuming a mass of $m_{\PH} = 125.0\GeV$, as measured by the CMS experiment using the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ and $\PH \to 2\gamma$ channels [@CMS:2014ega]. This approach also allows an easier comparison of measurements with the theoretical estimations.
The differential fiducial cross sections are measured as a function of several kinematic observables that are sensitive to the Higgs boson production mechanism: transverse momentum and rapidity of the four-lepton system, transverse momentum of the leading jet, separation in rapidity between the Higgs boson candidate and the leading jet, as well as the accompanying jet multiplicity. In addition, measurements of the ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross section, and of its ratio to the corresponding ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross section are also performed using the 8 TeV data. These measurements provide tests of the SM expectations, and important validations of our understanding of the detector response and methodology used for the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross section measurement. The results of the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross section measurements are compared to theoretical calculations in the SM Higgs sector that offer up to next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) accuracy in perturbative QCD, and up to next-to-leading-order (NLO) accuracy in perturbative electro-weak corrections.
All measurements presented in this paper are based on the experimental techniques used in previous measurements of Higgs boson properties in this final state [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa; @Khachatryan:2014kca]. These techniques include: algorithms for the online event selection, algorithms for the reconstruction, identification and calibration of electrons, muons and jets, as well as the approaches to the event selection and background estimation.
This paper is organized as follows. The CMS detector and experimental techniques are briefly described in Section \[sec:DetectorObjects\]. The data sets and simulated samples used in the analysis are described in Section \[sec:DatasetsSimulationPAS\]. The event selection and background modelling are presented in Section \[sec:EventsBackground\]. The fiducial phase space used for the measurements is defined in Section \[sec:Fiducial\], while the procedure for extracting the integrated and differential cross sections is presented in Section \[sec:Methodology\]. Section \[sec:SystematicsPAS\] discusses the systematic uncertainties in the measurements. Section \[sec:Results\] presents the results of all measurements and their comparison with the SM-based calculations.
The CMS detector and experimental methods {#sec:DetectorObjects}
=========================================
The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6 internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8. Within the solenoid volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward calorimetry extends the pseudorapidity coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors to $|\eta| < 5$. Muons are measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [@Chatrchyan:2008zzk].
The reconstruction of particles emerging from each collision event is obtained via a particle-flow event reconstruction technique. The technique uses an optimized combination of all information from the CMS sub-detectors to identify and reconstruct individual particles in the collision event [@CMS-PAS-PFT-09-001; @CMS-PAS-PFT-10-002]. The particles are classified into mutually exclusive categories: charged hadrons, neutral hadrons, photons, muons, and electrons. Jets are reconstructed from the individual particles using the anti-$\kt$ clustering algorithm with a distance parameter of 0.5 [@antikt], as implemented in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fastjet</span> package [@Cacciari:fastjet2; @Cacciari:2011ma]. Energy deposits from the multiple pp interactions (pileup) and from the underlying event are subtracted when computing the energy of jets and isolation of reconstructed objects using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FastJet</span> technique [@Cacciari:2007fd; @Cacciari:2008gn; @Cacciari:2011ma].
Details on the experimental techniques for the reconstruction, identification, and isolation of electrons, muons and jets, as well as on the efficiencies of these techniques can be found in Refs. [@CMS-PAS-PFT-10-001; @CMS-PAS-PFT-10-002; @CMS-PAS-PFT-10-003; @CMS:2011aa; @Chatrchyan:2012xi; @Chatrchyan:2013sba; @Khachatryan:2015hwa]. Details on the procedure used to calibrate the leptons and jets in this analysis can be found in Ref. [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa].
Data and simulation samples {#sec:DatasetsSimulationPAS}
===========================
The data set analyzed was collected by the CMS experiment in 2011 and 2012, and corresponds to integrated luminosities of [$5.1\fbinv$]{}of 7collision data and [$19.7\fbinv$]{}of 8collision data, respectively. The set of triggers used to collect the data set is the same as the one used in previous measurements of Higgs boson properties in four-lepton final states [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa; @Khachatryan:2014kca].
Descriptions of the SM Higgs boson production in the gluon fusion (${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$) process are obtained using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes 2.3</span> [@deFlorian:2012mx; @Grazzini:2013mca], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg V2</span> [@powheg; @powhegvv], and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg MiNLO HJ</span> [@Hamilton:2012np] generators. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span> generator is a partonic level Monte Carlo (MC) generator that provides a description of the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ process at NNLO accuracy in perturbative QCD and next-to-next-to-leading-logarithmic (NNLL) accuracy in the resummation of soft-gluon effects at small transverse momenta [@deFlorian:2012mx; @Grazzini:2013mca]. Since the resummation is inclusive over the QCD radiation recoiling against the Higgs boson, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span> is considered for the estimation of fiducial cross sections that are inclusive in the associated jet activity. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span> estimations are obtained by choosing the central values for the renormalization and factorization scales to be $m_{\PH}=125.0\GeV$. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg</span> generator is a partonic level matrix-element generator that implements NLO perturbative QCD calculations and additionally provides an interface with parton shower programs. It provides a description of the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ production in association with zero jets at NLO accuracy. For the purpose of this analysis, it has been tuned using the damping factor $hdump$ of $104.16\GeV$, to closely match the Higgs boson $\pt$ spectrum in the full phase space, as estimated by the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span> generator. This factor minimises emission of the additional jets in the limit of large $\pt$, and enhances the contribution from the Sudakov form factor as $\pt$ approaches zero [@powheg; @powhegvv]. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg MiNLO HJ</span> generator is an extension of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg V2</span> generator based on the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MiNLO</span> prescription [@Hamilton:2012np] for the improved next-to-leading-logarithmic accuracy applied to the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ production in association with up to one additional jet. It provides a description of the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ production in association with zero jets and one jet at NLO accuracy, and the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ production in association with two jets only at the leading-order (LO) accuracy. All the generators used to describe the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ process take into account the finite masses of the bottom and top quarks. The description of the SM Higgs boson production in the vector boson fusion (VBF) process is obtained at NLO accuracy using the generator. The processes of SM Higgs boson production associated with gauge bosons ([$\mathrm{V} \PH$]{}) or top quark-antiquark pair (${\ensuremath{\PQt \PAQt \PH}\xspace}$) are described at LO accuracy using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pythia 6.4</span> [@Sjostrand:2006za]. The MC samples simulated with these generators are normalized to the inclusive SM Higgs boson production cross sections and branching fractions that correspond to the SM calculations at NNLO and NNLL accuracy, in accordance with the LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group recommendations [@Heinemeyer:2013tqa].The samples of the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ and VBF processes are used together with the samples of the [$\mathrm{V} \PH$]{}and [$\PQt \PAQt \PH$]{}processes to model the SM signal acceptance in the fiducial phase space and to extract the results of the fiducial cross section measurements following the method described in Section \[sec:Methodology\]. These samples, together with the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg MiNLO HJ</span> samples of the alternative description of the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ process, are used to compare the measurement results to the SM-based theoretical calculations in Section \[sec:Results\].
In order to estimate the dependence of the measurement procedure on the underlying assumption for the Higgs boson production mechanism, we have used the set of MC samples for individual production mechanisms described in the previous paragraph. In addition, in order to estimate the dependence of the measurement on different assumptions of the Higgs boson properties, we have also simulated a range of samples that describe the production and decay of exotic Higgs-like resonances to the four-lepton final state. These include spin-zero, spin-one, and spin-two resonances with anomalous interactions with a pair of neutral gauge bosons ($ \PZ \PZ$, $ \PZ \gamma^{*}$, $\gamma^{*}\gamma^{*}$) described by higher-order operators, as discussed in detail in Ref. [@Khachatryan:2014kca]. All of these samples are generated using the generator for the description of NLO QCD effects in the production mechanism, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">JHUGen</span> [@Gao:2010qx; @Bolognesi:2012mm; @Anderson:2013afp] to describe the decay of these exotic resonances to four leptons including all spin correlations.
The MC event samples that are used to estimate the contribution from the background process $\Pg\Pg \to \PZ \PZ$ are simulated using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MCFM 6.7</span> [@Campbell:2011bn], while the background process $\PQq\PAQq \to 4\ell$ is simulated at NLO accuracy with the generator including $s$-, $t$-, and $u$-channel diagrams. For the purpose of the ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross section measurements, we have also separately modelled contributions from the $t$- and $u$-channels of the $\PQq\PAQq~(\to \PZ \PZ^{*})\to 4\ell$ process at NLO accuracy with .
All the event generators described above take into account the initial- and final-state QED radiation (FSR) effects which can lead to the presence of additional hard photons in an event. Furthermore, the and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">JHUGen</span> event generators take into account interference between all contributing diagrams in the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ process, including those related to the permutations of identical leptons in the $4\Pe$ and $4\mu$ final states. In the case of the LO, NLO, and NNLO generators, the sets of parton distribution functions (PDF) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CTEQ6L</span> [@cteq66], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CT10</span> [@CT10], and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MSTW2008</span> [@MSTW08] are used, respectively.
All generated events are interfaced with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pythia 6.4.26</span> Tune $Z2^{*}$ to simulate the effects of the parton shower, multi-parton interactions, and hadronization. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pythia 6.4.26</span> $Z2^{*}$ tune is derived from the $Z1$ tune [@Field:2010bc], which uses the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CTEQ5L</span> parton distribution set, whereas $Z2^{*}$ adopts <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CTEQ6L</span> [@Pumplin:2002vw]. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span> generator does not provide an interface with programs that can simulate the effects of hadronization and multi-parton interactions. In order to account for these effects in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span> estimations, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span> generator is used to first reweight the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen</span> events simulated without multi-parton interaction and hadronization effects in a phase space that is slightly larger than the fiducial phase space. After that, the multi-parton interaction and hadronization effects are simulated using and the reweighted <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen</span> events. The reweighting is performed separately for each observable of interest for the differential, as well as for the integrated cross section measurements. This procedure effectively adds the non-perturbative effects to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span> partonic level estimations.
The generated events are processed through a detailed simulation of the CMS detector based on [@Agostinelli:2002hh; @GEANT] and are reconstructed with the same algorithms that are used for data analysis. The pileup interactions are included in simulations to match the distribution of the number of interactions per LHC bunch crossing observed in data. The average number of pileup interactions is measured to be approximately 9 and 21 in the 7 and 8data sets, respectively.
The selection efficiency in all the simulated samples is rescaled to correct for residual differences in lepton selection efficiencies in data and simulation. This correction is based on the total lepton selection efficiencies measured in inclusive samples of $\PZ$ boson events in simulation and data using a “tag-and-probe” method [@CMS:2011aa], separately for 7 and 8collisions. More details can be found in Ref. [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa].
Event selection and background modelling {#sec:EventsBackground}
========================================
The measurements presented in this paper are based on the event selection used in the previous measurements of Higgs boson properties in this final state [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa; @Khachatryan:2014kca]. Events are selected online requiring the presence of a pair of electrons or muons, or a triplet of electrons. Triggers requiring an electron and a muon are also used. The minimum of the leading and subleading lepton are 17 and 8, respectively, for the double-lepton triggers, while they are 15, 8 and 5for the triple-electron trigger. Events with at least four well identified and isolated electrons or muons are then selected offline, if they are compatible with being produced at the primary vertex. The primary vertex is selected to be the one with the highest sum of $\pt^2$ of associated tracks. Among all same-flavour and opposite-sign (SFOS) lepton pairs in the event, the one with an invariant mass closest to the nominal $\PZ$ boson mass is denoted $\PZ_{1}$ and retained if its mass, $m(\PZ_1)$, satisfies $40 \le m(\PZ_1) \le 120\GeV$. The remaining leptons are considered and the presence of a second $\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ pair, denoted $\PZ_{2}$, is required with condition $12 \le m(\PZ_2) \le 120\GeV$. If more than one $\PZ_{2}$ candidate satisfies all criteria, the pair of leptons with the largest sum of the transverse momenta magnitudes, $\Sigma |\pt|$, is chosen. Among the four selected leptons $\ell_{i}$ ($i = 1..4$) forming the $\PZ_{1}$ and $\PZ_{2}$ candidates, at least one lepton should have $\pt \ge 20\GeV$, another one $\pt \ge 10\GeV$, and any opposite-charge pair of leptons $\ell_{i}^{+}$ and $\ell_{j}^{-}$, irrespective of flavor, must satisfy $m({\ell_{i}^{+}\ell_{j}^{-}}) \ge 4\GeV$. The algorithm to recover the photons from the FSR uses the same procedure as described in Ref. [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa].
In the analysis, the presence of jets is only used to determine the differential cross section measurements as a function of jet-related observables. Jets are selected if they satisfy $\pt \ge 30\GeV$ and $|\eta| \le 4.7$, and are required to be separated from the lepton candidates and from identified FSR photons by $\Delta R \equiv \sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta \eta)^{2}+(\Delta \phi)^{2}}} > 0.5$ (where $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle in radians) [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa].
After the event selection is applied, the dominant contribution to the irreducible background for the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ process originates from the $\PZ \PZ$ production via the $\PQq \PAQq$ annihilation, while the subdominant contribution arises from the $\PZ \PZ$ production via gluon fusion. In those processes, at least one of the intermediate $\PZ$ bosons is not on-shell. The reducible backgrounds mainly arise from the processes where parts of intrinsic jet activity are misidentified as an electron or a muon, such as: production of $\PZ$ boson in association with jets, production of a $\PZ \PW$ boson pair in association with jets, and the $\ttbar$ pair production. Hereafter, this background is denoted as $\PZ+\mathrm{X}$. The other background processes have negligible contribution.
In the case of the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross section measurements, the irreducible $\PQq\PAQq \to \Z\Z$ and $\Pg\Pg \to \Z\Z$ backgrounds are evaluated from simulation based on generators discussed in Section \[sec:DatasetsSimulationPAS\], following Ref. [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa]. In the case of the $\Pg\Pg \to \Z\Z$ background, the LO cross section of $\Pg\Pg \to \Z\Z$ is corrected via a $m_{4\ell}$ dependent k-factor, as recommended in the study of Ref. [@Bonvini:2013].
[l|ccc]{} Channel & $4\Pe$ & $4\Pgm$ & $2\Pe2\Pgm$\
\
\
$\PQq\PAQq \to \PZ\PZ$ & 0.8 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.8 $\pm$ 0.1 & 2.2 $\pm$ 0.3\
$\PZ+\mathrm{X}$ & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.0 $\pm$ 0.3\
$\Pg\Pg \to \PZ\PZ$ & 0.03 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.02\
Total background expected & 1.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & 2.1 $\pm$ 0.1 & 3.4 $\pm$ 0.4\
${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ ($m_{\PH} = 125.0\GeV$) & 0.7 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & 1.7 $\pm$ 0.3\
Observed & 1 & 3 & 6\
\
\
$\PQq\PAQq \to \PZ\PZ$ & 3.0 $\pm$ 0.4 & 7.6 $\pm$ 0.5 & 9.0 $\pm$ 0.7\
$\PZ + \mathrm{X}$ & 1.5 $\pm$ 0.3 & 1.2 $\pm$ 0.5 & 4.2 $\pm$ 1.1\
$\Pg\Pg \to \PZ\PZ$ & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.4 $\pm$ 0.1 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.1\
Total background expected & 4.8 $\pm$ 0.7 & 9.2 $\pm$ 0.7 & 13.7 $\pm$ 1.3\
${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ ($m_{\PH} = 125.0\GeV$) & 2.9 $\pm$ 0.4 & 5.6 $\pm$ 0.7 & 7.3 $\pm$ 0.9\
Observed & 9 & 15 & 15\
The reducible background ($\PZ + \mathrm{X}$) is evaluated using the method based on lepton misidentification probabilities and control regions in data, following the procedure described in Ref. [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa]. In the case of the integrated ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross section measurement, the shape of the $m_{4\ell}$ distribution for the reducible background is obtained by fitting the $m_{4\ell}$ with empirical analytical functional forms presented in Ref. [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa]. In the case of the differential ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ measurements, the shapes of the reducible background are obtained from the control regions in data in the form of template functions, separately for each bin of the considered observable. The template functions are prepared following a procedure described in the spin-parity studies presented in Refs. [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa; @Khachatryan:2014kca].
The number of estimated signal and background events for the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ measurement, as well as the number of observed candidates after the final inclusive selection in data in the mass region $105 < m_{4\ell} < 140\GeV$ are given in Table \[tab:EventYieldsH4l\_PAS\], separately for 7 and 8.
In part of the $m_{4\ell}$ spectrum below 100, the dominant contribution arises from the resonant ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ production ($s$-channel of the $\PQq \PAQq \to 4\ell$ process via the $\PZ$ boson exchange). The sub-dominant contributions arise from the corresponding $t$- and $u$-channels of the $\PQq\PAQq \to 4\ell$ process, from the reducible background processes ($\PZ+\mathrm{X}$), as well as from the $\Pg\Pg \to \PZ\PZ$ background. In the case of the ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ measurements, contributions from $s$-, $t$-, and $u$-diagrams of the $\PQq\PAQq \to 4\ell$ process (and their interference), and contribution of the $\Pg\Pg \to \PZ\PZ$ process are estimated from simulation. The $\PZ+\mathrm{X}$ background is evaluated using control regions in data following an identical procedure as the one described above. The expected number of events arising from the $s$-channel of the $\PQq\PAQq \to 4\ell$ process is $57.4 \pm 0.3$, from all other SM processes is $3.6 \pm 0.5$, and 72 candidate events are observed after the final inclusive selection in 8data in the mass region $50 < m_{4\ell} < 105\GeV$.
The reconstructed four-lepton invariant mass distributions in the region of interest for the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ measurements ($50 < m_{4\ell} < 140\GeV$) are shown in Fig. \[fig:mass4l\_PAS\] for the 7 and 8data sets, and compared to the SM expectations.
![Distributions of the $m_{4\ell}$ observable in 7(left) and 8(right) data, as well as expectations for the SM Higgs boson ($m_{\PH}=125.0\GeV$) and other contributing SM processes, including resonant ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ decays.[]{data-label="fig:mass4l_PAS"}](plots/Mass4l_DataMC_7TeV_mH125GeV_fullRange.pdf "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} ![Distributions of the $m_{4\ell}$ observable in 7(left) and 8(right) data, as well as expectations for the SM Higgs boson ($m_{\PH}=125.0\GeV$) and other contributing SM processes, including resonant ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ decays.[]{data-label="fig:mass4l_PAS"}](plots/Mass4l_DataMC_8TeV_mH125GeV_fullRange.pdf "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
Fiducial phase space definition {#sec:Fiducial}
===============================
The acceptance and selection efficiency for the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ decays can vary significantly between different Higgs boson production mechanisms and different exotic models of Higgs boson properties. In processes with large jet activity (such as the ${\ensuremath{\PQt \PAQt \PH}\xspace}$ production), or with low invariant mass of the second lepton pair (such as $\PH \to \PZ\gamma^{*}(\gamma^{*}\gamma^{*}) \to 4 \ell$ processes), or with the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ kinematics different from the SM estimation (such as exotic Higgs-like spin-one models), the inclusive acceptance of signal events can differ by up to 70% from the inclusive acceptance estimated for SM ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ decays.
In order to minimise the dependence of the measurement on the specific model assumed for Higgs boson production and properties, the fiducial phase space for the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross section measurements is defined to match as closely as possible the experimental acceptance defined by the reconstruction-level selection. This includes the definition of selection observables and selection requirements, as well as the definition of the algorithm for the topological event selection.
The fiducial phase space is defined using the leptons produced in the hard scattering, before any FSR occurs. This choice is motivated by the fact that the recovery of the FSR photons is explicitly performed at the reconstruction level. In the case of differential measurements as a function of jet-related observables, jets are reconstructed from the individual stable particles, excluding neutrinos and muons, using the anti-$k_t$ clustering algorithm with a distance parameter of 0.5. Jets are considered if they satisfy $\pt \ge 30\GeV$ and $|\eta| \le 4.7$.
The fiducial phase space requires at least four leptons (electrons, muons), with at least one lepton having $\pt > 20\GeV$, another lepton having $\pt > 10\GeV$, and the remaining electrons and muons having $\pt > 7\GeV$ and $\pt > 5\GeV$ respectively. All electrons and muons must have pseudorapidity $|\eta|<2.5$ and $|\eta|<2.4$, respectively. In addition, each lepton must satisfy an isolation requirement computed using the $\pt$ sum of all stable particles within $\Delta R<0.4$ distance from that lepton. The $\pt$ sum excludes any neutrinos, as well as any photon or stable lepton that is a daughter of the lepton for which the isolation sum is being computed. The ratio of this sum and the $\pt$ of the considered lepton must be less than $0.4$, in line with the requirement on the lepton isolation at the reconstruction level [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa]. The inclusion of isolation is an important step in the fiducial phase space definition as it reduces significantly the differences in signal selection efficiency between different signal models. It has been verified in simulation that the signal selection efficiency differs by up to 45% between different models if the lepton isolation requirement is not included. This is especially pronounced in case of large associated jet activity as in the case of ${\ensuremath{\PQt \PAQt \PH}\xspace}$ production mode. Exclusion of neutrinos and FSR photons from the computation of the isolation sum brings the definition of the fiducial phase space closer to the reconstruction level, and improves the model independence of the signal selection efficiency by an additional few percent.
Furthermore, an algorithm for a topological selection closely matching the one at the reconstruction level is applied as part of the fiducial phase space definition. At least two SFOS lepton pairs are required, and all SFOS lepton pairs are used to form $\PZ$ boson candidates. The SFOS pair with invariant mass closest to the nominal $\PZ$ boson mass ($91.188\GeV$) is taken as the first $\PZ$ boson candidate (denoted as $\PZ_{1}$). The mass of the $\PZ_{1}$ candidate must satisfy $40 < m(\PZ_{1}) < 120\GeV$. The remaining set of SFOS pairs are used to form the second $\PZ$ boson candidate (denoted as $\PZ_{2}$). In events with more than one $\PZ_{2}$ candidate, the SFOS pair with the largest sum of the transverse momenta magnitudes, $\Sigma |\pt|$, is chosen. The mass of the $\PZ_{2}$ candidate must satisfy $12 < m(\PZ_{2}) < 120\GeV$. Among the four selected leptons, any pair of leptons $\ell_{i}$ and $\ell_{j}$ must satisfy $\Delta R(\ell_{i}\ell_{j})>0.02$. Similarly, of the four selected leptons, the invariant mass of any opposite-sign lepton pair must satisfy $m(\ell_{i}^{+}\ell_{j}^{-})>4\GeV$. Finally, the invariant mass of the Higgs boson candidate must satisfy $105 < m_{4\ell} < 140\GeV$. The requirement on the $m_{4\ell}$ is important as the off-shell production cross section in the dominant gluon fusion production mode is sizeable and can amount up to a few percent of the total cross section [@Kauer:2012hd]. All the requirements and selections used in the definition of the fiducial phase space are summarised in Table \[tab:FidDef\].
[lr]{}\
\
\
Leading lepton $\pt$ & $\pt > 20\GeV$\
Sub-leading lepton $\pt$ & $\pt > 10\GeV$\
Additional electrons (muons) $\pt$ & $\pt > 7~(5)\GeV$\
Pseudorapidity of electrons (muons) & $|\eta| < 2.5~(2.4)$\
Sum of scalar $\pt$ of all stable particles within $\Delta R < 0.4$ from lepton & $< 0.4 \pt$\
\
\
\
Inv. mass of the $\PZ_1$ candidate & $40 < m(\PZ_{1})< 120\GeV$\
Inv. mass of the $\PZ_2$ candidate & $12 < m(\PZ_{2})< 120\GeV$\
Distance between selected four leptons & $\Delta R(\ell_{i}\ell_{j})>0.02$\
Inv. mass of any opposite-sign lepton pair & $m(\ell^{+}_{i}\ell^{-}_{j})>4\GeV$\
Inv. mass of the selected four leptons & $105 < m_{4\ell} < 140\GeV$\
It has been verified in simulation that the reconstruction efficiency for events originating from the fiducial phase space defined in this way only weakly depends on the Higgs boson properties and production mechanism. The systematic effect associated with the remaining model dependence is extracted and quoted separately, considering a wide range of alternative Higgs boson models, as described in Section \[sec:SystematicsPAS\]. The fraction of signal events within the fiducial phase space $\mathcal{A}_\text{fid}$, and the reconstruction efficiency $\epsilon$ for signal events within the fiducial phase space for individual SM production modes and exotic signal models are listed in Table \[tab:Accept\_Eff\_fOut\].
It should be noted that the cross section is measured for the process of resonant production of four leptons via the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ decays. This definition excludes events where at least one reconstructed lepton originates from associated vector bosons or jets, and not from the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ decays. Those events present a broad $m_{4\ell}$ distribution, whose exact shape depends on the production mode, and are treated as a combinatorial signal-induced background in the measurement procedure. This approach provides a simple measurement procedure with a substantially reduced signal model dependence. More details are discussed in Section \[sec:Methodology\].
In the case of the independent measurement of the ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross section, the fiducial phase space is defined in the analogous way, with the difference that the invariant mass of the $4\ell$ candidate for the $\PZ$ boson must satisfy $50 < m_{4\ell} < 105\GeV$. In the case of the measurement of the ratio of the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross sections, the mass window of $50 < m_{4\ell} < 140\GeV$ is used.
Measurement methodology {#sec:Methodology}
=======================
The aim is to determine the integrated and differential cross sections within the fiducial phase space, corrected for the effects of limited detection efficiencies, resolution, and known systematic biases. In order to achieve this goal, we estimate those effects using simulation and include them in the parameterization of the expected $m_{4\ell}$ spectra at the reconstruction level. We then perform a maximum likelihood fit of the signal and background parameterizations to the observed $4\ell$ mass distribution, $N_{\text{obs}}(m_{4\ell})$, and directly extract the fiducial cross sections of interest ($\sigma_{\mathrm{fid}}$) from the fit. In this approach all systematic uncertainties are included in the form of nuisance parameters, which are effectively integrated out in the fit procedure. The results of measurements are obtained using an asymptotic approach [@Cowan:2010js] with the test statistics based on the profile likelihood ratio [@LHC-HCG]. The coverage of the quoted intervals obtained with this approach has been verified for a subset of results using the Feldman-Cousins method [@Feldman:1997qc]. The maximum likelihood fit is performed simultaneously in all final states and in all bins of the observable considered in the measurement, assuming a Higgs boson mass of $m_{\PH} = 125.0\GeV$. The integrated cross section measurement is treated as a special case with a single bin. This implementation of the procedure for the unfolding of the detector effects from the observed distributions is different from the implementations commonly used in the experimental measurements, such as those discussed in Ref. [@Prosper:2011zz], where signal extraction and unfolding are performed in two separate steps. It is similar to the approach adopted in Ref. [@CMS:HIG-14-016].
The shape of the resonant signal contribution, $\mathcal{P}_{\text{res}}(m_{4\ell})$, is described by a double-sided Crystal Ball function as detailed in Ref. [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa], with a normalization proportional to the fiducial cross section $\sigma_{\mathrm{fid}}$. The shape of the combinatorial signal contribution, $\mathcal{P}_{\text{comb}}(m_{4\ell})$, from events where at least one of the four leptons does not originate from the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ decay, is empirically modelled by a Landau distribution whose shape parameters are constrained in the fit to be within a range determined from simulation. The remaining freedom in these parameters results in an additional systematic uncertainty on the measured cross sections. This contribution is treated as a background and hereafter we refer to this contribution as the “combinatorial signal” contribution. This component in the mass range $105 < m_{4\ell} < 140\GeV$ amounts to about 4%, 18%, and 22% for ${\ensuremath{\PW \PH}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\PZ \PH}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\PQt \PAQt \PH}\xspace}$ production modes, respectively.
An additional resonant signal contribution from events that do not originate from the fiducial phase space can arise due to detector effects that cause differences between the quantities used for the fiducial phase space definition, such as the lepton isolation, and the analogous quantities used for the event selection. This contribution is also treated as background, and hereafter we refer to this contribution as the “nonfiducial signal” contribution. It has been verified in simulation that the shape of these events is identical to the shape of the resonant fiducial signal and, in order to minimise the model dependence of the measurement, its normalization is fixed to be a fraction of the fiducial signal component. The value of this fraction, which we denote by $f_{\text{nonfid}}$, has been determined from simulation for each of the studied signal models, and it varies from ${\sim}5\%$ for the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ production to ${\sim}14\%$ for the ${\ensuremath{\PQt \PAQt \PH}\xspace}$ production mode. The variation of this fraction between different signal models is included in the model dependence estimation. The value of $f_{\text{nonfid}}$ for different signal models is shown in Table \[tab:Accept\_Eff\_fOut\].
In order to compare with the theoretical estimations, the measurement needs to be corrected for limited detector efficiency and resolution effects. The efficiency for an event passing the fiducial phase space selection to pass the reconstruction selection is measured using signal simulation samples and corrected for residual differences between data and simulation, as briefly described in Section \[sec:DatasetsSimulationPAS\] and detailed in Ref. [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa]. It is determined from simulations that this efficiency for the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ process is about 65% inclusively, and that it can vary relative to the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ process by up to ${\sim}7 \%$ in other signal models, as shown in Table \[tab:Accept\_Eff\_fOut\]. The largest deviations from the overall efficiency that correspond to the SM Higgs boson are found to be from ${\ensuremath{\PQt \PAQt \PH}\xspace}$ production, the H$\to \PZ\gamma^{*} \to 4 \ell$ process, and exotic Higgs-like spin-one models.
In the case of the differential cross section measurements, the finite efficiencies and resolution effects are encoded in a detector response matrix that describes how events migrate from a given observable bin at the fiducial level to a given bin at the reconstruction level. This matrix is diagonally dominant for the jet inclusive observables, but has sizeable off-diagonal elements for the observables involving jets. In the case of the jet multiplicity measurement the next-to-diagonal elements range from 3% to 21%, while in the case of other observables these elements are typically of the order of 1–2%.
Following the models for signal and background contributions described above, the number of expected events in each final state $\mathrm{f}$ and in each bin $i$ of a considered observable is expressed as a function of $m_{4\ell}$ given by: $$\label{eqn:m4l}
\begin{aligned}
N_{\text{obs}}^{\mathrm{f},i}(m_{4\ell}) =& N_{\mathrm{fid}}^{\mathrm{f},i}(m_{4\ell})+N_{\text{nonfid}}^{\mathrm{f},i}(m_{4\ell})+N_{\text{comb}}^{\mathrm{f},i}(m_{4\ell})+N_{\text{bkd}}^{\mathrm{f},i}(m_{4\ell}) \\
=&\sum_{j} \epsilon_{i,j}^{\mathrm{f}} \, \left(1+f_\text{nonfid}^{\mathrm{f},i} \right)\,\sigma_{\mathrm{fid}}^{\mathrm{f},j} \, \mathcal{L}\,\mathcal{P}_{\text{res}}(m_{4\ell}) \\
&+ N_{\text{comb}}^{\mathrm{f},i}\,\mathcal{P}_{\text{comb}}(m_{4\ell})+N_{\text{bkd}}^{\mathrm{f},i}\,\mathcal{P}_{\text{bkd}}(m_{4\ell}).
\end{aligned}$$ The components $N_{\mathrm{fid}}^{\mathrm{f},i}(m_{4\ell})$, $N_{\text{nonfid}}^{\mathrm{f},i}(m_{4\ell})$, $N_{\text{comb}}^{\mathrm{f},i}(m_{4\ell})$, and $N_{\text{bkd}}^{\mathrm{f},i}(m_{4\ell})$ represent the resonant fiducial signal, resonant nonfiducial signal, combinatorial contribution from fiducial signal, and background contributions in bin $i$ as functions of $m_{4\ell}$, respectively. Similarly, the $\mathcal{P}_{\text{res}}(m_{4\ell})$, $\mathcal{P}_{\text{comb}}(m_{4\ell})$ and $\mathcal{P}_{\text{bkd}}(m_{4\ell})$ are the corresponding probability density functions for the resonant (fiducial and nonfiducial) signal, combinatorial signal, and background contributions. The $\epsilon_{i,j}^{\mathrm{f}}$ represents the detector response matrix that maps the number of expected events in a given observable bin $j$ at the fiducial level to the number of expected events in the bin $i$ at the reconstruction level. The $f_\text{nonfid}^{i}$ fraction describes the ratio of the nonfiducial and fiducial signal contribution in bin $i$ at the reconstruction level. The parameter $\sigma_{\mathrm{fid}}^{\mathrm{f},j}$ is the signal cross section for the final state $\mathrm{f}$ in bin $j$ of the fiducial phase space.
To extract the $4\ell$ fiducial cross-sections, $\sigma_{\mathrm{fid}}^{\mathrm{4\ell},j}$, in all bins $j$ of a considered observable, an unbinned likelihood fit is performed simultaneously for all bins $i$ at reconstruction level on the mass distributions of the three final states $4\Pe$, $4\mu$, and $2\Pe2\mu$, using Eq. . In each bin j of the fiducial phase space the fitted parameters are $\sigma_{\mathrm{fid}}^{\mathrm{4\ell},j}$, the sum of the three final state cross-sections, and two remaining degrees of freedom for the relative contributions of the three final states.
The inclusive values of the factor $(1+f_\text{nonfid})\epsilon$ from Eq. are shown in Table \[tab:Accept\_Eff\_fOut\] for different signal production modes and different exotic models. The relatively weak dependence of this factor on the exact signal model is a consequence of the particular definition of the fiducial phase space introduced in Section \[sec:Fiducial\], and enables a measurement with a very small dependence on the signal model.
In the case of the simultaneous fit for the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ signal in 7 and 8data sets, and the measurement of the ratio of the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross sections at 7 and 8, the procedure described above is generalised to include two separate signals. The parameters extracted simultaneously from the measurement are the 8fiducial cross section, and ratio of 7and 8fiducial cross sections.
In the case of the ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross section measurements, the definition of the fiducial phase space and statistical procedure are analogous to the ones used for the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross section measurements with the $\PZ$ boson mass fixed to the PDG value of $m_{\PZ} = 91.188\GeV$ [@PDG].
Similarly, in the case of the simultaneous fit for the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ signals, and the measurement of the ratio of the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross sections, the procedure described above is generalised to include two separate signals. The parameters extracted simultaneously from this measurement are the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross section, and ratio of the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross sections. Furthermore, this measurement is performed in two scenarios. In the first scenario, we fix the Higgs boson mass to $m_{\PH} = 125.0\GeV$ and the $\PZ$ boson mass to its PDG value. Results of measurements obtained in this scenario are reported in Section \[sec:Results\]. In the second scenario, we allow the masses of the two resonances to vary, and we fit for the mass of the Higgs boson $m_{\PH}$ and the mass difference between the two bosons $\Delta m = m_{\PH} - m_{\PZ}$. This scenario allows for an additional reduction of the systematic uncertainties related to the lepton momentum scale determination, and provides an additional validation of the measurement methodology.
Systematic uncertainties {#sec:SystematicsPAS}
========================
Experimental systematic uncertainties in the parameterization of the signal and the irreducible background processes due to the trigger and combined lepton reconstruction, identification, and isolation efficiencies are evaluated from data and found to be in the range 4–10% [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa]. Theoretical uncertainties in the irreducible background rates are estimated by varying the QCD renormalization and factorization scales, and the PDF set following the PDF4LHC recommendations [@NNPDF; @PDF4LHC; @Botje:2011sn; @CT10]. These are found to be 4.5% and 25% for the $\PQq\PAQq\to \PZ \PZ$ and $\Pg\Pg\to \PZ \PZ$ backgrounds, respectively [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa]. The systematic uncertainties in the reducible background estimate for the $4\Pe$, $4\mu$, and $2\Pe2\mu$ final states are determined to be 20%, 40%, and 25%, respectively [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa]. In the case of the differential measurements, uncertainties in the irreducible background rates are computed for each bin, while uncertainties in the reducible background rates are assumed to be identical in all bins of the considered observable. The absolute integrated luminosity of the $\Pp \Pp$ collisions at 7 and 8has been determined with a relative precision of 2.2% [@CMS:2012rua] and 2.6% [@CMS-PAS-LUM-13-001], respectively. For all cross section measurements, an uncertainty in the resolution of the signal mass peak of 20% is included in the signal determination [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa].
When measuring the differential cross section as a function of the jet multiplicity, the systematic uncertainty in the jet energy scale is included as fully correlated between the signal and background estimations. This uncertainty ranges from $3\%$ for low jet multiplicity bins to $12\%$ for the highest jet multiplicity bin for the signal, and from 2% to 16% for background. The uncertainties related to the jet identification efficiency and the jet energy resolution are found to be negligible with respect to the jet energy scale systematic uncertainty.
The underlying assumption on the signal model used to extract the fiducial cross sections introduces an additional systematic effect on the measurement result. This effect is estimated by extracting the fiducial cross sections from data assuming a range of alternative signal models. The alternative models include models with an arbitrary fraction of the SM Higgs boson production modes, models of Higgs-like resonances with anomalous interactions with a pair of neutral gauge bosons, or models of Higgs-like resonances with exotic decays to the four-lepton final state. These exotic models are briefly introduced in Section \[sec:DatasetsSimulationPAS\] and detailed in Ref. [@Khachatryan:2014kca]. The largest deviation between the fiducial cross sections measured assuming these alternative signal models and the fiducial cross section measured under the SM Higgs boson assumption is quoted as the systematic effect associated with the model dependence. If we neglect the existing experimental constraints [@CMS:2014ega; @Khachatryan:2014kca] on the exotic signal models, the effect is found to be up to 7% in all reported measurements, except in the case of the jet multiplicity differential measurement where in some bins the effect can be as large as 25%. If we impose experimental constraints [@CMS:2014ega; @Khachatryan:2014kca] on the allowed exotic signal models, the systematic effect associated with the model dependence reduces to 3-5% for the jet multiplicity differential measurement, and it is smaller than 1% for the other measurements. The more conservative case which does not take into account existing experimental constraints is used to report a separate systematic uncertainty due to the model dependence.
The effect on the cross section measurement due to $m_{\PH}$ being fixed in the fit procedure is estimated from simulation to be about 1%. The additional uncertainty due to this effect is negligible with respect to the other systematic uncertainties, and is not included in the measurements. The overview of the main systematic effects in the case of the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ measurements is presented in Table \[tab:SystOverview\].
[lc]{}\
\
\
Luminosity & 2.2% (7), 2.6% (8)\
Lepton identification/reconstruction efficiencies & 4–10%\
\
\
QCD scale ($\PQq\PAQq\to\PZ\PZ$, $\Pg\Pg\to\PZ\PZ$) & 3–24%\
PDF set ($\PQq\PAQq\to\PZ\PZ$, $\Pg\Pg\to\PZ\PZ$) & 3–7%\
Reducible background ($\PZ+\mathrm{X}$) & 20–40%\
Jet resolution and energy scale & 2–16%\
\
\
Lepton energy scale & 0.1–0.3%\
Lepton energy resolution & 20%\
Jet energy scale and resolution & 3–12%\
\
\
Effect on the final measurement & 4–11%\
\
\
With exp. constraints on production modes and exotic models & 1–5%\
No exp. constraints on production modes and exotic models & 7–25%\
Results {#sec:Results}
=======
The result of the maximum likelihood fit to the signal and background $m_{4\ell}$ spectra in data collected at $\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$, used to extract the integrated ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross section for the $m_{4\ell}$ range from 105 to 140, is shown in Fig. \[fig:sigfit-inclusive\] (left). Similarly, the result of the maximum likelihood fit for the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ contributions to the inclusive $m_{4\ell}$ spectra in the range from 50 to 140is shown in Fig. \[fig:sigfit-inclusive\] (right).
![Observed inclusive four-lepton mass distribution and the resulting fits of the signal and background models, presented in Section \[sec:Methodology\], in case of an independent ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fit (left) and a simultaneous ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fit (right). The $\Pg\Pg \to \PH \to 4\ell$ process is modelled using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen</span>, while $\PQq \PAQq \to 4\ell$ process is modelled using (both $s$- and $t$/$u$-channels). The sub-dominant component of the Higgs boson production is denoted as XH = VBF + [$\mathrm{V} \PH$]{}+ ${\ensuremath{\PQt \PAQt \PH}\xspace}$. []{data-label="fig:sigfit-inclusive"}](plots/data_unfoldwith_SM_125_v2_mass4l_4l_recobin0.pdf "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} \[fig:sigfit-inclusive:a\] ![Observed inclusive four-lepton mass distribution and the resulting fits of the signal and background models, presented in Section \[sec:Methodology\], in case of an independent ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fit (left) and a simultaneous ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fit (right). The $\Pg\Pg \to \PH \to 4\ell$ process is modelled using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen</span>, while $\PQq \PAQq \to 4\ell$ process is modelled using (both $s$- and $t$/$u$-channels). The sub-dominant component of the Higgs boson production is denoted as XH = VBF + [$\mathrm{V} \PH$]{}+ ${\ensuremath{\PQt \PAQt \PH}\xspace}$. []{data-label="fig:sigfit-inclusive"}](plots/Result_Combine_Ratio_SM_125_mass4l_floatPOIs_fixMH_fixDeltaMHmZ_all_8TeV_xs_v2_result_plot_4l_paper.pdf "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} \[fig:sigfit-inclusive:b\]
Individual measurements of integrated ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross sections at 7 and 8, performed in the $m_{4\ell}$ range from 105 to 140, are presented in Table \[tab:incresultsPAS\] and Fig. \[fig:inclusive-results\]. The central values of the measurements are obtained assuming the SM Higgs boson signal with $m_{\PH} =125.0\GeV$, modelled by the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen</span> for the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ contribution, for the VBF contribution, and for the [$\mathrm{V} \PH$]{}+ ${\ensuremath{\PQt \PAQt \PH}\xspace}$ contributions. In Table \[tab:incresultsPAS\] and hereafter, the sub-dominant component of the signal is denoted as XH = VBF + [$\mathrm{V} \PH$]{}+ ${\ensuremath{\PQt \PAQt \PH}\xspace}$.
\[tab:incresultsPAS\]
[c|c]{}\
\
Measured & $0.56^{+0.67}_{-0.44}\stat\;{}^{+0.21}_{-0.06}\syst\;{}\pm{0.02}\,\text{(model)} \unit{fb}$\
${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$(<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span>) + XH & $0.93^{+0.10}_{-0.11}\unit{fb}$\
\
\
Measured & $1.11^{+0.41}_{-0.35}\stat\;{}^{+0.14}_{-0.10}\syst\;{}^{+0.08}_{-0.02}\,\text{(model)}\unit{fb}$\
${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$(<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span>) + XH & $1.15^{+0.12}_{-0.13}\unit{fb}$\
\
\
Measured & $0.51^{+0.71}_{-0.40}\stat\;{}^{+0.13}_{-0.05}\syst\;{}^{+0.00}_{-0.03}\,\text{(model)}$\
${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$(<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hres</span>) + XH & $0.805^{+0.003}_{-0.010}$\
The measured fiducial cross sections are compared to the SM NNLL+NNLO theoretical estimations in which the acceptance of the dominant ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ contribution is modelled using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MiNLO HJ</span>, or <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span>, as discussed in Section \[sec:DatasetsSimulationPAS\]. The total uncertainty in the NNLL+NNLO theoretical estimates is computed according to Ref. [@Heinemeyer:2013tqa], and includes uncertainties due to the QCD renormalization and factorization scales ($\sim$7.8%), PDFs and strong coupling constant $\alpha_\mathrm{S}$ modelling ($\sim$7.5%), as well as the acceptance ($2\%$) and branching fraction ($2\%$) uncertainties. In the computation of the total uncertainty the PDFs/$\alpha_\mathrm{S}$ uncertainties are assumed to be correlated between the VBF and [$\mathrm{V} \PH$]{}production modes (dominantly quark-antiquark initiated), and anticorrelated between the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\PQt \PAQt \PH}\xspace}$ production modes (dominantly gluon-gluon initiated). Furthermore, the QCD scale uncertainties are considered to be uncorrelated, while uncertainties in the acceptance and branching fraction are considered to be correlated across all production modes. The differences in how the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MiNLO HJ</span>, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span> generators model the acceptance of the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ contribution are found to be an order of magnitude lower than the theoretical uncertainties, and in Table \[tab:incresultsPAS\] and Fig. \[fig:inclusive-results\] we show estimations obtained using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span>.
![Results of measurements of the integrated ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross section in pp collisions at 7 and 8, with a comparison to SM estimates. The red error bar represents the systematic uncertainty, while the black error bar represents the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties, summed in quadrature. The additional systematic effect associated with model dependence is represented by grey boxes. The theoretical estimates at NNLL+NNLO accuracy and the corresponding systematic uncertainties are shown in blue as a function of the centre-of-mass energy. The acceptance of the dominant ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ contribution is modelled at the parton level using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span>, and corrected for hadronization and underlying-event effects estimated using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pythia 6.4</span>. []{data-label="fig:inclusive-results"}](plots/xs_vs_sqrts_lhchxswg_hres_central_line.pdf){width="65.00000%"}
The measured ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross section at 8is found to be in a good agreement with the theoretical estimations within the associated uncertainties. The uncertainty of the measurement is largely dominated by its statistical component of about 37%, while the systematic component is about 12%. The theoretical uncertainty of about 11% is comparable to the systematic uncertainty, and is larger than the model dependence of the extracted results, which is about 7%. In the case of the cross section at 7, as well as the ratio of cross sections at 7 and 8, the measured cross sections are lower but still in agreement with the SM theoretical estimations within the large statistical uncertainties.
\[tab:incresultsZ4l\]
[c|c]{}\
\
\
Measured & $4.81^{+0.69}_{-0.63} \stat\;{}^{+0.18}_{-0.19}\syst \unit{fb}$\
& $ 4.56\pm{0.19}\unit{fb}$\
\
\
\
Measured & $0.21^{+0.09}_{-0.07} \stat \pm{0.01} \syst $\
${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$(<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span>) + XH and ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ () & $ 0.25\pm{0.04}$\
The result of the measurement of the integrated ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross section at 8in the $m_{4\ell}$ range from 50 to 105is summarized in Table \[tab:incresultsZ4l\]. The measured ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross section is found to be in good agreement with the theoretical estimations obtained using . As the total relative uncertainty in the ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ measurement is about 2.6 times lower than the relative uncertainty in the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ measurement, the good agreement between the measured and estimated ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross section provides a validation of the measurement procedure in data.
In addition, a simultaneous fit for the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ resonances is performed in the $m_{4\ell}$ range from 50 to 140, and the ratio of the corresponding fiducial cross sections is extracted. The measurement of the ratio of these cross sections, when masses of the two resonances are fixed in the fit, is presented in Table \[tab:incresultsZ4l\]. A good agreement between the measured ratio and its SM theoretical estimation is observed. In the scenario in which the masses of the two resonances are allowed to vary, as discussed in Section \[sec:Methodology\], the fitted value for the mass difference between the two resonances is found to be $\Delta m = m_{\PH} - m_{\PZ} = 34.2\pm{0.7}\GeV$. As discussed in Ref. [@Roinishvili:2013goa], it is worth noting that by using the measured mass difference $\Delta m$ and the PDG value of the $\PZ$ boson mass $m_{\PZ}^{\rm{PDG}}$ which is precisely determined in other experiments, the Higgs boson mass can be extracted as $m_{\rm{H}} = m_{\PZ}^{\rm{PDG}} + \Delta m = 125.4 \pm 0.7\GeV$. This result is in agreement with the best fit value for $m_{\PH}$ obtained from the dedicated mass measurement in this final state [@Chatrchyan:2013mxa], and provides further validation of the measurement procedure.
![Results of the differential ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross section measurements and comparison to the theoretical estimates for the transverse momentum (left) and the rapidity (right) of the four-lepton system. The red error bars represent the systematic uncertainties, while black error bars represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties, summed in quadrature. The additional systematic uncertainty associated with the model dependence is separately represented by the grey boxes. Theoretical estimates, in which the acceptance of the dominant ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ contribution is modelled by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen</span>+, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg MiNLO HJ</span>+, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span> generators as discussed in Section \[sec:DatasetsSimulationPAS\], are shown in blue, brown, and pink, respectively. The sub-dominant component of the signal XH is indicated separately in green. In all estimations the total cross section is normalized to the SM estimate computed at NNLL+NNLO accuracy. Systematic uncertainties correspond to the accuracy of the generators used to derive the differential estimations. The bottom panel shows the ratio of data or theoretical estimates to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span> theoretical estimations. []{data-label="fig:differential-results"}](plots/pT4l_unfoldwith_SM_125_logscale.pdf "fig:"){width="46.00000%"} ![Results of the differential ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross section measurements and comparison to the theoretical estimates for the transverse momentum (left) and the rapidity (right) of the four-lepton system. The red error bars represent the systematic uncertainties, while black error bars represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties, summed in quadrature. The additional systematic uncertainty associated with the model dependence is separately represented by the grey boxes. Theoretical estimates, in which the acceptance of the dominant ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ contribution is modelled by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen</span>+, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg MiNLO HJ</span>+, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span> generators as discussed in Section \[sec:DatasetsSimulationPAS\], are shown in blue, brown, and pink, respectively. The sub-dominant component of the signal XH is indicated separately in green. In all estimations the total cross section is normalized to the SM estimate computed at NNLL+NNLO accuracy. Systematic uncertainties correspond to the accuracy of the generators used to derive the differential estimations. The bottom panel shows the ratio of data or theoretical estimates to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span> theoretical estimations. []{data-label="fig:differential-results"}](plots/rapidity4l_unfoldwith_SM_125.pdf "fig:"){width="46.00000%"}
![Results of the differential ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross section measurements and comparison to the theoretical estimates for the transverse momentum of the leading jet (top left), separation in rapidity between the Higgs boson candidate and the leading jet (top right), as well as for the jet multiplicity (bottom). The red error bars represent the systematic uncertainties, while black error bars represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties, summed in quadrature. The additional systematic uncertainty associated with the model dependence is separately represented by the grey boxes. Theoretical estimations, in which the acceptance of the dominant ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ contribution is modelled by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen+</span>, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg MiNLO HJ+</span>generators, as discussed in Section \[sec:DatasetsSimulationPAS\], are shown in blue and brown, respectively. The sub-dominant component of the signal XH is indicated separately in green. In all estimations the total cross section is normalized to the SM estimate computed at NNLL+NNLO accuracy. Systematic uncertainties correspond to the accuracy of the generators used to derive the differential estimations. The bottom panel shows the ratio of data or theoretical estimates to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg MiNLO HJ</span> theoretical estimations. []{data-label="fig:differential-results-2"}](plots/pt_leadingjet_reco_pt30_eta4p7_unfoldwith_SM_125_logscale.pdf "fig:"){width="43.00000%"} ![Results of the differential ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross section measurements and comparison to the theoretical estimates for the transverse momentum of the leading jet (top left), separation in rapidity between the Higgs boson candidate and the leading jet (top right), as well as for the jet multiplicity (bottom). The red error bars represent the systematic uncertainties, while black error bars represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties, summed in quadrature. The additional systematic uncertainty associated with the model dependence is separately represented by the grey boxes. Theoretical estimations, in which the acceptance of the dominant ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ contribution is modelled by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen+</span>, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg MiNLO HJ+</span>generators, as discussed in Section \[sec:DatasetsSimulationPAS\], are shown in blue and brown, respectively. The sub-dominant component of the signal XH is indicated separately in green. In all estimations the total cross section is normalized to the SM estimate computed at NNLL+NNLO accuracy. Systematic uncertainties correspond to the accuracy of the generators used to derive the differential estimations. The bottom panel shows the ratio of data or theoretical estimates to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg MiNLO HJ</span> theoretical estimations. []{data-label="fig:differential-results-2"}](plots/absdeltarapidity_hleadingjet_reco_pt30_eta4p7_unfoldwith_SM_125.pdf "fig:"){width="43.00000%"}\
![Results of the differential ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ fiducial cross section measurements and comparison to the theoretical estimates for the transverse momentum of the leading jet (top left), separation in rapidity between the Higgs boson candidate and the leading jet (top right), as well as for the jet multiplicity (bottom). The red error bars represent the systematic uncertainties, while black error bars represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties, summed in quadrature. The additional systematic uncertainty associated with the model dependence is separately represented by the grey boxes. Theoretical estimations, in which the acceptance of the dominant ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ contribution is modelled by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen+</span>, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg MiNLO HJ+</span>generators, as discussed in Section \[sec:DatasetsSimulationPAS\], are shown in blue and brown, respectively. The sub-dominant component of the signal XH is indicated separately in green. In all estimations the total cross section is normalized to the SM estimate computed at NNLL+NNLO accuracy. Systematic uncertainties correspond to the accuracy of the generators used to derive the differential estimations. The bottom panel shows the ratio of data or theoretical estimates to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg MiNLO HJ</span> theoretical estimations. []{data-label="fig:differential-results-2"}](plots/njets_reco_pt30_eta4p7_unfoldwith_SM_125_logscale.pdf "fig:"){width="43.00000%"}
The measured differential ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross sections at 8, along with the theoretical estimations for a SM Higgs boson with $m_{\PH}=125.0\GeV$ are presented in Figs. \[fig:differential-results\] and \[fig:differential-results-2\]. Results of the measurements are shown for the transverse momentum and the rapidity of the four-lepton system, jet multiplicity, transverse momentum of the leading jet, as well as separation in rapidity between the Higgs boson candidate and the leading jet. The uncertainty in the theoretical estimation for the dominant ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ process is computed in each bin of the considered observable by the generator used for the particular signal description (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg MiNLO HJ</span>, or <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span>). The theoretical uncertainties for the associated production mechanisms are taken as constant across the bins of the differential observables and are obtained from Ref. [@Heinemeyer:2013tqa].
The measurement of the transverse momentum of the four-lepton system probes the perturbative QCD calculations of the dominant loop-mediated ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ production mechanism, in which the transverse momentum $\pt(\PH)$ is expected to be balanced by the emission of soft gluons and quarks. In addition, the rapidity distribution of the four-lepton system, $y(\PH)$ is sensitive both to the modelling of the gluon fusion production mechanism and to the PDFs of the colliding protons. The measured differential cross sections for these two observables are shown in Fig. \[fig:differential-results\]. Results are compared to the theoretical estimations in which the dominant ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ contribution is modelled using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg MiNLO HJ</span>, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span>. In case of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HRes</span>, the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ acceptance is modelled at the parton level, and corrected for the hadronization and underlying event effects in bins of the considered differential observable, as discussed in Section \[sec:DatasetsSimulationPAS\]. The observed distributions are compatible with the SM-based theoretical estimations within the large associated uncertainties.
Similarly, the jet multiplicity $N(\text{jets})$, transverse momentum of the leading jet $\pt(\text{jet})$, and its separation in rapidity from the Higgs boson candidate $\abs{y(\PH) - y(\text{jet})}$ are sensitive to the theoretical modelling of hard quark and gluon radiation in this process, as well as to the relative contributions of different Higgs boson production mechanisms. The measured differential cross sections for the leading jet transverse momentum, and its separation in rapidity from the Higgs boson candidate are shown in Fig. \[fig:differential-results-2\], and are found to be compatible with the SM-based estimations within the large uncertainties. In the case of the jet multiplicity cross section, also shown in Fig. \[fig:differential-results-2\], we observe the largest deviation from the SM-based estimations. The $p$-value that quantifies the compatibility of the jet multiplicity distribution between data and SM estimations is $p=0.13$. It is computed from the difference between the $-2\log(\mathcal{L})$ at its best fit value and the value with the cross sections fixed to the theoretical estimation based on the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Powheg+JHUGen</span> description of the ${\ensuremath{\Pg \Pg \to \PH}\xspace}$ process. Furthermore, we have performed the measurement of the differential ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross sections at 8for the same set of observables used in the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ measurements, including the jet multiplicity, and have found a good agreement with the theoretical estimations. The $p$-values for the differential distributions of ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ events range from 0.21 in case of rapidity of the Z boson, to 0.99 for some of the angles defined by the four leptons in the Collins-Soper reference frame [@Collins:1977iv]. As the relative statistical uncertainty in the ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ measurement is lower than the relative uncertainty in the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ measurement, these results provide additional validation of the measurement procedure in data.
Summary {#sec:ConclusionPAS}
=======
We have presented measurements of the integrated and differential fiducial cross sections for the production of four leptons via the $\PH \to 4\ell$ decays in pp collisions at centre-of-mass energies of 7 and 8. The measurements were performed using collision data corresponding to integrated luminosities of [$5.1\fbinv$]{}at 7and [$19.7\fbinv$]{}at 8. The differential cross sections were measured as a function of the transverse momentum and the rapidity of the four-lepton system, the transverse momentum of the leading jet, the difference in rapidity between the Higgs boson candidate and the leading jet, and the jet multiplicity. Measurements of the fiducial cross section for the production of four leptons via the ${\ensuremath{\PZ \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ decays, as well as its ratio to the ${\ensuremath{\PH \to 4\ell}\xspace}$ cross section, were also performed using the 8data. The uncertainty in the measurements due to the assumptions in the model of Higgs boson properties was estimated by studying a range of exotic Higgs boson production and spin-parity models. It was found to be lower than 7% of the fiducial cross section. The integrated fiducial cross section for the four leptons production via the $\PH \to 4\ell$ decays is measured to be $0.56^{+0.67}_{-0.44}\stat\;{}^{+0.21}_{-0.06}\syst\unit{fb}$ and $1.11^{+0.41}_{-0.35}\stat\;{}^{+0.14}_{-0.10}\syst\unit{fb}$ at 7 and 8, respectively. The measurements are found to be compatible with theoretical calculations based on the standard model.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding agencies: the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy and the Austrian Science Fund; the Belgian Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique, and Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek; the Brazilian Funding Agencies (CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP); the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science; CERN; the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Ministry of Science and Technology, and National Natural Science Foundation of China; the Colombian Funding Agency (COLCIENCIAS); the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sport, and the Croatian Science Foundation; the Research Promotion Foundation, Cyprus; the Ministry of Education and Research, Estonian Research Council via IUT23-4 and IUT23-6 and European Regional Development Fund, Estonia; the Academy of Finland, Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, and Helsinki Institute of Physics; the Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules / CNRS, and Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives / CEA, France; the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren, Germany; the General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Greece; the National Scientific Research Foundation, and National Innovation Office, Hungary; the Department of Atomic Energy and the Department of Science and Technology, India; the Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, Iran; the Science Foundation, Ireland; the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy; the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, and National Research Foundation (NRF), Republic of Korea; the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; the Ministry of Education, and University of Malaya (Malaysia); the Mexican Funding Agencies (CINVESTAV, CONACYT, SEP, and UASLP-FAI); the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, New Zealand; the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission; the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Science Centre, Poland; the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal; JINR, Dubna; the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the Federal Agency of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation, Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research; the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia; the Secretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación and Programa Consolider-Ingenio 2010, Spain; the Swiss Funding Agencies (ETH Board, ETH Zurich, PSI, SNF, UniZH, Canton Zurich, and SER); the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei; the Thailand Center of Excellence in Physics, the Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology of Thailand, Special Task Force for Activating Research and the National Science and Technology Development Agency of Thailand; the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey, and Turkish Atomic Energy Authority; the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and State Fund for Fundamental Researches, Ukraine; the Science and Technology Facilities Council, UK; the US Department of Energy, and the US National Science Foundation.
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie programme and the European Research Council and EPLANET (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS programme of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund; the OPUS programme of the National Science Center (Poland); the Compagnia di San Paolo (Torino); the Consorzio per la Fisica (Trieste); MIUR project 20108T4XTM (Italy); the Thalis and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University (Thailand); and the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845.
The CMS Collaboration \[app:collab\]
====================================
=5000=500=5000
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the relaxation process in a simple glass-former - the KA lattice gas model. We show that, for this model, structural relaxation is due to slow percolation of regions of co-operatively moving particles, which leads to heterogeneous dynamics of the system. We find that the size distribution of these regions is given by a power-law and that their formation is encoded in the initial structure of the particles, with the memory of initial configuration increasingly retained with increasing density.'
author:
- 'Pinaki Chaudhuri $^{1}$, Srikanth Sastry $^{2}$ and Walter Kob $^{1}$'
title: 'Tracking heterogeneous dynamics during the $\alpha$-relaxation of a simple glass-former'
---
Glass-forming systems are disordered materials whose relaxation dynamics becomes extremely slow on decreasing the temperature or increasing the density. Despite intensive research in this domain, a proper understanding of these materials is still missing [@deben; @ediger]. The observation, in experiments and simulations, of spatio-temporal dynamical heterogeneity in glass-formers has been an important step forward in elucidating the mechanism for relaxation processes and currently considerable research is being focused on understanding the lifetime and spatial extent of these dynamical heterogeneities.
A key question in this domain is the conundrum regarding whether or not there is a causal link between structural properties of glass-forming systems and their dynamical behavior. It has recently been shown [@harro] that the spatial heterogeneity in the propensity of particles to move is correlated with the local environment of the particles, characterized by the local Debye-Waller factor. However, this influence seems to exist only over timescales which are much less than the structural relaxation time [@appi]. It was also observed that structural properties are indeed correlated with collective dynamical fluctuations, but no quantitative analysis was made [@ludorob]. More recently, it has also been reported [@harro1] that for a supercooled liquid configuration, its localized low-frequency normal modes correlate with the irreversible structural reorganization of its constituent particles.
In recent times, extensive studies of kinetically constrained models (KCM-s) [@kcm], which are one of the simplest models showing glassy dynamics, have been carried out in order to understand their relaxation process. These models, which are motivated by the hypothesis that the slow dynamics in glass-formers is only due to geometrical constraints, show heterogeneous dynamics similar to real glass-formers [@kcmdyn]. In this Letter, we study one such KCM - the Kob-Andersen (KA) lattice gas [@kob] in which particles are allowed to move on a lattice following certain dynamical rules and which at high densities shows signatures of apparently diverging relaxation times [@kob; @franz; @pitard]. Recently it has been proven analytically [@toni] and numerically [@ludofinite] that for this model there exists no dynamical transition at finite density, $\rho$, and it was argued [@toni] that eventually, due to the presence of migrating macro-vacancies, the system relaxes, albeit extremely slowly. However, from a practical point of view this model still is a good model for a glass-forming systems. Using Monte Carlo simulations we show that its structural relaxation is related to the growth of mobile regions and that this process quickly slows down with increasing $\rho$, resulting in the observed slow dynamics. We also demonstrate that the formation of the mobile regions is directly related to structural properties of the system.
We have studied the 3d version of the KA model: $N$ particles populate a cubic lattice of size $L^3$ with the constraint that a lattice site can be occupied by only one particle. All possible configurations have the same energy and thus the same Boltzmann weight. The imposed stochastic dynamics consists of the following process: A randomly selected particle can move to any one of the neighboring empty lattice site provided it has $m$ or fewer occupied nearest neighbor site and that the target empty site has $m + 1$ or fewer occupied nearest neighbor sites. A choice of $m=3$ results in glassy dynamics for this model [@kob]. For efficient sampling of the configuration space at high $\rho=N/L^3$, we have carried out event-driven Monte Carlo [@kob] simulations of the model. Using periodic boundary conditions, we have investigated system sizes $L=20$, 30, and 50, which avoid finite size effects, with densities spanning from $\rho=0.65$ to $\rho=0.89$.
Experiments and simulations in which the motion of single particles were tracked have helped to demonstrate the existence of heterogeneous dynamics in glassy systems [@ediger]. E.g., by measuring the self part of the van Hove function $G_s(r,t)$, i.e. the distribution of particle displacements ($G_s (r,t)= \langle
\delta ( r - |{\bf r}_i(t) - {\bf r}_i(0)|) \rangle$, where ${\bf
r}_i(t)$ denotes the position of particle $i$ at time $t$), it has been possible to demonstrate that the particles have varying mobilities. In Fig. \[gsrt87\], we show $G_s(r,t)$ for different times $t$, measured in units of Monte Carlo steps, at $\rho=0.87$. For diffusive motion, $G_s (r,t)$ is a Gaussian and we observe that for the KA model, like other glass-formers [@szamel1], this Gaussian behavior is only observed at times ($t\approx{5\times10^8}$) that are much larger than the structural relaxation time $\tau_\alpha$ (defined as the time at which the self-intermediate scattering function has decayed to $1/e$, which at $\rho=0.87$ is $\tau_\alpha \approx 1.8\times10^7$). At intermediates times, we see that $G_s(r,t)$ has an exponential tail, a signature of the presence of rare events in the dynamics of the particles, similar to other glassy systems [@pinaki]. Thus we can conclude that while most of the particles remain frozen at their initial positions (resulting in large values for $G(0,t)$), there is a small population which is extremely mobile, i.e. the system has a very heterogeneous dynamics.
By tracking the mobile particles, i.e. particles which contribute to the tail of $G_s(r,t)$, we see that at short times they explore a compact region (a “blob”) around their initial locations. With increasing $t$ these blobs slowly expand and coalesce with other blobs to form a labyrinthine structure. This structure allows particles, which were hitherto confined to one blob, to travel longer distances. In Fig. \[trajxyz\] we have plotted the lattice sites (marked by green and black spheres) visited by two such mobile particles at $\rho=0.88$ and $t=10^7$ (at this density, $\tau_\alpha \approx 4.4\times10^8$). It can be clearly seen that the dynamics is spatially heterogeneous since the trajectories consist of connected blobs. Note that initially each blob is a region of [*cooperative*]{} motion since [*all*]{} the particles which occupy these lattice points are found to be mobile. As the backbone is formed, particles from one blob begin to explore other blobs. The relaxation of the system thus happens with the slow growth of this backbone, within which the particles can move relatively quickly. This is demonstrated in Fig. \[trajxyz\] : indeed, the two trajectories overlap even though they originate from two different lattice sites which initially did not belong to the same blob.
![Green and black points: Sites that have been visited by the trajectory of two mobile particles. Red blobs: The mobility regions. $t=10^7$ and $\rho=0.88$.[]{data-label="trajxyz"}](test3a.ps)
Further insight into the spatial nature of the relaxation process can be obtained by observing the so-called “mobility regions” [@pan; @gar2; @lawlor]: A lattice site is defined to be an “active site” if either a particle or a vacancy has moved out of it during the time of observation and the collection of these sites constitute the mobility regions. Earlier studies of KCM-s have shown that the active sites tend to cluster and act as seeds for subsequent mobility [@pan; @gar2; @lawlor] and that it is possible to extract from the mobility regions a lengthscale which increases with density [@pan]. In Fig. \[trajxyz\] we have also included the location of the active sites and we can see that these lattice sites are indeed clustered in space (marked by the red blobby shapes) and have a labyrinthine structure. It gives us an idea of the structure of pathways, at high densities, available to the mobile particles for exploration. We can clearly see that, on this time-scale, the two mobile particles have only explored a part of the available volume and that the geometry of the mobility regions and the blob-structure of the trajectories are intimately connected to each other.
The number density of active sites, $n_{act}(t)$, allows us to estimate the volume accessible to the mobile particles and in Fig. \[mob2\] we plot $n_{act}(t)$ for different $\rho$. We see that, at short times, $n_{act}(t)$ increases quickly and we find $n_{act}(t)\sim
1-\exp(-t/\theta)$ with $\theta\approx5$, independent of $\rho$. This regime corresponds to the initial growth of the blobs. Subsequently the shape of $n_{act}(t)$ depends strongly on $\rho$. For $\rho=0.80$ the number of inactive sites, $1-n_{act}$, decays with a stretched exponential tail, with a stretching exponent of around $0.6$, a functional form that is found for all $\rho$. At even larger $\rho$, $n_{act}(t)$ shows three regimes, with the second regime being a period of extremely slow growth, almost logarithmic and thus similar to the coarsening process in disordered media [@logs]. Note that at short $t$ the typical distance between the blobs increases with $\rho$ and the growth of the blobs slows down with increasing $\rho$, since it needs the presence of active sites (which are rare at high density). This is the reason why the increase of $n_{act}(t)$ at intermediate times becomes very slow with increasing $\rho$. We also observe that at $\rho=0.89$, which is higher than the density of $\rho_c=0.881$ at which an apparent divergence of relaxation timescales was observed [@kob], $n_{act}(t)$ is still an increasing function, suggesting that the system will eventually relax [@toni]. Note that although these three regimes are in qualitative agreement with the predictions of Ref. [@toni], there are important differences since, e.g., the diffusion of macro-vacancies discussed in Ref. [@toni] would lead to a linear growth of $n_{act}(t)$ at long times, a behaviour which is not seen in Fig. \[mob2\]. This might be due to the fact that the calculations presented in Ref. [@toni] apply only at densities that are extremely close to 1.0.
In order to characterize the geometry of the growing clusters of active sites we have calculated $P(s)$, the distribution of clusters that have exactly size $s$. In Fig. \[ps88\], we have plotted $P(s)$ for $\rho=0.88$ and different times. At short times, $t=10$, $P(s)$ has an exponential shape. This corresponds to the initial geometry of active sites at few random locations when particles explore their neighborhood. With increasing time $P(s)$ quickly transforms into a power-law, $P(s)\sim{s^{-\nu}}$, with an exponent $\nu\approx{1.6}$. This indicates that the growth process is different from random percolation for which $\nu=2.2$. This difference is likely related to the fact that there is a wide variation in the size of the cooperatively rearranging regions seen at short times. At even later times, the largest cluster starts growing and the tail in $P(s)$ shifts to larger and larger sizes, until the entire space is filled up. Note that the observed [*largest*]{} cluster dependens on system-size and thus the tail of $P(s)$ is affected by finite-size effects.
Finally we investigate to what extent the dynamics is encoded in the structure. We have seen that structural relaxation is correlated with the development of the mobile regions. Therefore it is interesting to check how the properties of these regions depend on the trajectories that start from the same initial configuration. For this, we check along several such trajectories how different are the configurations of active sites formed at the same observation time. To quantify that, we define the overlap function $Q_{act}(t)=(\langle{q^{\alpha\beta}(t)}
\rangle_{ic}-n^2_{act}(t))/(n_{act}(t)-n^2_{act}(t))$, where $q^{\alpha\beta}(t)=L^{-3}\sum_{i}n_i^{\alpha}(t)n_i^{\beta}(t)$, with $n_i(t)=1$ if site $i$ is active at time $t$ and $n_i(t)=0$ otherwise. $\langle . \rangle_{ic}$ is the average over the isoconfigurational ensemble [@harro], i.e. the ensemble of all possible trajectories starting from the same configuration of which $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are two different members. Defined in this way, $Q_{act}(t)=1$ if at time $t$ the configuration of active sites for two different trajectories are exactly the same and $Q_{act}(t)=0$ if the two configurations are totally different, apart from the trivial statistical overlap. Thus $Q_{act}$ is a direct measure for the influence of the initial structure on the mobility regions.
In Fig. \[actovtraj\], we show the time dependence of $Q_{act}(t)$ for different $\rho$. At short times $Q_{act}(t)$ is independent of $\rho$ and its value is small since the mobile particles can find random directions to explore, which result in different configurations of active sites and hence a small $Q_{act}$. Subsequently $Q_{act}(t)$ has a peak at a time which approximately corresponds to the time at which $n_{act}(t)$ enters the final regime of growth, see Fig. \[mob2\], and which is much smaller than $\tau_\alpha$ (marked by arrows). For large value of $\rho$ the height of this peak is close to unity and it becomes extremely broad so that $Q_{act}(t)$ is quite large even at $\tau_\alpha$. This shows that the configuration of active sites is, in a broad time window, basically independent of the trajectory and thus encoded in the initial structure, even for times of the order of $\tau_\alpha$ (but depends of course on the initial configuration). Note that these results seem to be in contradiction to the claims made in Ref. [@appi] since there it was argued that the structure influences the dynamics only on time scales much shorter than $\tau_\alpha$. However, in that work the authors considered this influence on the level of [*individual*]{} particles whereas the overlap $Q_{act}(t)$ considered here is a [*collective*]{} quantity. Therefore there is not necessarily a contradiction.
What structural property determines mobility? It is obvious that for a site to be active, it needs empty space in its neighborhood. Earlier work on lattice models has shown that the high propensity sites are located near clusters of empty sites [@gar2]. In order to investigate the relation between structure and mobility we define another overlap function. A lattice site is considered to be a [*generalized vacancy of type $k$*]{} if the site and its six nearest neighbors contains a total of at least $k$ holes. Then we calculate, as a function of time, the overlap of the active sites with these generalized vacancies. The quantity we measure is $A_k(t)=\sum_i{a_i^kn_i(t)}/\sum_i{n_i(t)}-\tilde{a}^k$. Here, $a_i^k=1$ if at $t=0$ the site $i$ is a generalized vacancy of type $k$ and $0$ otherwise. Thus, $A_k(t)$ is the probability that a generalized vacancy of type $k$ in the configuration at $t=0$ is an active site at time $t$, with the trivial overlap $\tilde{a}^k$ (the density of generalized vacancies of type $k$ in the configuration at $t=0$) subtracted. Such a quantity enables us to have a good measure of the correlation between structure and dynamics. For low density, i.e. $\rho=0.65$, $A_3(t)$ has a fast decay, see Fig. \[overlap\]. (Other value of $k$ have a qualitatively similar behavior.) With increasing $\rho$, the characteristic time-scale for the decay increases with the tail becoming stretched in shape, the underlying slowing down of the relaxation process resulting in the retention of the memory for longer time. In the inset of Fig. \[overlap\], we have plotted different correlation functions at $\rho=0.88$: The overlap function $A_3(t)$, the self-intermediate scattering function $F_s(\pi,t)$ and the fraction of active sites $n_{act}(t)$. At this density, the $\alpha$-relaxation time $\tau_\alpha
\approx 4.4\times{10^8}$. For this time-scale, the fraction of active sites is $n_{act}(\tau_\alpha)\sim{0.50}$. However, if one extrapolates $A_3(t)$ to these time-scales, the overlap is small. Therefore, although measurement of $Q_{act}(t)$ showed that the configuration of active sites, at $t\approx\tau_{\alpha}$, is significantly determined by initial structure, the use of generalized vacancies does not fully demonstrate this strong dependence. Hence, a better characterization of initial structure is necessary for improving prediction for formation of mobile regions.
In conclusion, we have shown that, for the KA lattice gas, the $\alpha-$relaxation occurs via the percolation of mobile regions in which particles move cooperatively. These regions are encoded in the initial structure of the system with a memory time that is on the order of $\tau_\alpha$. We emphasize, however, that the initial structure does not necessarily determine the trajectory of an [*individual*]{} particle but only the location and the shape of the regions in which cooperative dynamics is observed.
We thank L. Berthier and G. Biroli for useful discussions and acknowledge CEFIPRA Project 3004-1 and ANR Grant TSANET for financial support.
[10]{} P. G. Debenedetti [*et al*]{}, Nature [**410**]{}, 259 (2001).
M. A. Ediger, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. [**51**]{}, 99 (2000).
A. Widmer-Cooper [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 185701 (2006).
G. A. Appignanesi [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 237803 (2006).
L. Berthier [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**76**]{}, 041509 (2007).
A. Widmer-Cooper [*et al*]{}, Nature Physics [**4**]{}, 711 (2008).
F. Ritort and P. Sollich, Adv. Phys. [**52**]{}, 219 (2003).
M. Foley [*et al*]{}, J. Chem. Phys., [**98**]{}, 5069 (1993); J.P. Garrahan [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 035704 (2002); J. Jäckle, J. Phys.: Condens. Matt, [**14**]{}, 1423 (2002); L. Berthier [*et al*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**69**]{}, 320 (2005).
W. Kob [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. E. [**48**]{} 4364 (1993).
S. Franz [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**65**]{} 021506 (2002).
E. Marinari [*et al*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**69**]{}, 235 (2005).
C. Toninelli [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 185504 (2004); J. Stat. Phys. [**120**]{}, 167 (2005).
L. Berthier, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 055701 (2003).
G. Szamel [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**73**]{}, 011504 (2006).
P. Chaudhuri [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 060604 (2007).
A. C. Pan [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. E. [**72**]{}, 041106 (2005).
L. O. Hedges [*et al*]{}, J. Phys.: Cond. Matt. [**19**]{}, 205124 (2007).
A. Lawlor [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**72**]{}, 021401 (2005).
A. J. Bray, Adv. in Phys., [**43**]{} 357 (1994).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the first mid-infrared spectra of brown dwarfs, together with observations of a low-mass star. Our targets are the M3.5 dwarf GJ 1001A, the L8 dwarf DENIS-P J0255$-$4700, and the T1/T6 binary system $\epsilon$ Indi Ba/Bb. As expected, the mid-infrared spectral morphology of these objects changes rapidly with spectral class due to the changes in atmospheric chemistry resulting from their differing effective temperatures and atmospheric structures. By taking advantage of the unprecedented sensitivity of the Infrared Spectrograph on the Spitzer Space Telescope we have detected the 7.8 methane and 10 ammonia bands for the first time in brown dwarf spectra.'
author:
- 'T. L. Roellig, J. E. Van Cleve, G. C. Sloan, J. C. Wilson, D. Saumon, S. K. Leggett, M. S. Marley, M. C. Cushing, J. D. Kirkpatrick, A. K. Mainzer, and J. R. Houck'
title: 'Spitzer Infrared Spectrograph Observations of M, L, and T Dwarfs'
---
Introduction
============
Within the past few years the number of known brown dwarfs has increased dramatically, with both the Sloan Digital Sky Survey [SDSS; @yor00] and Two Micron All-Sky Survey [2MASS; @skr97] accounting for the bulk of the discoveries. These objects have been identified based on broad-band photometry with follow-up optical and near-infrared spectroscopy. The integrated data from these investigations has yielded important information about the variation of the chemical composition and of the effects of condensates in brown dwarfs in term of their spectral types [e. g. @kir00; @leg01; @bur02; @mcl03; @kna04].
Spectroscopic observations in the mid-infrared yield important additional information [@sau03], but due to the very low infrared brightness of these objects and the effects of the Earth’s atmospheric absorption these measurements have been difficult or impossible from ground-based observatories. With the launch of the Spitzer Space Telescope [@wer04] and the onboard Infrared Spectrograph [IRS; @hou04] on 2003 August 25, we now have an observatory with sufficient sensitivity to undertake these studies. Accordingly, the Science Team of the IRS has organized a comprehensive observational program of M, L, and T dwarfs, covering the range from the earliest M dwarfs to the latest T dwarfs. We present here the first results from this program: observations of the M3.5 star GJ 1001A (LHS 102A), the L8 dwarf DENIS-P J0255$-$4700 (hereafter J0255$-$4700), and the T1/T6 binary system $\epsilon$ Indi Ba/Bb.
Observations and Flight Data Reduction
======================================
The three objects described here were observed with the IRS instrument on the Spitzer Space Telescope as part of one of the major IRS Science Team Guaranteed Time Observing programs. The IRS is capable of low-and moderate-resolution spectroscopy, with only data from the low-resolution modules being reported here. Each of the IRS low-resolution modules is fed by two long slits, one used for first order and the second used for second order. The IRS low-resolution modules have slit lengths of 546 and 1513 for both orders in the short-low (SL) and long-low (LL) modules, respectively. The spectral resolution of the SL module as determined by the slit width is $\Delta\lambda$ = 0.06 for second order and $\Delta\lambda$ = 0.12 for first order. The spectral resolution of the LL module as determined by the slit width is $\Delta\lambda$ = 0.17 for second order and $\Delta\lambda$ = 0.32 for first order. The slit widths of both of the IRS low-resolution modules are Nyquist sampled by the pixel pitch of their infrared arrays. @hou04 describe the design, performance, and operation of the IRS in more detail.
Table 1 provides a summary of the observations reported here. As all of these objects have relatively large proper motions, the IRS blue peakup array was used to locate the current positions of these objects and to reposition them into the IRS slits with an estimated radial uncertainty of approximately 04, (1$\sigma$). Each object was observed at two locations in each of the IRS low-resolution slits, with the positions located at approximately the 1/3 and 2/3 positions along the long axis of the slits.
The standard IRS data reduction pipeline version S9.1 at the Spitzer Science Center processed the data. Stellar standards were also observed to calibrate the spectra and remove any spectral artifacts which may have survived the processing; the results reported here were corrected with the A dwarf standard star $\delta$ UMi. The zodiacal and galactic backgrounds were subtracted before the spectral extractions using observations when the target was located in the alternate slit. Finally, the spectra were extracted from the sky-subtracted two-dimensional array images using an early version of the SMART IRS data-reduction software package being developed at Cornell University [@hig04].
Figure 1 shows the resulting IRS low-resolution spectra for the three objects reported here. At this early stage in the Spitzer mission, our estimated uncertainty in the absolute photometry is $\pm25\%$, but the uncertainty in the spectral shape is much less than this. The caption for Figure 1 gives the uncertainties in the spectral shapes which were estimated from a combination of the measured noise in the individual reads of the pixels in the detector arrays and the variation between the spectra extracted from the observations at the two slit positions. These uncertainties therefore incorporate some measure of the residual systematic uncertainties and spectral flat-fielding errors. Uncertainties in the absolute flux calibration were estimated in different ways for the three objects and are described below.
[lll]{}
GJ 1001A & 2003 December 16 & 4190464\
\
& SL2 480 seconds\
& SL1 480 seconds\
& LL2 480 seconds\
& LL1 960 seconds\
\
DENIS-P J0255$-$4700 & 2004 January 7 & 4192000\
\
& SL2 480 seconds\
& SL1 480 seconds\
& LL2 480 seconds\
& LL1 960 seconds\
\
$\epsilon$ Indi Ba/Bb & 2003 September 26 & 6625792\
\
& SL2 56 seconds\
& SL1 56 seconds\
{height="4.5in"}
{height="4.5in"}
Discussion
==========
As the atmospheres of brown dwarfs cool with time, their spectral signatures reflect a progression of changes in their atmospheric chemical equilibrium and condensate structure. The three dwarfs discussed here provide snapshots of this progression. In an M dwarf such as GJ 1001A, the elements O, C, and N are predominantly found in $\rm H_2$O, CO, and $\rm N_2$ and the atmosphere is too warm for condensation of solids ([@all95; @lod99]). As the effective temperature ($T_{eff}$) falls, a variety of condensates form in the atmosphere, most notably iron and silicates. These condensates are not expected to be well-mixed through the atmosphere, but rather be found in relatively thin, discrete cloud layers overlying the condensation level ([@ack01; @mar02; @tsu02; @woi04]). As the $T_{eff}$ falls to that of a late L dwarf, such as J0255$-$4700, the cloud layer is optically thick and affects either directly (as a major opacity source) or indirectly (by altering the atmospheric temperature/pressure profile) all spectral regions. The exact spectral signature of the cloud depends both on its vertical thickness and the particle size distribution of the condensates. In addition as the atmosphere cools chemical equilibrium begins to favor first $\rm CH_4$ over CO and then $\rm NH_3$ over $\rm N_2$ ([@tsu64; @feg96; @bur99; @lod99; @lod02; @bur01]). The strong mid-infrared bands of these molecules begin to challenge the domination of water opacity, at least in some spectral regions, by the late L’s. By the early to mid T dwarfs, such as the $\epsilon$ Indi pair, the condensate cloud is forming quite deep in the atmosphere. In the relatively clear, cool atmosphere above the cloud, chemical equilibrium begins to strongly favor $\rm CH_4$ and $\rm NH_3$ and their spectral features, along with particularly strong bands of water, grow in prominence ([@mar96; @bur97; @all01; @bur03]).
Figure 1 shows the resulting pronounced changes in the mid-infrared spectral morphology between the three objects. The spectra and comparisons with synthetic spectra are considered for each of the objects in turn.
GJ 1001A
--------
GJ 1001A is classified as an M3.5 V star [@haw96] and is part of a binary system with the L5 dwarf GJ 1001B [@gol99]. The distance between the primary and secondary is large enough (18) that there is no contamination of the primary’s spectrum by stray light from the secondary. Using optical and near-infrared spectra, Leggett et al. (2002) find a best fit to this object with $T_{eff}$ = 3200 K and ${\rm log} \ g = 5$ using a mixing length parameter of 2 in the AMES-dusty models of Allard et al. (2001). Figure 2 compares this same model, smoothed to a spectral resolution of $R\sim 400$, with the IRS data. The 6.5 feature seen in the IRS spectrum also appears in the model and arises from H$_{2}$O opacity.
For the object GJ 1001A the near-infrared observations [@leg02] can be used with the model and the resulting predicted photometric flux compared with our observations. Although the shape of the model spectrum is an excellent match to the IRS data, the model fluxes derived from the near-infrared observations had to be scaled by a factor of 0.87 to fit the observed data. The near-infrared flux levels are consistent with the $T_{eff}$ and radius derived from the luminosity if the dwarf is older than 0.15 Gyr [@leg02; @bar98].
J0255$-$4700
------------
J0255$-$4700 is classified optically as an L8 dwarf.[^1] Unfortunately the trigonometric parallax distance of this object has not been measured. Considerable structure can be seen in the IRS spectrum and to interpret these results we have compared the IRS data with the model described by @mar02 and Saumon et al. (2003), with T$_{eff}$ = 1400 K, ${\rm log} \ g = 4.5$ in Figure 2. In this model atmospheric condensate clouds are treated as described by @ack01 with a sedimentation efficiency parameter $f_{sed} = 3$. The model has been normalized to match the observed flux in the 8.6 – 9.0 region. Models that include condensate sedimentation in the chemical equilibrium but ignore cloud opacity require unrealistically high T$_{eff}$ to acceptably fit the data and these are not shown here. We judge the excellent agreement of the cloudy model to the J0255$-$4700 data as further evidence for finite-thickness silicate and iron clouds in the observable atmospheres of late L dwarfs. As can be seen in the figure the correlation between the model spectrum and the IRS data is excellent, although there is a slight discrepancy between the data and model predictions in the H$_2$O feature at 5.5 – 6.5 . In addition there is a broad shallow dip in the IRS data compared with the model between 9 and 11 that may be due to a silicate cloud feature. The IRS spectrum shows the first detection of the 7.8 CH$_4$ band in a brown dwarf. $\rm CH_4$ was detected at 3.3 in L dwarfs by @nol00 and since the $7.8\,\rm \mu m$ band is of comparable strength to the $3.3\,\rm
\mu m$ fundamental, it is not surprising to find this mid-infrared signature of atmospheric methane in an L dwarf. Models with ([@sau03]) and without ([@bur97; @all01]) dust opacity also anticipated this feature in the L dwarf T$_{eff}$ range along with the water features noted above. Methane absorption is even more obvious in the spectrum of the $\epsilon$ Indi B system discussed below.
@cre04 used OSCIR at Gemini South to image J0255$-$4700 in the $N$-band ($\sim 8.1$ – 13.4 ) and three narrowband filters centered at 8.8, 10.3 and 11.7 . Flux density detections were obtained in the $N$ and 8.8 bands, with upper limits for the 10.3 and 11.7 bands. Despite the estimated 25% uncertainty in our absolute flux calibration, the IRS spectrum cannot be scaled to match both their $N$-band and their 8.8 flux density measurements. @cre04 note that the $N$-band flux density is a factor of 2 to 3 greater than the narrowband values and discuss possible causes of this discrepancy. Our data can rule out two of their suggestions - the presence of peculiar emission or absorption lines. Figures 1 and 2 show that there are no strong emission features in the $N$ bandpass and also that the narrow bandpasses do not fall in regions of strong absorption. While it is difficult to reconcile all of the Creech-Eakman et al. photometry with our IRS spectrum, our data can be brought into approximate agreement with the three narrowband measurements if the spectrum is scaled to the lower limit of the 8.8 $\mu$m OSCIR detection. This may indicate that the $N$-band measurement is in error.
$\epsilon$ Indi Ba and Bb
-------------------------
The $\epsilon$ Indi Ba and Bb system consists of a T1 and T6 dwarf separated by 0732 [@mcc04]. The IRS does not have the spatial resolution to separate the two objects so the measured spectrum is a composite of the two individual spectra. In this object we find the first evidence for NH$_3$ absorption in the spectrum between 10 and 11 , although its presence in very cool brown dwarf atmospheres has been expected for some time [@tsu64; @mar96; @feg96; @sau00; @all01; @bur03; @sau03]. @sau00 reported a weak detection of NH$_3$ in the near infrared spectrum of the T6 dwarf Gl 229B but this is the first strong detection of NH$_3$ in a brown dwarf. With the lower T$_{eff}$ for the components of this binary system the condensate clouds are predicted to be below the photosphere and thus have a less pronounced effect on the composite spectrum than they do on the L8 dwarf’s spectrum.
A composite model spectrum provides an excellent match to the IRS data and was obtained as follows. As with the model for J0255$-$4700 we used the model described by @mar02 and Saumon et al. (2003). From the estimates of $L_{bol}$ for each component [@mcc04] and the estimated age of $\epsilon$ Indi A [0.8–2 Gyr; @lac99], we use our brown dwarf cooling calculations [@mar04] to obtain ($T_{eff}$, log $g$, $R/R_{\sun}$) = (1250 K, 5.13, 0.094), (840 K, 4.89, 0.100) for the T1 and the T6 dwarfs, respectively. Selecting the closest cloudless synthetic spectra in our grid of models (1200 K, 5.0) and (800 K, 5.0) which are within the uncertainties of those parameters, and using the above radii and the trigonometric parallax of $\epsilon$ Indi A [@per97], the absolute flux at the Earth of the T dwarf binary was obtained. Note that in Figure 2, the composite model spectrum has not been normalized to the IRS data, so that in this case the predicted flux agrees with the IRS data to within the data errors.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
\(1) We have taken advantage of the unprecedented sensitivity of the Infrared Spectrograph instrument on the Spitzer Space telescope to observe two brown dwarfs. These are the first spectra in this wavelength range ever reported for this type of object. The spectrum of an M dwarf is also reported here, providing a contrast between objects with masses above and below the Hydrogen-Burning Minimum Mass.
\(2) The observed mid-infrared spectral morphologies of these three objects vary strongly with their spectral classes, reflecting the changes in gas chemistry driven by the temperature of their atmospheres.
\(3) Model comparisons with the observed spectra of all three objects show good agreement, with only a few minor deviations. Models with cloud opacities do a better job of reproducing the data from J0255$-$4700 than do models without clouds.
\(4) We report here the first positive detection of the 7.8 methane band. We also report the first unambiguous detection of NH$_3$ in a brown dwarf atmosphere.
Acknowledgments
===============
We are pleased to thank the entire team of dedicated scientists, engineers, and managers that contributed to the development of the Spitzer observatory and the IRS instrument. In particular, we would like to especially thank Larry Simmons and David Gallagher of JPL, and John Troeltzsch, Marty Huisjen, and John Marriott of Ball Aerospace for their leadership in this endeavor. This work is based on observations made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA contract 1407. Support for this work was provided by NASA’s Office of Space Science. T. Roellig and M. Marley would like to acknowledge the support of the NASA Office of Space Sciences. D. Saumon’s work at LANL is supported by the United States Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36. M. Cushing is supported by a Spitzer Fellowship.
Ackerman, A. S. & Marley, M. S. 2001, , 556, 872
Allard, F. & Hauschildt, P. H. 1995, , 445, 433
Allard, F. Hauschildt, P. H., Alexander, D. R., Tamanai, A., & Schweitzer, A. 2001, , 556, 357
Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F. & Hauschildt, P. H. 1998, , 337, 403
Burgasser, A. J. et al. 2002, , 564, 421
Burrows, A., et al. 1997, , 491, 856
Burrows, A., Hubbard, W. B., Lunine, J. I., & Lieberrt, J. 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 719
Burrows, A. & Sharp, C. M. 1999, , 512, 843
Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., & Lunine, J. I. 2003, , 596, 587
Creech-Eakman, M. J., Orton, G. S., Serabyn, E. & Hayward. 2004, , 602, L129
Fegley, B. J. & Lodders, K. 1996, , 472, L37
Goldman, B. et al. 1999, , 351, L5
Hawley, S.L., Gizis, J. E., & Reid, I. N. 1996, , 112, 2799
Higdon, S. J. U., et al. 2004, , submitted
Houck, J.R., et al. 2004, , in this issue
Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al., 2000, , 120, 447
Knapp, G. K., et al., 2004, , in press
Lachaume, R., Dominik, C., Lanz, T. & Habing, H. J. 1999, , 348, 897L
Leggett, S. K., Allard, F., Geballe, T. R., Hauschildt, P. H., & Schweitzer, A., 2001, , 548, 908
Leggett, S. K., Hauschildt, P. H., Allard, F., Geballe, T. R., & Baron, E. 2002, , 332, 78
Lodders, K. 1999, , 519, 793
Lodders, K. & Fegley, B. 2002, Icarus, 155, 393
Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Guillot, T., Freedman, R. S., Hubbard, W. B., Burrows, A., & Lunine, J. I. 1996, Science, 272, 1919
Marley, M. S., Seager, S., Saumon, D., Lodders, K., Ackerman, A. S., Freedman, R. S., & Fan X. 2002, , 568, 335
Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Lodders, K., Freedman, R. S., 2004, in preparation.
McCaughrean, et al. 2004, , 413, 1029
McLean, I. S., McGovern, M. R., Burgasser, A. J., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Prato, L., & Kim, S.S. 2003, , 596,561
Noll, K. S., Geballe, T. R., Leggett, S. K., & Marley, M. S. 2000, , 541, L75
Perryman, M. A. C., et al. 1997, , 323, L49
Saumon, D., Geballe, T. R., Leggett, S. K., Marley, M.S., Freedman, R. S., Lodders, K., Fegley, B., Jr. & Sengupta, S. K. 2000, , 541, 374
Saumon, D., Marley, M.S., & Lodders, K. 2003, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0310805
Scholz, R.-D., McCaughrean, M. J., Lodieu, N., & Kuhlbrodt, B. 2003, , 398, L29
Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 1997, in The Impact of Large Scale Near-IR Sky Surveys, ed. F. Garzon et al. (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing Company), 25
Tsuji, 1964, Annals of the Tokyo Astronomical Observatory, 9,1
Tsuji, T. 2002, , 575, 264
Werner et al. 2004, , in this issue
Woitke, P. & Helling, C. 2004, , 414, 335
York, D. G. et al. 2000, , 120, 1579
[^1]: http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/davy/ARCHIVE
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
### startsection[subsubsection]{}[3]{}[10pt]{}[-1.25ex plus -1ex minus -.1ex]{}[0ex plus 0ex]{}[****]{}
#### startsection[paragraph]{}[4]{}[10pt]{}[-1.25ex plus -1ex minus -.1ex]{}[0ex plus 0ex]{}
biblabel\[1\][\#1]{}
makefntext\[1\][\#1]{}
Introduction
============
Microgels are soft colloidal particles, composed of cross-linked polymer gels, possessing internal degrees of freedom that allow them to swell to many times their dry size when dispersed in a solvent.[@baker1949; @pelton1986; @pelton2000; @saunders2009] Porosity and compressibility enable microgels to adjust their size in response to changes in temperature, $p$H, and concentrations of different species. Responsiveness to environmental conditions, coupled with ability to absorb and transport cargo, e.g., fluorescent dye or drug molecules, facilitates applications of microgels to biosensing and drug delivery. [@HydrogelBook2012; @MicrogelBook2011; @lyon-nieves-AnnuRevPhysChem2012; @yunker-yodh-review2014] In a polar solvent, microgels may acquire charge (ionize) via dissociation of counterions into solution. Salt ions, whether naturally present or added, contribute to the total population of free microions (counterions and coions), which screen the bare Coulomb interactions between ionic microgels.
The elastic properties of microgels have been explored in numerous experimental and modeling studies. [@cloitre-leibler1999; @cloitre-leibler2003; @tan2004; @nieves-macromol2000; @nieves-jcp2003; @nieves-macromol2009; @hellweg2010; @weitz-sm2012; @weitz-jcp2012; @ciamarra2013; @nieves-sm2011; @schurtenberger-ZPC2012; @nieves-sm2012; @nieves-bulk-shear-pre2011; @nieves-bulk-pre2011; @dufresne2009; @nieves-prl2015] Experimental measurements of microgel swelling have deployed an array of techniques, including static and dynamic light scattering, optical microscopy, small-angle neutron scattering, and osmometry. [@mohanty-richtering2008; @richtering2008; @lyon2007; @weitz-pre2012; @schurtenberger-SM2012; @holmqvist-shurtenberger2012; @holmqvist-shurtenberger2012-erratum; @schurtenberger2013; @nieves-pre2013; @schurtenberger2014; @braibanti-perez2016] Suspensions of soft microgels display thermodynamic, structural, and dynamical properties that differ significantly from those of suspensions of hard colloids. [@weitz-prl1995; @groehn2000; @levin2002; @nieves-jcp2005; @winkler-gompper2012; @winkler-gompper2014; @winkler2017; @zaccarelli2017; @li-chen2014; @egorov-likos2013; @colla-likos2014; @colla-likos2015; @colla-likos2018; @stellbrink-likos-nanoscale2015; @stellbrink-likos-prl2015] Differences in bulk properties are tied to single-particle compressibility and swelling, which are governed by polymer gel elasticity and entropy, polymer-solvent interactions, and – in the case of ionic microgels – electrostatic interactions.
Despite many studies, the complex interplay between elastic and electrostatic influences on the swelling behavior and bulk properties of ionic microgels is still not widely appreciated and is only partially understood. In previous work on thermodynamic and structural properties of microgel suspensions, we modeled ionic microgels as charged, elastic, but incompressible spheres[@hedrick-chung-denton2015] and nonionic microgels as uncharged, elastic, and compressible spheres.[@urich-denton2016] Here we combine these approaches to model ionic microgels as charged, elastic, and compressible spheres. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the combined influences of particle compressibility and elastic and electrostatic interparticle interactions on equilibrium thermal and structural properties of ionic microgel suspensions.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In Sec. \[models\], we derive a coarse-grained one-component model of ionic microgel suspensions, in which the microgels are represented as compressible, charged spheres and the solvent and microions appear implicitly through effective interparticle interactions. The model is a synthesis of a single-particle polymer free energy, approximated via the Flory-Rehner theory of cross-linked polymer networks,[@flory-rehner1943-I; @flory-rehner1943-II; @flory1953] an electrostatic self energy, and interparticle interactions, approximated by combining a Hertz elastic pair potential[@landau-lifshitz1986] with effective electrostatic interactions, derived from Poisson-Boltzmann theory.[@denton2003] In Sec. \[methods\], we describe two computational methods – Monte Carlo simulation and thermodynamic perturbation theory – with which we implemented the coarse-grained model to predict properties of ionic microgel suspensions. Section \[results\] presents results for the equilibrium swelling ratio, volume fraction, net valence, radial distribution function, and static structure factor as functions of concentration. Section \[conclusions\] summarizes and concludes.
Models
======
Ionic Microgels {#microscopic-model}
---------------
An ionic microgel is a soft colloidal particle, consisting of a cross-linked polymer network swollen by a polar solvent, from which ions (counterions) have dissociated (see Fig. \[fig1\]). Depending on the chemical synthesis, the counterions may originate from the polymer chains or from the initiator in the polymerization.[@lyon-langmuir2011] While the distributions of monomers, cross-linkers, and fixed charges depend on the synthesis method, we assume for simplicity uniform average distributions. This reference model can be generalized to heterogeneous microgels with core-shell or hollow structures.[@stieger2004; @nieves-sm2011; @weitz-jcp2012; @schurtenberger-ZPC2012; @ciamarra2013; @moncho-jorda-anta2013; @boon-schurtenberger2017; @quesada-perez2013; @quesada-perez-moncho-jorda-anta2015; @potemkin2015] Assuming random close packing of monomers in the unswollen (dry) state, the dry particle radius $a_0$ is determined by the number $N_{\rm mon}$ and radius $a_{\rm mon}$ of monomers making up a particle via $a_0\simeq(N_{\rm mon}/0.63)^{1/3}a_{\rm mon}$. The swollen particle radius $a$ is determined by the fraction of monomers that are cross-linked, the number of fixed charges (valence), and the solution conditions, including temperature, solvent quality, and concentrations of salt and microgels.
We consider $N_m$ spherical microgels of valence $Z$ dispersed in a solvent of volume $V$ with $N_{\pm}$ counterions/coions. Assuming negatively charged microgels (charge $-Ze$), global electroneutrality requires $ZN_m=N_+-N_-$, which equals the number of counterions that dissociate from the polymer chains. In a closed system, the number of salt ion pairs $N_s=N_-$ is fixed. In the case of Donnan equilibrium between the suspension and an electrolyte reservoir across a semipermeable membrane, the salt concentration of the suspension is determined by the reservoir concentration. Given the average microgel number density $n_m=N_m/V$, the dry volume fraction, $\phi_0=(4\pi/3)n_m a_0^3$, is defined as the fraction of the total volume occupied by the particles in their dry state. For swollen particles of radius $a$ (swelling ratio $\alpha=a/a_0$), the actual volume fraction, $\phi=(4\pi/3)n_m a^3=\phi_0\alpha^3$, can substantially exceed $\phi_0$ and may even exceed the close-packing limit for hard spheres if particles become faceted or otherwise deform in shape. [@riest2015; @cloitre-bonnecaze2010; @cloitre-bonnacaze2011]
![ Schematic drawing of an ionic microgel (large red sphere), with cross-linked polymer chains shown to suggest internal structure, surrounded by oppositely charged counterions (small blue spheres). In coarse-grained model, microions and polymer chains are implicit. []{data-label="fig1"}](vmdscene.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Coarse-Grained Model
--------------------
Rather than attempt to explicitly model all monomers and ions in a microgel suspension, we develop a more computationally practical approach that averages over solvent, polymer, and microion degrees of freedom to reduce a suspension of ionic microgels to a system of elastic, charged, spherical particles governed by an effective Hamiltonian that comprises both a single-particle free energy and effective interparticle interactions. The resulting coarse-grained model, incorporating both the polymeric and the colloidal natures of microgels, can be derived from a molecular model by first tracing out the solvent degrees of freedom, leading to the primitive model, with the solvent replaced by a dielectric continuum, and then tracing out the remaining microscopic (polymer and microion) degrees of freedom, leading to a one-component model with microgels replaced by pseudo-microgels.
In the canonical ensemble, with fixed numbers of particles in a volume $V$ at temperature $T$, the partition function of the system in the primitive model may be expressed as $${\cal Z}={\Big\langle}{\Big\langle}{\Big\langle}e^{-\beta(K+H_m+H_{mm}+H_{m\mu}+H_{\mu\mu})} {\Big\rangle}_p{\Big\rangle}_{\mu}{\Big\rangle}_m,
\label{Z}$$ where $\beta\equiv 1/(k_BT)$, $K$ is the total kinetic energy of the system, and angular brackets denote traces over polymer ($p$), microion ($\mu$), and center-of-mass microgel ($m$) coordinates. The polymer coordinates are internal degrees of freedom of the microgels associated with motion of segments making up the cross-linked polymer chains. In the Boltzmann factor, $H_m$ is the single-microgel Hamiltonian, comprising both polymeric and electrostatic self energies, $H_{mm}$ incorporates polymeric and electrostatic energies of interaction between microgels, and $H_{m\mu}$ and $H_{\mu\mu}$ account, respectively, for microgel-microion and microion-microion interactions.
Since classical traces commute, the trace over polymer coordinates can be independently performed, with the result $${\cal Z}=e^{-\beta(U_e+F_p)}{\Big\langle}{\Big\langle}e^{-\beta(K+H_{mm}+H_{m\mu}+H_{\mu\mu})} {\Big\rangle}_{\mu}{\Big\rangle}_m,
\label{Z1}$$ where, if we assume spherical microgels of swollen radii $a_i$ ($i=1,\ldots,N_m$), $$U_e=\sum_{i=1}^{N_m}\, u_e(a_i)
\label{Ue}$$ is the electrostatic self energy of the fixed charges and $$F_p=\sum_{i=1}^{N_m}\, f_p(a_i)
\label{Fp}$$ is the free energy associated with polymeric degrees of freedom within the microgels. For uniformly distributed fixed charges, the single-microgel electrostatic self energy is $$u_e(a)=\frac{3}{5}\frac{Z^2e^2}{\epsilon a},
\label{ue}$$ where $\epsilon$ is the dielectric constant of the implicit solvent. To approximate the single-microgel polymer free energy, we adopt the Flory-Rehner theory of polymer networks. [@flory-rehner1943-I; @flory-rehner1943-II; @flory1953] In the case of uniformly distributed cross-linkers that divide the network into $N_{\rm ch}$ chains, the Flory-Rehner theory predicts $$\begin{aligned}
\beta f_p(\alpha)&=&N_{\rm mon}\left[(\alpha^3-1)\ln\left(1-\alpha^{-3}\right)
+\chi\left(1-\alpha^{-3}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\[1ex]
&+&\frac{3}{2}N_{\rm ch}\left(\alpha^2-\ln\alpha-1\right),
\label{fp}\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi$ is the polymer-solvent interaction (solvency) parameter. In Eq. (\[fp\]), the first term in square brackets combines the entropy of mixing of microgel monomers and solvent molecules with a mean-field approximation for the polymer-solvent interaction, which neglects interparticle correlations. The last term in Eq. (\[fp\]) accounts for the elastic free energy of stretching the microgel network by assuming isotropic deformation, ignoring changes in internal energy associated with the structure of the surrounding solvent, and modeling polymers as Gaussian coils. The Gaussian model is reasonable for chain end-to-end displacements much shorter than the polymer contour length,[@potemkin2015] which implies swelling ratios $\alpha\ll \sqrt{N_{\rm mon}/N_{\rm ch}}$. Numerous studies [@weitz-jcp2012; @schurtenberger-ZPC2012; @ciamarra2013; @colla-likos2014; @colla-likos2015; @nieves-sm2012; @weitz-sm2012; @nieves-bulk-shear-pre2011; @nieves-sm2011; @nieves-bulk-pre2011; @nieves-macromol2009; @nieves-jcp2003; @nieves-macromol2000; @pelton2000; @hellweg2010; @saunders2009; @moncho-jorda-dzubiella2016] have established that the Flory-Rehner theory, although originally developed for macroscopic gels, yields a reasonable description of the elastic properties of loosely cross-linked microgels, despite overestimating the solvency parameter.[@richtering2017] Nevertheless, more realistic and accurate theories of polymer network swelling could be incorporated into the model.[@blundell2009; @dzubiella2017]
Returning to the trace over microgel and microion coordinates in Eq. (\[Z1\]), the term $H_{mm}$ represents the total internal energy associated with effective elastic and bare (Coulomb) electrostatic interactions between microgels. If we assume pairwise additive elastic forces, a practical model of effective elastic interactions is provided by the Hertz potential,[@landau-lifshitz1986] $$v_H(r)=\left\{ \begin{array}
{l@{\quad\quad}l}
B_{ij}\left(1-\frac{\displaystyle r}{\displaystyle a_i+a_j}\right)^{5/2},
& r\leq a_i+a_j \\[1ex]
0~,
& r>a_i+a_j, \end{array} \right.
\label{Hertz}$$ whose amplitude depends on the elastic properties of the gel through Young’s modulus $Y_i$ and Poisson’s ratio $\nu_i$[@landau-lifshitz1986]: $$B_{ij}=\frac{8}{15}\left(\frac{1-\nu_i^2}{Y_i}+\frac{1-\nu_j^2}{Y_j}\right)^{-1}
(a_i+a_j)^2\sqrt{a_i a_j}.
\label{B1}$$ In the case of equal radii ($a$) and equal elastic constants ($Y$, $\nu$), the Hertz amplitude simplifies to $$B=\frac{16Y a^3}{15(1-\nu^2)}.
\label{B2}$$ For polymer gels in good solvents, scaling theory[@deGennes1979] predicts that Young’s modulus scales linearly with temperature and cross-linker number density: $Y\sim TN_{\rm ch}/a^3$. Thus, the reduced Hertz amplitude, $B^*\equiv\beta B$, is proportional to $N_{\rm ch}$ and is essentially independent of temperature and particle volume, neglecting any dependence of $\nu$ on $\alpha$. The total internal energy associated with pair interactions is then approximated by $$U_{mm}=\sum_{i<j=1}^{N_m}\, [v_H(r_{ij})+v_C(r_{ij})],
\label{Umm}$$ where $r_{ij}$ is the center-to-center separation of particles $i$ and $j$ and $v_C(r)$ is the bare Coulomb interaction between microgels.
The coarse-graining procedure is completed by tracing out the microion degrees of freedom. This step reduces the partition function of the multi-component mixture to that of a one-component model (OCM) of pseudo-microgels, $${\cal Z}_{\rm OCM}={\Big\langle}e^{-\beta H_{\rm eff}}{\Big\rangle}_m,
\label{Z2}$$ governed by an effective Hamiltonian, $$H_{\rm eff}=K_m+U_e+F_p+U_{mm}-k_BT\ln{\Big\langle}e^{-\beta(K_{\mu}+H_{m\mu}+H_{\mu\mu})}{\Big\rangle}_{\mu},
\label{Heff1}$$ which involves effective electrostatic interactions between the pseudo-microgels. Here $K_m$ and $K_{\mu}$ are the kinetic energies of the microgels and microions, respectively. If the microion densities respond linearly to the electrostatic potential of the microgels, the effective electrostatic interactions are limited to one- and two-body contributions. [@denton2003; @denton2000; @denton-cecam2014] Under this approximation, the effective Hamiltonian takes the form $$H_{\rm eff}=K_m+U_e+F_p+E_V(n_m)+U_{\rm eff}(n_m),
\label{Heff2}$$ where $E_V(n_m)$ is a one-body volume energy and $$U_{\rm eff}(n_m)=\sum_{i<j=1}^{N_m}\, \left[v_H(r_{ij})+v_{\rm eff}(r_{ij}; n_m)\right]
\label{Ueff}$$ is the microgel-microgel interaction energy, which combines the Hertz elastic pair potential with an effective electrostatic pair potential $v_{\rm eff}(r; n_m)$. Note that $E_V(n_m)$ and $v_{\rm eff}(r; n_m)$ both depend on the average microgel density and consistently incorporate screening of the fixed network charge by mobile microions. Equations (\[Heff2\]) and (\[Ueff\]) constitute a formal expression of the coarse-grained model of ionic microgels. Although we adopt here the Flory-Rehner and Hertz models for $f_p$ and $v_H(r)$, alternative models of polymer gels could be substituted.
Still required for applications is specification of the effective electrostatic interactions. In previous work,[@denton2003] one of us combined the linear-response approximation with a random-phase approximation for the response functions of the microion plasma to derive practical expressions for the effective interactions. The form of the effective electrostatic pair potential depends on whether or not the microgels are overlapping: $$v_{\rm eff}(r)=
\left\{ \begin{array} {l@{\quad\quad}l}
v_{\scriptscriptstyle Y}(r), & r>a_i+a_j
\\[2ex]
v_{\rm ov}(r), & r\leq a_i+a_j.
\end{array} \right.
\label{veff}$$ Nonoverlapping microgels ($r>a_i+a_j$) interact via an effective Yukawa (screened-Coulomb) pair potential, $$\beta v_{\scriptscriptstyle Y}(r)=\lambda_B Z_{\rm net}(a_i)Z_{\rm net}(a_j)
\frac{\displaystyle e^{\kappa(a_i+a_j)}}{\displaystyle (1+\kappa a_i)(1+\kappa a_j)}
\frac{\displaystyle e^{-\kappa r}}{\displaystyle r},
\label{vY}$$ where $$\kappa=\sqrt{4\pi\lambda_B(n_++n_-)}=\sqrt{4\pi\lambda_B(Zn_m+2n_s)}
\label{kappa}$$ is the Debye screening constant, which depends on the average microgel density and the salt ion pair density $n_s=N_s/V$, and $$Z_{\rm net}(a)=(1+\kappa a)e^{-\kappa a}
\frac{3Z}{\kappa^2 a^2}\left(\cosh(\kappa a)-\frac{\sinh(\kappa a)}{\kappa a}\right)
\label{znet}$$ is the linear-response theory prediction[@denton2003] for the net valence of a microgel, defined as the bare valence $Z$ times the fraction of counterions exterior to the microgel. In passing, we note that, since $Z_{\rm net}$ depends on the product $\kappa a$, and since $\kappa$ increases, while $a$ decreases, with increasing microgel concentration, $Z_{\rm net}$ depends nontrivially on concentration and swelling ratio.
For overlapping microgels, the effective electrostatic pair potential can be decomposed as $$v_{\rm ov}(r)=v_{mm}(r)+v_{\rm ind}(r), \quad r\leq a_i+a_j,
\label{vr<2a-gel}$$ where $v_{mm}(r)$ is the bare (Coulomb) pair potential and $v_{\rm ind}(r)$ is the microion-induced potential. In the simplest case of uniformly charged microgels of equal size,[@denton2003] $$\beta v_{mm}(r)=Z^2\frac{\lambda_B}{a}\left(\frac{6}{5}-\frac{1}{2}{\tilde r}^2
+\frac{3}{16}{\tilde r}^3-\frac{1}{160}{\tilde r}^5\right)
\label{vmmr<2a-gel}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&\beta v_{\rm ind}(r)=
-\left(\frac{3Z}{{\tilde\kappa}^2}\right)^2\frac{\lambda_B}{2r}\left[
\left(1+\frac{1}{{\tilde\kappa}}\right)^2e^{-2{\tilde\kappa}}\sinh(\kappa r)\right.
\nonumber\\[1ex]
&&+\left(1-\frac{1}{{\tilde\kappa}^2}\right)
\left(1-e^{-\kappa r}+\frac{1}{2}\kappa^2r^2+\frac{1}{24}\kappa^4r^4\right)
\nonumber\\[1ex]
&&-\left.\frac{2}{3}{\tilde\kappa}^2\left(1-\frac{2}{5}{\tilde\kappa}^2\right){\tilde r}-\frac{1}{9}{\tilde\kappa}^4{\tilde r}^3-\frac{1}{720}{\tilde\kappa}^4{\tilde r}^6 \right],
\label{vindr<2a-gel}\end{aligned}$$ with ${\tilde\kappa}\equiv \kappa a$ and ${\tilde r}\equiv r/a$. We omit the generalizations of Eqs. (\[vmmr<2a-gel\]) and (\[vindr<2a-gel\]) to microgels of different sizes, as they are not needed in the applications considered below in Sec. \[results\].
Within the same approximations, the volume energy takes the explicit form $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\hspace*{-1cm}
\beta E_V=\beta F_{\rm plasma}-3\lambda_B Z^2\sum_{i=1}^{N_m}\, \frac{1}{a_i}
\left\{\frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{2(\kappa a_i)^2}\right.
\nonumber\\[1ex]
&&
\hspace*{-1cm}
+\frac{3}{4(\kappa a_i)^3}
\left.
\left[1-\frac{(1+\kappa a_i)^2}{(\kappa a_i)^4}
e^{-2\kappa a_i}\right]\right\}
-\frac{ZN_m}{2}\frac{n_+-n_-}{n_++n_-},
\label{EV}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{\pm}=N_{\pm}/V$ are the average microion densities and $$\beta F_{\rm plasma}~=~N_+[\ln(n_+\Lambda^3)-1]+N_-[\ln(n_-\Lambda^3)-1]
\label{fplasma}$$ is the ideal-gas free energy of a plasma of microions in a uniform compensating background, $\Lambda$ being the thermal de Broglie wavelength. Equations (\[vY\]) and (\[EV\]) are straightforward generalizations of the previously derived effective electrostatic interactions[@denton2003] to polydisperse suspensions. [@colla-likos2015]
The coarse-grained one-component model developed above synthesizes previously studied models of incompressible, ionic microgels[@denton2003; @hedrick-chung-denton2015] and compressible, nonionic microgels.[@urich-denton2016] Within this comprehensive model, particle swelling is determined by (1) elastic free energy of the polymer network internal to the microgels, approximated by the Flory-Rehner free energy \[Eq. (\[fp\])\]; (2) elastic interparticle interactions, approximated by the Hertz potential \[Eq. (\[Hertz\])\]; (3) electrostatic self energy of the microgels \[Eq. (\[ue\])\]; and (4) effective electrostatic interactions between microgels, approximated by a linear-response theory \[Eqs. (\[veff\])-(\[fplasma\])\]. In the next section, we describe computational methods for implementing the model.
Methods
=======
Monte Carlo Simulation {#MC}
----------------------
To predict equilibrium swelling behavior and thermal and structural properties of bulk suspensions of ionic microgels, we developed a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation method suited to the coarse-grained one-component model described in Sec. \[models\]. We performed constant-$NVT$ (canonical ensemble) simulations of pseudo-microgels confined to a cubic cell with periodic boundary conditions at fixed system parameters: $\lambda_B$, $Z$, $a_0$, $N_{\rm mon}$, $N_{\rm ch}$, $\chi$, $B^*$, $\phi_0$, and $n_s$. Figure \[fig2\] shows a typical snapshot of the system. In a variation of the conventional Metropolis algorithm,[@frenkel-smit2001; @binder-heermann2010] our method involves trial moves that combine both displacements [*and*]{} changes in size of the particles. [@urich-denton2016] A trial move that simultaneously displaces and swells/deswells a particle is accepted with probability $${\cal P}_{\rm acc}=\min\left\{e^{-\beta(\Delta U_e+\Delta F_p+\Delta E_V+\Delta U_{\rm eff})},~1\right\},
\label{Pacc}$$ where $\Delta U_e$, $\Delta F_p$, and $\Delta E_V$ are, respectively, the changes in electrostatic self energy \[Eq. (\[ue\])\], polymer free energy \[Eq. (\[fp\])\], and volume energy \[Eq. (\[EV\])\] resulting from particle swelling/deswelling, and $\Delta U_{\rm eff}$ is the change in internal energy \[Eq. (\[Ueff\])\] associated with elastic and electrostatic interparticle interactions. In summing over particle pairs to update $U_{\rm eff}$, we applied the periodic boundary conditions to select the image of particle $j$ that is nearest to particle $i$, which amounts to cutting off the effective pair potential at a distance $r_c$ equal to half the box length. For the sizes of system simulated here, $\kappa r_c\gg 1$, such that finite-size effects are negligible. In practice, we made simultaneous trial changes in the coordinates $(x, y, z)$ and swelling ratio $\alpha$ of each particle with tolerances $\Delta x=\Delta y=\Delta z=0.1 a_0$ and $\Delta\alpha=0.05$. Through repeated trial moves, the system evolved toward an equilibrium state of minimum total free energy.
After initializing the particles on the sites of a face-centered-cubic (FCC) lattice, we executed a sequence of MC steps, each step consisting of an attempted trial move (displacement and size change) of every particle. Following an equilibration stage, after which the total energy fluctuated about a stable plateau, we collected statistics by averaging over configurations and computing equilibrium thermal and structural properties. The intrinsic size polydispersity of the particles was determined by histogramming the swelling ratio and computing the probability distribution, $P(\alpha; \phi_0)$, which varies with dry volume fraction. For structural properties, we computed the radial distribution function $g(r)$, by histogramming the center-center separation $r$ between pairs of particles, and the orientationally averaged static structure factor from $$S(q)=1+\frac{2}{N_m}\sum_{i<j=1}^{N_m}{\left\langle}\frac{\sin(q r_{ij})}{q r_{ij}}{\right\rangle},
\label{Sq}$$ where $q$ is the scattered wave vector magnitude. It should be noted that our method, since it initializes the particles on the sites of a crystal lattice, can determine only whether the system is unstable toward melting, but not whether the solid phase is thermodynamically stable. Identifying equilibrium phase boundaries would require simulating in a different ensemble or performing thermodynamic integration to compute total free energies.[@frenkel-smit2001]
![ Typical snapshot from a simulation of a suspension of compressible, ionic, spherical microgels of fluctuating size in a cubic box with periodic boundary conditions in the coarse-grained model. []{data-label="fig2"}](snapshot-new.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Thermodynamic Perturbation Theory {#theory}
---------------------------------
To validate our MC simulation method and guide the choice of system parameters, we developed and implemented a thermodynamic theory based on a variational approximation for the free energy. Our approach extends to compressible, ionic microgels an approximation previously developed and proven accurate for charged colloids[@vanRoij1997; @denton2006] and for incompressible ionic microgels.[@hedrick-chung-denton2015] Since size polydispersity associated with swelling turns out to be minimal, we consider a suspension of microgels all of the same swollen radius. Combining first-order thermodynamic perturbation theory with a hard-sphere (HS) reference system, we approximate the constrained excess free energy per microgel for fixed radius $a$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
f_{\rm ex}(n_m,a)=\min_{(d)}\left\{f_{\rm HS}(n_m; d)
+2\pi n_m\int_d^{\infty}{\rm d}r\, r^2 g_{\rm HS}(r,n_m; d)
\right.
\nonumber\\[1ex]
&&\left.{\phantom{\int}}
\times\left[v_H(r,a)+v_{\rm eff}(r,n_m,a)\right]\right\},
\label{fex}\end{aligned}$$ where $d$ is an effective HS diameter and $f_{\rm HS}$ and $g_{\rm HS}(r)$ are, respectively, the excess free energy per particle and radial distribution function of the HS system. For a HS fluid, we compute $f_{\rm HS}$ and $g_{\rm HS}(r)$ from the accurate Carnahan-Starling and Verlet-Weis expressions.[@hansen-mcdonald2006] From the Gibbs-Bogoliubov inequality,[@hansen-mcdonald2006] minimization with respect to $d$ yields a least upper bound to the constrained excess free energy for a given microgel radius. We note in passing that, in contrast to the case for hard charged colloids, the effective hard-sphere diameter for compressible microgels may in principle be smaller than the microgel diameter. The equilibrium free energy per microgel is finally obtained as the minimum with respect to $a$ of the total constrained free energy: $$f(n_m)=\min_{(a)}\left\{u_e(a)+f_p(a)+\varepsilon_V(a)+f_{\rm ex}(n_m,a)\right\},
\label{fnm}$$ where $\varepsilon_V=E_V/N_m$ is the volume energy per microgel. The value of $a$ at the minimum represents the equilibrium swollen microgel radius. Although we did not compute the osmotic pressure, we note in passing that this quantity can be computed from the free energy via the thermodynamic relation $$\pi=n_m^2\left(\frac{\partial f(n_m)}{\partial n_m}\right)_{\frac{N_s}{N_m}},
\label{pressure-theory}$$ where the density dependence of the equilibrium particle size must be accounted for in the derivative. In the case of Donnan equilibrium, the salt density in the suspension $n_s$ is determined by equating the chemical potentials of salt in the suspension and the reservoir: $$\mu_s=\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial n_s}[n_m(\varepsilon_V+f_m)]\right)_{n_m}=\mu_{sr},
\label{mus}$$ explicit expressions for which are given elsewhere.[@hedrick-chung-denton2015]
Practical applications of the theory described above are straightforward. For a given dry volume fraction and reservoir salt concentration, numerical implementation involves three nested calculations: (1) solving Eq. (\[mus\]) for $n_s$ via a root-finding algorithm; (2) minimizing $f(n_m,a)$ with respect to the microgel radius $a$ \[Eq. (\[fnm\])\] via a function minimization algorithm; and (3) minimizing $f_{\rm ex}(n_m,a,d)$ with respect to the effective hard-sphere diameter $d$ \[Eq. (\[fex\])\].
Results and Discussion {#results}
======================
To demonstrate and validate our methods, we studied the dependence of equilibrium particle swelling behavior and bulk thermodynamic and structural properties on the concentration of ionic microgel suspensions. For illustration and comparison with previous work, we chose the following system parameters, corresponding to deionized aqueous suspensions: $\lambda_B=0.72$ nm (water at $T=293$ K), $N_m=500$, $Z=500$ or 1000, $a_0=10$ nm, $N_{\rm mon}=2\times 10^5$, $N_{\rm ch}=100$, $\chi=0.5$, $B^*=1.5\times 10^4$, $\nu=0.5$, and $n_s=0$. From Eq. (\[B2\]), these parameters correspond to $Y\simeq 100-1000$ kPa. In the absence of salt, the screening constant simplifies to $\kappa=\sqrt{4\pi\lambda_B Zn_m}$. For dry volume fractions $\phi_0$ in the range from 0 to 0.1, we present results computed from averages of particle coordinates and radii over 1000 independent configurations, separated by intervals of 100 MC steps (total of $10^5$ steps), following an initial equilibration stage of $5\times 10^4$ MC steps.
![ Normalized probability distribution $P(\alpha)$ of swelling ratio $\alpha$ in deionized suspensions of ionic microgels of valence $Z=1000$ and dry radius $a_0=10$ nm, composed of $N_m=2\times 10^5$ monomers with $N_{\rm ch}=100$ chains, in a solvent with Flory solvency parameter $\chi=0.5$ at dry volume fractions $\phi_0=0.004$, 0.008, 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.1 (right to left). The particles interact via a Yukawa-Hertz pair potential with reduced Hertz amplitude $B^*=1.5\times 10^4$. With increasing concentration, microgels steadily deswell, as reflected by the shift from higher to lower swelling ratios. []{data-label="fig3"}](size.a10.Z1000.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
From simulations of the coarse-grained OCM, we computed the probability distribution $P(\alpha)$ of the equilibrium swelling ratio in suspensions of ionic microgels of valence $Z=1000$ over a range of dry volume fractions. As shown in Fig. \[fig3\], with increasing concentration, the compressible particles progressively deswell, and also become less polydisperse, reflected by $P(\alpha)$ shifting to smaller $\alpha$ and narrowing. Interestingly, the narrowing polydispersity trend is opposite that predicted for nonionic microgels.[@urich-denton2016] Note that the low degree of polydispersity seen in the simulations justifies our practical approximation of equally sized microgels in the thermodynamic perturbation theory.
Figure \[fig4\] shows both simulation data and theoretical predictions for the average equilibrium swelling ratio of both ionic and nonionic microgels vs. dry volume fraction. For ionic microgels, the average equilibrium $\alpha$ increases with increasing valence (from $Z=500$ to 1000) and exhibits a rapid decrease with $\phi_0$, commencing already in the dilute limit. In contrast, nonionic microgels ($Z=0$) are much more resistant to deswelling, yielding only at concentrations approaching and exceeding particle overlap (around $\phi_0=0.06$). It should be noted that for the chain lengths ($N_m/N_{\rm ch}=2000$) and swelling ratios ($\alpha\simeq 2-4$) considered here, the chains are far from fully extended, as required by the Flory-Rehner approximation for the elastic free energy of network stretching.
![ Equilibrium swelling ratio $\alpha$ vs. dry volume fraction $\phi_0$ in deionized suspensions of microgels. Simulation data (circles) are compared with predictions of variational theory (curves) and the Poisson-Boltzmann cell model[@denton-tang2016] (squares) for the coarse-grained one-component model of ionic microgels of valence $Z=500$ and 1000. For comparison, theoretical predictions are shown also for nonionic microgels ($Z=0$, dotted curve). Other system parameters are the same as in Fig. \[fig3\]. With increasing concentration, ionic microgels steadily deswell, while nonionic microgels deswell only above particle overlap ($\phi_0\simeq 0.06$, $\phi\simeq 0.74$). []{data-label="fig4"}](alpha-vs-phi0.a10.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Our simulation and perturbation theory implementations of the OCM yield equilibrium swelling ratios in near exact agreement at lower concentrations. Small deviations at higher concentrations, beyond particle overlap, may be attributed to approximations inherent to the theory. In particular, the variational approximation gives only a least upper bound to the free energy. Further, our use of the fluid phase expressions for $f_{\rm HS}$ and $g_{\rm HS}(r)$ in Eq. (\[fex\]) may forfeit some accuracy at concentrations where the reference system is actually a solid.
For comparison, we also show in Fig. \[fig4\] previous predictions for the swelling ratio of ionic microgels computed by applying a newly proposed theorem for the electrostatic component of swelling.[@denton-tang2016] This theorem – exact in the spherical cell model – relates the electrostatic contribution to the osmotic pressure across the periphery of a permeable macroion to the microion density profiles, which we computed by solving the nonlinear Poisson-Boltzmann (PB) equation in the cell model. Good agreement between, on the one hand, our simulation and linear theory implementations of the OCM and, on the other hand, the nonlinear PB theory implementation of the cell model provides an important validation of the new osmotic pressure theorem and also justifies the linear response approximation. Relatively small deviations at the lowest and highest concentrations may be attributed to differences between the OCM and the cell model and weak nonlinear screening effects.
In previous work,[@denton-tang2016] we also performed molecular dynamics simulations of ionic microgels in the cell model with explicit counterions. Close agreement between the simulation data and predictions of PB theory for counterion density profiles and microgel swelling ratios validate the PB theory, confirming that correlations between monovalent counterions are weak and can be neglected in the systems considered here.
![ Equilibrium volume fraction $\phi$ vs. dry volume fraction $\phi_0$ in deionized suspensions of microgels. Simulation data (symbols) are compared with predictions of variational theory (curves) for the coarse-grained one-component model of ionic microgels of valence $Z=500$ and 1000. For comparison, theoretical predictions are shown also for nonionic microgels ($Z=0$, dotted curve). Other system parameters are same as in Fig. \[fig3\]. []{data-label="fig5"}](phi-vs-phi0.a10.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Theoretical predictions \[from Eq. (\[znet\])\] for net valence $Z_{\rm net}$ of ionic microgels (valences $Z=500$ and 1000) in bulk suspensions, for same system parameters as in Fig. \[fig3\], as a function of (a) dry volume fraction and (b) swelling ratio. Insets show product of screening constant $\kappa$ and swollen radius $a$. []{data-label="fig6"}](znet-vs-phi0.a10.inset.eps "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"} ![ Theoretical predictions \[from Eq. (\[znet\])\] for net valence $Z_{\rm net}$ of ionic microgels (valences $Z=500$ and 1000) in bulk suspensions, for same system parameters as in Fig. \[fig3\], as a function of (a) dry volume fraction and (b) swelling ratio. Insets show product of screening constant $\kappa$ and swollen radius $a$. []{data-label="fig6"}](znet-vs-alpha.a10.inset.eps "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In a complementary illustration of particle deswelling, Fig. \[fig5\] displays the variation of actual volume fraction with dry volume fraction. For nonionic microgels, $\phi$ is simply proportional to $\phi_0$ at lower concentrations, with nonlinear dependence developing only at concentrations exceeding particle overlap, where elastic (Hertz) interactions become significant. In sharp contrast, ionic microgels are considerably more swollen by their electrostatic self energy and fill a volume fraction that varies nonlinearly with respect to $\phi_0$ – with negative curvature – over the whole concentration range. This sensitive dependence on concentration results from a complex interplay between single-particle free energy and effective electrostatic interactions, including the volume energy and relatively long-range Yukawa pair interactions. Note that any discrepancies between simulation and theory are amplified by the cubic dependence of $\phi$ on $\alpha$.
As ionic microgels swell or deswell, the numbers of counterions inside and outside the particles can vary, thus affecting the net valence $Z_{\rm net}$. Figure \[fig6\] presents our predictions for $Z_{\rm net}$, computed from Eq. (\[znet\]), for microgels in a bulk suspension with the same system parameters as in Figs. \[fig3\]-\[fig5\]. To interpret these results, it is important to bear in mind that, as $\phi_0$ and $\alpha$ vary, the screening constant $\kappa$ also varies, as shown in the insets to Fig. \[fig6\]. With increasing concentration, as the particles deswell, the fraction of interior counterions rises, thus reducing $Z_{\rm net}$. Considered as a function of swelling ratio, however, $Z_{\rm net}$ increases with $\alpha$, since $\kappa a$ decreases with $\alpha$.
For the systems considered here, $Z_{\rm net}\lambda_B/a$, a measure of electrostatic coupling strength, ranges from 5-10. The close agreement between swelling predictions from the linearized PB theory implementation of the OCM and the nonlinear PB theory implementation of the cell model (Fig. \[fig4\]) suggests that nonlinear screening effects are weak here. At stronger couplings, however, such that $Z_{\rm net}\lambda_B/a>\mathcal{O}(10)$, nonlinear effects may become significant for ionic microgels, as demonstrated in two recent studies. [@braibanti-perez2016; @quesada-perez-moncho-jorda2018] In such cases, the linearized theory can be extended into the nonlinear regime via charge renormalization schemes that incorporate an effective macroion charge.[@colla-likos2014] We note in passing that the swollen microgels considered here are substantially (3-5 times) larger than those modeled by Quesada-Pérez [[*et al. *]{}]{}[@quesada-perez-moncho-jorda2018]
![ Radial distribution function $g(r)$ vs. radial distance $r$, in units of nearest-neighbor distance $d_{\rm nn}$ in FCC lattice, in suspensions of ionic, compressible microgels with same system parameters as in Fig. \[fig3\]. Results are shown for dry volume fractions $\phi_0=0.004$ (dashed black curve), 0.01 (short-dashed blue curve), and 0.02 (solid red curve). These systems are all in an FCC crystal phase, as revealed by the positions of the peaks. []{data-label="fig7"}](rdf.a10.Z1000.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Static structure factor $S(q)$ \[from Eq. (\[Sq\])\] vs. scattered wave vector magnitude $q$, in units of inverse nearest-neighbor distance $d_{\rm nn}$ in FCC lattice. Results are shown for dry volume fractions $\phi_0=0.004$ (dashed black curve), 0.01 (short-dashed blue curve), and 0.02 (solid red curve), corresponding to radial distribution functions in Fig. \[fig7\]. These suspensions are all in an FCC crystal phase, as reflected by the height of the main peak, $S(q_{\rm max})>2.85$. []{data-label="fig8"}](sq.a10.Z1000.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Main peak height of static structure factor $S(q_{\rm max})$ vs. dry volume fraction $\phi_0$ for same systems as represented in Figs. \[fig7\] and \[fig8\]. With increasing concentration, pair correlations strengthen until, near particle overlap ($\phi_0\simeq 0.06$), the structure saturates. []{data-label="fig9"}](sqmax-vs-phi0.a10.Z1000.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
To quantify the variation of bulk structure with concentration, we computed radial distribution functions and static structure factors. Figures \[fig7\] and \[fig8\] show our simulation data for $g(r)$ and $S(q)$, respectively, for a series of dry volume fractions, illustrating the strengthening of correlations between microgels with increasing concentration. The positions and heights of the distinct peaks indicate crystalline ordering and reveal that the system has retained its initial FCC structure. The height of the main peak of $S(q)$ exceeds the threshold of 2.85 set by the Hansen-Verlet freezing criterion,[@hansen-verlet1969] suggesting that the system is in a stable solid phase. As seen in Fig. \[fig9\], the main peak height grows steadily with increasing concentration. Interestingly, however, $S(q_{\rm max})$ plateaus beyond particle overlap. This unusual structural saturation seems to indicate that the soft particles are free to wander around their equilibrium sites, even in a dense crystal structure.
To further test the coarse-grained OCM, we compare with recent light scattering measurements of the equilibrium swollen sizes of loosely cross-linked PNIPAM-co-PAA microgels in deionized aqueous suspensions. [@holmqvist-shurtenberger2012] Setting the bare valence and dry radius at their respective measured values of $Z=3.5\times 10^4$ and $a_0=50$ nm ($N_{\rm mon}=3\times 10^6$), and treating the cross-linker fraction, $x\equiv N_{\rm ch}/N_{\rm mon}$, and Flory $\chi$ parameter as fitting parameters, we computed swelling ratios and compared predictions with experimental data (using corrected concentrations[@holmqvist-shurtenberger2012-erratum]: 0.0053, 0.0060, 0.0100, 0.0167, 0.053 $\mu$M).
As seen in Fig. \[fig10\], theory and simulation are in near-perfect agreement and the OCM accurately fits the data at least as well as the cell model, which neglects elastic interparticle interactions.[@denton-tang2016] It should be noted, however, that the best-fit values of the free parameters may be somewhat unphysical. The fitted value of $x$ is likely lower than the actual average cross-linker fraction, which may reflect differences between the assumed homogeneous cross-linker distribution and the actual core-shell structure of the particles. The fitted value of $\chi$ is likely higher than the actual value for PNIPAM in water, which would be consistent with the recently documented tendency of the Flory-Rehner theory to overestimate $\chi$. [@richtering2017] Increasing $x$ or $\chi$ would lower the predicted swelling ratio. Despite these potential limitations, the model at least qualitatively explains the concentration dependence of ionic microgel swelling.
![ Equilibrium particle radius vs. particle density for ionic microgels. Simulation data (red circles) and predictions of variational theory for one-component model (curve) are compared with experimental data[@holmqvist-shurtenberger2012; @holmqvist-shurtenberger2012-erratum] (blue squares) for PNIPAM-co-PAA microgels in deionized aqueous suspensions with system parameters $Z=3.5\times 10^4$ and $a_0=50$ nm ($N_{\rm mon}=3\times 10^6$). Fitting parameters are cross-linker fraction $x=N_{\rm ch}/N_{\rm mon}$ and Flory solvency parameter $\chi$. []{data-label="fig10"}](a-vs-rho-holmqvist.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Beyond the swelling ratio, our simulations also yield the radial distribution function (Fig. \[fig11\]) and static structure factor (Fig. \[fig12\]). With increasing concentration, the peaks of $g(r)$ and $S(q)$ grow taller and more distinct, reflecting strengthening correlations between microgels. From the heights of the main peaks of $S(q)$, our results suggest that the systems with dry volume fractions $\phi_0=0.003$, 0.006, and 0.009 are, respectively, in a disordered fluid phase, on the verge of freezing, and in a solid phase with crystalline order. We emphasize again, however, that our simulation method cannot distinguish between stable and metastable solid states.
![ Radial distribution function $g(r)$ vs. radial distance $r$, in units of nearest-neighbor distance $d_{\rm nn}$ in FCC lattice, in suspensions of ionic, compressible microgels with same system parameters as in Fig. \[fig10\]. Results are shown for dry volume fractions $\phi_0=0.003$ (solid red curve), which is in a fluid phase, and $\phi_0=0.006$ (short-dashed blue curve) and 0.009 (dashed black curve), both of which are in FCC crystal phases, as revealed by positions of peaks. []{data-label="fig11"}](rdf.holmqvist.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Static structure factor $S(q)$ vs. scattered wave vector magnitude $q$, in units of inverse nearest-neighbor distance $d_{\rm nn}$ in FCC lattice. Results are shown for dry volume fractions $\phi_0=0.003$ (solid red curve), $\phi_0=0.006$ (short-dashed blue curve), and 0.009 (dashed black curve), corresponding to radial distribution functions in Fig. \[fig11\]. []{data-label="fig12"}](sq.holmqvist.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Finally, it should be noted that, although we have here applied the coarse-grained model only to salt-free (deionized) microgel suspensions, our approach can be easily applied to salty suspensions with implicit salt ions. For a closed system, the density of salt ions must simply be included in the effective electrostatic interactions, as described in Sec. \[coarse-grained-model\]. For a system in Donnan equilibrium with a salt reservoir, the salt concentration in the system must first be determined by equating the chemical potentials of salt in the system and reservoir. In previous work,[@denton-tang2016] we showed that, for the system parameters of Fig. \[fig3\], the linear-response theory implementation of the cell model predicts monotonic deswelling of ionic microgels with increasing salt concentration. We expect the OCM to yield similar predictions for the dependence of $\alpha$ on salt concentration.
Summary and Conclusions {#conclusions}
=======================
In summary, we developed a Monte Carlo simulation algorithm and a thermodynamic perturbation theory for a coarse-grained model of compressible, ionic microgel suspensions and studied the concentration dependence of bulk thermal and structural properties. The model incorporates both the colloidal and the polymeric natures of ionic gel particles into an effective Hamiltonian comprising one- and two-body effective elastic and electrostatic interactions. As far as we are aware, our model is the first to consistently account for both elastic and electrostatic influences on the swelling of ionic microgels in a bulk suspension.
As an illustrative application, we investigated equilibrium particle swelling and structure of bulk suspensions with selected system parameters. Specifically, we computed equilibrium particle size distributions, swelling ratios, volume fractions, net valences, radial distribution functions, and static structure factors. Close agreement between swelling ratios independently computed from theory and simulation validated our computational methods. With increasing concentration, swelling ratios of ionic microgels decrease more precipitously than those of nonionic microgels, while net valences also decrease monotonically. The simulations further revealed an unusual saturation of pair correlations with increasing concentration beyond particle overlap.
To further test our methods, we compared the predicted swelling behavior against experimental data for deionized, aqueous suspensions of PNIPAM microgels. Close agreement between simulation, theory, and experiment supports the predictive power of our approach. The coarse-grained model and methods developed and demonstrated here provide a reasonably accurate and computationally efficient path to modeling swelling and structural properties of bulk suspensions of ionic microgels. The predictions may help to guide and interpret future experiments and may clarify the importance of including particle swelling in modeling ionic microgel suspensions.
The coarse-grained model could be refined by incorporating a more accurate theory of the single-particle polymer network free energy than provided by the Flory-Rehner theory and by improving upon the Hertz theory of elastic pair interactions. Furthermore, the model can be extended to describe microgels with inhomogeneous distributions of cross-linkers and fixed charges. Future work will include computing bulk osmotic pressure and phase behavior, which will require consistently accounting for concentration dependence of the single-particle free energy and effective interparticle interactions, and incorporating charge renormalization schemes to model more highly charged microgels.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}\
This paper is dedicated to the memory of Per Linse, whose many important insights into soft matter and electrostatics will have lasting impact, and whose generous spirit is deeply missed. Helpful discussions with Jan Dhont, Gerhard Nägele, Mariano Brito, and Peter Schurtenberger are gratefully acknowledged. Parts of this work were supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. DMR-1106331).
@ifundefined
[83]{} \[1\][\#1]{} \[1\] \[2\] \[3\] \[3\]
W. O. Baker, *Ind. Eng. Chem.*, 1949, **41**, 511–520 R. H. Pelton and P. Chibante, *Colloids Surf.*, 1986, **20**, 247–256 R. H. Pelton, *Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.*, 2000, **85**, 1–33 B. R. Saunders, N. Laajam, E. Daly, S. Teow, X. Hu and R. Stepto, *Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.*, 2009, **147**, 251–262 *Hydrogel Micro and Nanoparticles*, ed. L. A. Lyon and M. J. Serpe, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, 2012 *Microgel Suspensions: Fundamentals and Applications*, ed. A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Nieves, H. Wyss, J. Mattsson and D. A. Weitz, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, 2011 L. A. Lyon and A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Nieves, *Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.*, 2012, **63**, 25–43 P. J. Yunker, K. Chen, D. Gratale, M. A. Lohr, T. Still and A. G. Yodh, *Rep. Prog. Phys.*, 2014, **77**, 056601–1–29 R. Borrega, M. Cloitre, I. Betremieux, B. Ernst and L. Leibler, *Euro. Phys. Lett.*, 1999, **47**, 729–735 M. Cloitre, R. Borrega, F. Monti and L. Leibler, *C. R. Physique*, 2003, **4**, 221–230 B. H. Tan, K. C. Tam, Y. C. Lam and C. B. Tan, *J. Rheol.*, 2004, **48**, 915–926 A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Nieves, A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Barbero, B. Vincent and F. J. de las [Nieves]{}, *Macromol.*, 2000, **33**, 2114–2118 A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Nieves, A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Barbero, B. Vincent and F. J. de las [Nieves]{}, *J. Chem. Phys.*, 2003, **119**, 10383–10388 J. J. Li[é]{}tor-Santos, B. Sierra-Mart[í]{}n, R. Vavrin, Z. Hu, U. Gasser and A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Nieves, *Macromol.*, 2009, **42**, 6225–6230 Y. Hertle, M. Zeiser, C. Hasen[ö]{}hrl, P. Busch and T. Hellweg, *Colloid Polym. Sci.*, 2010, **288**, 1047–1059 P. Menut, S. Seiffert, J. Sprakel and D. A. Weitz, *Soft Matter*, 2012, **8**, 156–164 G. Romeo, L. Imperiali, J.-W. Kim, A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Nieves and D. A. Weitz, *J. Chem. Phys.*, 2012, **136**, 124905–1–9 G. Romeo and M. P. Ciamarra, *Soft Matter*, 2013, **9**, 5401–5406 J. J. Li[é]{}tor-Santos, B. Sierra-Mart[í]{}n, U. Gasser and A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Nieves, *Soft Matter*, 2011, **7**, 6370–6374 J. Riest, P. Mohanty, P. Schurtenberger and C. N. Likos, *Z. Phys. Chem.*, 2012, **226**, 711–735 B. Sierra-Mart[í]{}n and A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Nieves, *Soft Matter*, 2012, **8**, 4141–4150 J. J. Li[é]{}tor-Santos, B. Sierra-Mart[í]{}n and A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Nieves, *Phys. Rev. E*, 2011, **84**, 060402(R)–1–4 B. Sierra-Mart[í]{}n, Y. Laporte, A. B. South, L. A. Lyon and A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Nieves, *Phys. Rev. E*, 2011, **84**, 011406–1–4 S. M. Hashmi and E. R. Dufresne, *Soft Matter*, 2009, **5**, 3682–3688 M. Pelaez-Fernandez, A. Souslov, L. A. Lyon, P. M. Goldbart and A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Nieves, *[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}*, 2015, **114**, 098303–1–5 P. S. Mohanty and W. Richtering, *J. Phys. Chem. B*, 2008, **112**, 14692–14697 T. Eckert and W. Richter, *J. Chem. Phys.*, 2008, **129**, 124902–1–6 A. N. St. John, V. Breedveld and L. A. Lyon, *J. Phys. Chem. B*, 2007, **111**, 7796–7801 M. Muluneh and D. A. Weitz, *Phys. Rev. E*, 2012, **85**, 021405–1–6 P. S. Mohanty, A. Yethiraj and P. Schurtenberger, *Soft Matter*, 2012, **8**, 10819–10822 P. Holmqvist, P. S. Mohanty, G. N[ä]{}gele, P. Schurtenberger and M. Heinen, *[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}*, 2012, **109**, 048302–1–5 P. Holmqvist, P. S. Mohanty, G. N[ä]{}gele, P. Schurtenberger and M. Heinen, *[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}*, 2016, **117**, 179901(E) D. Paloli, P. S. Mohanty, J. J. Crassous, E. Zaccarelli and P. Schurtenberger, *Soft Matter*, 2013, **9**, 3000–3004 U. Gasser, J.-J. Li[é]{}tor-Santos, A. Scotti, O. Bunk, A. Menzel and A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Nieves, *Phys. Rev. E*, 2013, **88**, 052308–1–8 P. S. Mohanty, D. Paloli, J. J. Crassous, E. Zaccarelli and P. Schurtenberger, *J. Chem. Phys.*, 2014, **140**, 094901–1–9 M. Braibanti, C. Haro-Pérez, M. Quesada-Pérez, L. F. Rojas-Ochoa and V. Trappe, *Phys. Rev. E*, 2016, **94**, 032601–1–8 T. G. Mason, J. Bibette and D. A. Weitz, *[Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}*, 1995, **75**, 2051–2054 F. Gr[ö]{}hn and M. Antonietti, *Macromol.*, 2000, **33**, 5938–5949 Y. Levin, *Phys. Rev. E*, 2002, **65**, 036143–1–6 A. Fern[á]{}ndez-Nieves and M. M[á]{}rquez, *J. Chem. Phys.*, 2005, **122**, 084702–1–6 S. P. Singh, D. A. Fedosov, A. Chatterji, R. G. Winkler and G. Gompper, *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*, 2012, **24**, 464103–1–11 R. G. Winkler, D. A. Fedosov and G. Gompper, *Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci.*, 2014, **19**, 594–610 A. Ghavami and R. G. Winkler, *ACS Macro Lett.*, 2017, **6**, 721–725 N. Gnan, L. Rovigatti, M. Bergman and E. Zaccarelli, *Macromol.*, 2017, **50**, 8777–8786 X. Li, L. E. S[á]{}nchez-Di[á]{}z, B. Wu, W. A. Hamilton, P. Falus, L. Porcar, Y. Liu, C. Do, A. Faraone, G. S. Smith, T. Egami and W.-R. Chen, *ACS Macro Lett.*, 2014, **3**, 1271–1275 S. A. Egorov, J. Paturej, C. N. Likos and A. Milchev, *Macromol.*, 2013, **46**, 3648–3653 T. Colla, C. N. Likos and Y. Levin, *J. Chem. Phys.*, 2014, **141**, 234902–1–11 T. Colla and C. N. Likos, *Mol. Phys.*, 2015, **113**, 2496–2510 T. Colla, P. S. Mohanty, S. N[ö]{}jd, E. Bialik, A. Riede, P. Schurtenberger and C. N. Likos, *ACS Nano*, 2018, DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.7b08843 S. Gupta, M. Camargo, J. Stellbrink, J. Allgaier, A. Radulescu, P. Lindner, E. Zaccarelli, C. N. Likos and D. Richter, *Nanoscale*, 2015, **7**, 13924–13934 S. Gupta, J. Stellbrink, E. Zaccarelli, C. N. Likos, M. Camargo, P. Holmqvist, J. Allgaier, L. Willner and D. Richter, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 2015, **115**, 128302–1–5 M. M. Hedrick, J. K. Chung and A. R. Denton, *J. Chem. Phys.*, 2015, **142**, 034904–1–12 M. Urich and A. R. Denton, *Soft Matter*, 2016, **12**, 9086–9094 P. J. Flory and J. Rehner, *J. Chem. Phys.*, 1943, **11**, 512–520 P. J. Flory and J. Rehner, *J. Chem. Phys.*, 1943, **11**, 521–526 P. J. Flory, *Principles of Polymer Chemistry*, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1953 L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, *Theory of Elasticity*, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 3rd edn., 1986 A. R. Denton, *Phys. Rev. E*, 2003, **67**, 011804–1–10 X. Hu, Z. Tong and L. A. Lyon, *Langmuir*, 2011, **27**, 4142–4148 M. Stieger, W. Richtering, J. S. Pedersen and P. Lindner, *J. Chem. Phys.*, 2004, **120**, 6197–6206 A. Moncho-Jord[á]{}, J. A. Anta and J. Callejas-Fern[á]{}ndez, *J. Chem. Phys.*, 2013, **138**, 134902 N. Boon and P. Schurtenberger, *Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.*, 2017, **19**, 23740–23746 M. Quesada-P[é]{}rez and A. Mart[í]{}n-Molina, *Soft Matter*, 2013, **9**, 7086–7094 I. Adroher-Ben[í]{}tez, S. Ahualli, A. Mart[í]{}n-Molina, M. Quesada-P[é]{}rez and A. Moncho-Jord[á]{}, *Macromol.*, 2015, **48**, 4645–4656 A. M. Rumyantsev, A. A. Rudov and I. I. Potemkin, *J. Chem. Phys.*, 2015, **142**, 171105–1–5 J. Riest, L. Athanasopoulou, S. A. Egorov, C. N. Likos and P. Ziherl, *Sci. Rep.*, 2015, **5**, 15854–1–11 M. Cloitre and R. T. Bonnecaze, in *High Solid Dispersions*, ed. M. Cloitre, Springer, Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 117–161 J. R. Seth, L. Mohan, C. Locatelli-Champagne, M. Cloitre and R. T. Bonnecaze, *Nature Mat.*, 2011, **10**, 838–843 A. Moncho-Jord[á]{} and J. Dzubiella, *Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.*, 2016, **18**, 5372–5385 C. G. Lopez and W. Richtering, *Soft Matter*, 2017, **13**, 8271–8280 J. R. Blundell and E. M. Terentjev, *Macromol.*, 2009, **42**, 5388–5394 W. K. Kim, A. Moncho-Jord[á]{}, R. Roa, M. Kandu[č]{} and J. Dzubiella, *Macromol.*, 2017, **50**, 6227–6237 P.-G. de Gennes, *Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics*, Cornell, Ithaca, 1979 A. R. Denton, *Phys. Rev. E*, 2000, **62**, 3855–3864 A. R. Denton, in *in Electrostatics of Soft and Disordered Matter*, ed. D. S. Dean, J. Dobnikar, A. Naji and R. Podgornik, Pan Stanford, Singapore, 2014, pp. 201–215 D. Frenkel and B. Smit, *Understanding Molecular Simulation*, Academic, London, 2nd edn., 2001 K. Binder and D. W. Heermann, *[Monte]{} [Carlo]{} Simulation in Statistical Physics: [An]{} Introduction*, Springer, Berlin, 5th edn., 2010 R. van Roij and J. P. Hansen, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 1997, **79**, 3082–3085 A. R. Denton, *Phys. Rev. E*, 2006, **73**, 041407–1–14 J.-P. Hansen and I. R. McDonald, *Theory of Simple Liquids*, Elsevier, London, 3rd edn., 2006 A. R. Denton and Q. Tang, *J. Chem. Phys.*, 2016, **145**, 164901–1–10 M. Quesada-Pérez, J. A. Maroto-Centeno, A. Martín-Molina and A. Moncho-Jordá, *Phys. Rev. E*, 2018, **97**, 042608–1–7 J. P. Hansen and L. Verlet, *Phys. Rev.*, 1969, **184**, 151–161
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Mapper is an algorithm that summarizes the topological information contained in a dataset and provides an insightful visualization. It takes as input a point cloud which is possibly high-dimensional, a filter function on it and an open cover on the range of the function. It returns the nerve simplicial complex of the pullback of the cover. Mapper can be considered a discrete approximation of the topological construct called Reeb space, as analysed in the $1$-dimensional case by [@carri19statistical]. Despite its success in obtaining insights in various fields such as in [@kamruzzaman2016characterizing], Mapper is an *ad hoc* technique requiring lots of parameter tuning. There is also no measure to quantify goodness of the resulting visualization, which often deviates from the Reeb space in practice. In this paper, we introduce a new cover selection scheme for data that reduces the obscuration of topological information at both the computation and visualisation steps. To achieve this, we replace global scale selection of cover with a scale selection scheme sensitive to local density of data points. We also propose a method to detect some deviations in Mapper from Reeb space via computation of persistence features on the Mapper graph.'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Multimapper: Data Density Sensitive Topological Visualization\'
---
Data Visualization; Topology; Mapper
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Real-world data is often very high dimensional and hence not visualizable. The Mapper algorithm, developed in [@singh2007topological], is a method to visualize such data in low dimensions while trying to remain true to the topological structure of data in the higher dimension. The algorithm returns a simplicial complex[^1] which is a representation of data via a far less number of nodes than the number of data points. Through this visualization, it becomes convenient to gain insights from data.
The Mapper algorithm begins by applying a function $f: X \rightarrow Z$ on the input space $X$. The resulting lower dimensional image space $Z$ is covered by a set of bins that overlap each other, with every part of $Z$ included in at least one bin. Then, a clustering algorithm is applied within the $f^{-1}$ of each bin. The *nerve* of these set of clusters, computed as in \[sec:background\], is called *Mapper*. The Mapper restricted to only its nodes and edges is called the *Mapper graph*.\
Although the Mapper algorithm has been highly successful, it is difficult to work with due to a large number of parameters involved in the choices of lens function, type of cover and clustering algorithm. [@carri19statistical] have studied parameter selection in the case where $Z = {\mathbb{R}}$. They prove that in the $1$-dimensional setup, the Mapper graph statistically converges to a geometric structure called the Reeb graph, which encodes the topological information of the original space. This, in turn, gives a method to tune its parameters to best approximate the Reeb graph.\
Even with best parameters Mapper provides a visualization of data at a fixed scale at which the cover was constructed. Since our input space is a high dimensional discrete point cloud and not a continuous space, the best parameters still provide an approximation to its topology and it is possible that more insights are available when data is viewed at different scales. [@dey2016multiscale] address this issue by proposing Multiscale Mapper, where data is seen along a tower of covers. But still, each cover in the tower is at a scale which views all parts of the data through the same lens irrespective of the data distribution being different in different regions. In this paper, we propose an algorithm which allows us to view denser and sparser parts of the data at separate scales in the same visualization. This, unlike the current Mapper algorithm, is not restricted to one global scale; hence, it prevents the shattering of sparser data subsets under finer scales that are suitable for denser data subsets. Further taking inspiration from [@CatReeb; @carri19statistical] we can characterize the output of Mapper (with lens function $f$) as *good* when it approximates the Reeb space (a generalisation of the Reeb graph in higher dimensions) under $f$.
Contributions
-------------
The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
1. We propose *Multimapper* in \[sec:multimapper\], which combines locally optimal Mappers into a single simplicial complex. A crucial issue with parameter selection is that the same choice of parameters might not be locally optimal for each part of data. Denser parts of the data might only reveal their detailed geometry at a finer scale, at which the sparser parts might shatter. Multimapper thus gives a more accurate representation of the data compared to any single global choice of Mapper parameters.
2. In \[sec:det bad\] we present a data-agnostic method of partially characterising parts of Mapper which are provably different from the corresponding Reeb graph. It will also help in identifying locally optimal scales for the cover used in Mapper.
3. Lastly in \[sec:brickcover\] we propose brick cover, a covering scheme that is computable as efficiently as the box-like cuboidal cover and produces a lower dimensional simplicial complex, i.e. at most $2$-simplices under a $2$-dimensional lens function. Thus it gives a visualisation without loss of topological information contained in the Mapper output. Under standard covering schemes, which are made of boxes i.e. $n$-fold direct product of intervals in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, the Mapper might include higher order simplices that cannot be visualized.\
In \[sec:background\], we first briefly introduce the mathematical notions behind Mapper and then discuss our contributions towards improvement on Mapper algorithm. We have implemented all our experiments using $2$-dimensional lens function; however, a vast majority of it is generalizable to higher dimensions. Since ${\mathbb{R}}$-valued lens functions limit the topological information to only edges; it is more informative to use higher dimensional lens function. But in dimensions greater than $3$, we get higher-order simplices that are hard to visualize, so we restrict ourselves to $2$ dimensions.\
Theoretical Background and Existing Work {#sec:background}
========================================
Below, we establish the required topological terminology.
\[def:OpenCover\] An open cover ${\mathcal {U}}=\{U_\alpha : \alpha \in A\}$ of a space $X$ is a collection of open sets such that each point in the space is in at least one of these open sets.
In this paper, we shall refer to the individual elements of open cover as *bins*. We can conceptualize covering as putting each element in one or more of these bins.
\[def:simplex\] A *$k$-simplex* is the smallest convex set containing a given set of $k+1$ affinely independent points, where $u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_k$ are called affinely independent if $u_1-u_0, u_2-u_0,\ldots,u_k-u_0$ are linearly independent.
\[def:face\] An $m$-simplex $\sigma'$ is said to be an *$m$-face* of a $k$-simplex $\sigma$ if $m < k$ and the vertices of $\sigma'$ are a proper subset of the vertices of $\sigma$.
\[def:simplicial complex\] A *simplicial complex* $K$ is a set of simplices such that:
- A face of a simplex from $K$ is also in $K$
- $\forall \sigma_1, \sigma_2 \in K, \sigma_1\cap\sigma_2$ is a face of both $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$
For an example, $1$-simplex is a line segment, $2$-simplex a triangle, $3$ simplex a tetrahedron and so on. And for a $3$-simplex (tetrahedron), $0$-faces are its vertices, $1$-faces are its edges, and $2$-faces are its triangular sides.
\[def:nerve\] Given a cover ${\mathcal {U}}$ of a space $X$, the nerve $N({\mathcal {U}})$ is a simplicial complex constructed as follows:
- The vertices (*nodes*) of $N({\mathcal {U}})$ correspond to bins of ${\mathcal {U}}$
- For each $k+1$ bins of ${\mathcal {U}}$ that have mutual non-empty intersection in $X$, $N({\mathcal {U}})$ contains a $k$-simplex with the corresponding nodes as its vertices.
The Mapper algorithm is motivated by the Nerve Theorem [@Hatcher Corollary 4G.3], originally proposed by Pavel Alexandrov.
\[thm:nerve\] If ${\mathcal {U}}$ is an open cover of a paracompact space $X$ such that every non-empty intersection of finitely many sets in ${\mathcal {U}}$ is contractible, then $X$ is homotopy equivalent to the nerve $N({\mathcal {U}})$.
An intersection being *contractible* intuitively means that we should be able to continuously shrink it to a point in $X$. Finally, *homotopy equivalent* is a mathematical notion of the shape being similar – which tells us that if the required conditions are satisfied, then the nerve would give us the shape of $X$ itself.\
In the context of data analysis, we work with a point cloud lying in $\mathbb{R}^n\;n \in N$, which is a metric space. Every metric space is paracompact as proved in [@steen1978counterexamples], hence the assumption of paracompact space is satisfied in our case. We can compute topological properties of point cloud by assuming that it is sampled from a paracompact space in $\mathbb{R}^n $ which we refer to as $X$.\
**Mapper Algorithm**: based on these ideas, the algorithm works as follows:
1. Given a point cloud $X$, we project it onto a lower dimension space $Z$ by a *lens function* $f$. We create a cover ${\mathcal {U}}$ on the image. The pre-image of each bin under $f$ then gives us a cover $f^{-1}({\mathcal {U}})$ of $X$: $$\begin{aligned}
f^{-1}({\mathcal {U}}) = \{f^{-1}(U_{\alpha}) : U_{\alpha} \in {\mathcal {U}}\}
\end{aligned}\label{eq1}$$
2. We obtain a modified *pullback* cover $f^*({\mathcal {U}})$ of $X$ from the bins of $f^{-1}({\mathcal {U}})$. The *pullback of ${\mathcal {U}}$ under $f$* is defined as $$f^*({\mathcal {U}}) = \{C : \exists V \in f^{-1}({\mathcal {U}}), C \in {\mathcal {P}}(V)\}\label{eq2}$$ where ${\mathcal {P}}(V)$ is the set of path connected components of $V$. In the discrete setting, path connected components are approximated by clusters. Hence in practice, we obtain $f^*({\mathcal {U}})$ by clustering within each bin of $f^{-1}({\mathcal {U}})$.\
3. We compute the nerve of $f^*({\mathcal {U}})$ in $X$. This nerve is the *Mapper* $M(X,{\mathcal {U}},f)$ of $X$.
Thus
\[def:Mapper\] Given a space $X$, a lens function $f$, and a cover ${\mathcal {U}}$ of $f(X)$, the *Mapper* is defined as $$M(X,{\mathcal {U}},f) = N(f^*({\mathcal {U}}))\label{eq3}$$
The *$1$-skeleton* of Mapper is a graph consisting of simplices till 1 dimension from Mapper. Hereafter we shall omit $X, {\mathcal {U}}, f$ wherever they are clear from context.\
Mapper has been applied in a wide range of usecases to get useful insights. The data analytics company Ayasdi have extensively used TDA to provide solutions in various fields [@AyasdiMain], like finance [@AyasdiFinance], healthcare [@AyasdiHealth], sports [@AyasdiNBA] and machine learning [@AyasdiML]. [@kamruzzaman2016characterizing] have used Mapper to study environmental stressors on plant phenotypes. [@vejdemo2012topology] have used Mapper to identify voting patterns in the US House of Representatives, and have comparatively presented a marked improvement on the classification possible compared to Principal Component Analysis [@pearson1901principal].\
However, the parameters in Mapper, i.e. $f$ (lens function), $r$ (bin diameter) and $g$ (bin overlap) require tuning by trial and error, and hence involve some implicit knowledge of the data. Moreover, once the Mapper graph is obtained, insight mining is primarily done by human intervention. These are significant roadblocks in the goal of using Mapper to gain insights from truly unsupervised big data. We have made progress in automating these processes.\
Our work results from [@dey2016multiscale], who introduced and significantly developed the notion of Multiscale Mapper. This technique is based on building a *tower* of covers of various scales, and studying the variations in the resulting *tower* of nerves. Below, we define Multiscale Mapper and related terminology as presented in [@dey2016multiscale].
\[def:tower\] A *tower* of $\mathfrak{W}$ of objects with *resolution* $\mathrm{res}(\mathfrak{W}) = r \in {\mathbb{R}}$ is a collection $\mathfrak{W} = \{\mathcal{W}_{\varepsilon}\}_{\varepsilon}\geq r$ of objects $\mathcal{W}_{\varepsilon}$ together with maps $w_{{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}'} : \mathcal{W}_{\varepsilon}\rightarrow \mathcal{W}'_{\varepsilon}$ so that $w_{{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}'} = \mathrm{id}$ and $w_{{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}''} = w_{{\varepsilon}',{\varepsilon}''}\circ w_{{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}'}$ for all $r \leq {\varepsilon}\leq {\varepsilon}' \leq {\varepsilon}''$
\[def:map of covers\] Given two covers ${\mathcal {U}}= \{U_a\}_{a \in A}$, $\mathcal{V} = \{V_b\}_{b \in B}$, a *map of covers* from ${\mathcal {U}}$ to $\mathcal{V}$ is a set map $\xi : A \rightarrow B$ such that $\forall a \in A, {\mathcal {U}}_a \subseteq \mathcal{V}_{\xi(a)}$. By abuse of notation, $\xi$ also represents the induced map ${\mathcal {U}}\rightarrow \mathcal{V}$.
\[def:tower of covers\] A tower $\mathfrak{W}$ where the objects $\mathcal{W}_{\varepsilon}$ are covers and the maps $w_{{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}'}$ are maps of covers, $\mathfrak{W}$ is called a *tower of covers*.
\[def:simplicial map\] Given two simplicial complexes $K,L$, a *simplicial map* from $K$ to $L$ is a map $\xi : K \rightarrow L$ such that:
- For each vertex $v_K \in K$, $\xi(v_K) \in L$ is also a vertex
- For each simplex $\sigma$ with vertices $\{v_0,\ldots,v_k\}$, $\xi(\sigma) \in L$ with vertices $\{\xi(v_0),\ldots,\xi(v_k)\}$.
Note that if $\xi$ is not injective on vertices, then a $k$-simplex might map to a $k'$-simplex, $k' < k$.
\[def:tower of simplices\] A tower $\mathfrak{W}$ where the objects $\mathcal{W}_{\varepsilon}$ are simplical complexes and the maps $w_{{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}'}$ are simplicial maps, $\mathfrak{W}$ is called a *tower of simplicial complexes*.
\[def:multiscale mapper\] Given a space $X$, lens function $f$, and a tower of covers ${\mathfrak{U}}= \{{\mathcal {U}}_{\varepsilon}\}_{\varepsilon}of f(X)$, we define a *Multiscale Mapper* $${\mathrm{MM}}(X,{\mathfrak{U}},f) = \{M(X,{\mathcal {U}}, f) : {\mathcal {U}}\in {\mathfrak{U}}\}\label{eq4}$$
As in the case of Mapper, we omit $X, {\mathfrak{U}}, f$ from notation wherever it is clear from context.\
The following facts establish that the successive relationship between covers of $f(X)$ in ${\mathfrak{U}}$ naturally corresponds to a successive relationship of Mappers within ${\mathrm{MM}}({\mathfrak{U}})$.
- A map of covers $\xi : {\mathcal {U}}\rightarrow \mathcal{V}$ induces a simplicial map $N(\xi) : N({\mathcal {U}}) \rightarrow N(\mathcal{V})$ by the following rule : if a vertex $u \in N({\mathcal {U}})$ corresponds to $U \in {\mathcal {U}}$ and a vertex $v \in N(\mathcal{V})$ corresponds to $V \in \mathcal{V}$ such that $\xi(U) = V$, then $N(\xi)(u) = v$.\
Moreover, if ${\mathcal {U}}\xrightarrow{\xi} \mathcal{V} \xrightarrow{\zeta} \mathcal{W}$ are maps between covers, then $N(\zeta\circ\xi) = N(\zeta)\circ N(\xi)$. Thus a tower of covers induces a corresponding tower of simplicial complexes i.e. the nerves of each cover.
- A map of covers $\xi : {\mathcal {U}}\rightarrow \mathcal{V}$ induces a map of covers between their respective pullbacks under a function $f$ $$f^*(\xi) : f^*({\mathcal {U}}) \rightarrow f^*(\mathcal{V})\label{eq5}$$
\[def:pullback of tower\] The *pullback under $f : X \rightarrow Z$ of a tower of covers ${\mathfrak{U}}=\{{\mathcal {U}}_{\varepsilon}\}_{\varepsilon}$ of $Z$* is defined as $$f^*({\mathfrak{U}}) = f^*(\{{\mathcal {U}}_{\varepsilon}\}_{\varepsilon}) =\{f^*({\mathcal {U}}_{\varepsilon})\}_{\varepsilon}\label{eq6}$$
and is itself a valid tower of covers via the induced maps.
A Selective Magnification Scheme – Multimapper {#sec:multimapper}
==============================================
It is possible, and we have seen in experiments, that the same cover might not be ideal for every part of the data. For example, in Fig. \[fig:multimapper motivation\], the coarsest refinement hides local structure that appears at finer scales, but the graph also begins to break into more components, which obscures global relationships between the data in each component.\
To solve this issue, we have developed a technique which takes the locally best scale for each region of the data, and glues them together to represent the entire data more accurately than a single global scale.\
For scale selection, we use the notion of Multiscale Mapper. However, the varying scales in Multiscale Mapper is applied globally, which means that two regions with different density would not be appropriately represented at any one level. Therefore we propose a Mapper graph which is an amalgamation of Mapper graphs computed on various regions of interest. We apply Multiscale Mapper on each region of interest as a way of selecting scales. It is a different question to identify these regions and the appropriate scale of its cover in the first place – we discuss a possible approach in \[sec:det bad\] using the idea of Multiscale Mapper.\
To consistently combine the locally suitable Mappers, we implement our idea as a repeated rescaling of selected regions. Intuitively it can be understood as magnification/compression of a Mapper in relatively sparser/denser regions respectively. Our first approach slices relevant bins of the cover to obtain smaller bins; our second approach is more sophisticated and uses a nerve-like computation to glue together various locally suitable Mappers. The latter has the advantage of being compatible with all covering schemes, including the brick-like cover proposed in \[sec:brickcover\].
Local Refinement via Cover Slicing {#multi app 1}
----------------------------------
The covering process can be broken into two parts, deciding the type of partition and then overlap percentage. Our aim in this section is to modify the underlying partition in a manner that the required regions are covered by smaller bins than before. Once we have identified regions in the Mapper $M$ that are to be magnified, we perform the steps below. It is specifically illustrated using cuboidal bins, but can be generalized to other shapes by redefining the *chopping* in Step 3.
1. Let S be the set of nodes we wish to magnify; $\tilde{X}$ be the region of the original data corresponding to these nodes, i.e. $$\tilde{X} = \cup_{w \in S}C_w \label{eq7}$$ where $C_w$ is the cluster corresponding to a node $w$.
2. Now we look at the image of $\tilde{X}$ under the original lens function $f$, i.e. $$\tilde{Z} = f(\tilde{X})$$
3. ${\mathcal {P}}$ be the partition of the image, $Z = f(X)$, that gave rise to the Mapper $M$. Then define a subset: $${\mathcal {P}}' = \{P \in {\mathcal {P}}: P \cap \tilde{Z} \neq \emptyset\}$$ i.e. those parts of the partition which contain some part of $\tilde{Z}$.
4. Obtain a refinement ${\mathcal {P}}''$ of ${\mathcal {P}}$ by slicing each box along each dimension. For example, a 1D interval would be halved; a 2D box would be sliced into four equal 2D boxes, as shown in Fig \[fig:sliced cover\]. This is a *refinement by $2$* – slicing into $m$ pieces along each axis would be a *refinement by $m$*.
5. Obtain a new Mapper $\tilde{M}$ with the same lens function, but with a cover built from: $$\tilde{{\mathcal {P}}} = ({\mathcal {P}}\setminus {\mathcal {P}}')\cup {\mathcal {P}}''$$
$\tilde{M}$ thus shows the data corresponding to $\tilde{Z}$ $M$, and the remaining parts of the data at the same scale as $M$. This process can be repeated at various regions of the data to view each region at a suitable scale.
![Original bins sliced to obtain smaller bins. As shown here, the process can be repeated.[]{data-label="fig:sliced cover"}](pix/refinedcover.png){width="0.4\linewidth"}
Handling Degeneracy via Multimapper {#multi app 2}
-----------------------------------
A major drawback of the previous approach is degeneracy of $f$ i.e. $f$ may map distant parts of $X$ very closely, in the image $Z$. Hence, if we magnify a region $\tilde{X}$ in the above method, since we go via its image $\tilde{Z}$, we would actually magnify $f^{-1}(\tilde{Z}) = f^{-1}(f(\tilde{X}))$, which is potentially a larger region and having other parts distant from $\tilde{X}$. Hence undesirable parts of the Mapper would be magnified as well. We wish to avoid this effect of $f$; but we want to retain the convenience of constructing the cover via pullback under $f$. Moreover, we would want to not only *zoom in* on denser parts, but *zoom out* on sparser parts that might have shattered.\
Our one-shot solution to these requirements is the notion of Multimapper. Multimapper is constructed as follows:
1. As before, given a Mapper graph $M$, with nodes $V$ and some nodes $S$ to be magnified, we identify the corresponding data subset and image subset: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{X} &= \cup_{w \in S}C_w \\
\tilde{Z} &= f(\tilde{X})
\end{aligned}$$ where $C_w$ is the cluster corresponding to a node $w$.
2. Let ${\mathcal {C}}$ be the set of clusters corresponding to the nodes of $M$. The region we want to ‘preserve at original scale’, i.e. *not* magnify, is: $$X' = X \setminus \tilde{X}$$ From this we discard those clusters which lie entirely in $\tilde{X}$ to obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal {C}}' = \{C \in {\mathcal {C}}: C \cap X' \neq \emptyset\} \\
&such\;that:\;\cup_{C \in {\mathcal {C}}'}C \supseteq X'
\end{aligned}$$
3. We define a new cover on $\tilde{Z}$ as per our choice and requirement. Unlike in \[multi app 1\], this need not be a restriction of the old cover of $Z$.
4. We cluster within the inverse images of each new bin, to obtain a new set of clusters $\tilde{{\mathcal {C}}}$, such that: $$\cup_{C \in \tilde{{\mathcal {C}}}}C = \tilde{X}$$ Effectively, it is again a Mapper construction restricted on $\tilde{X}$ with a new cover on $\tilde{Z}$.
5. Now we have obtained an overall set of clusters $$\begin{aligned}
&\hat{{\mathcal {C}}} = {\mathcal {C}}' \cup \tilde{{\mathcal {C}}}\\
&such\;that:\;\cup_{C \in \hat{{\mathcal {C}}}}C = X
\end{aligned}$$ We compute a new nerve $\hat{M}$ according to $\hat{{\mathcal {C}}}$: the nodes correspond to clusters in $\hat{{\mathcal {C}}}$, and a $k$-simplex is added for every $k+1$ clusters of $\hat{{\mathcal {C}}}$ that have a simultaneous intersection.\
This nerve-like computation ensures that $\hat{M}$:
- matches $M$ on $V \setminus S$, via nerve computation on ${\mathcal {C}}'$
- replaces the induced sub-complex on $S$ with a copy of $\tilde{M}$, via nerve computation on $\tilde{{\mathcal {C}}}$
- *glues* these two parts in a manner faithful to the topology of $X$, by imitating the nerve construction on simultaneous intersections involving both ${\mathcal {C}}'$ and $\tilde{{\mathcal {C}}}$
The above process can be repeated at various regions, with locally suitable choices of covering scheme, bin size, and clustering algorithm. The resulting structure is a Mapper-like simplicial complex which we call *Multimapper*.\
Conceptually, Multimapper breaks up the original point cloud into subsets that may or may not intersect. For each region, it computes the Mapper that is of a suitable scale for that region.\
Given a finite collection of subsets $\mathcal{X} \subset 2^X$ such that $\cup_{Y \in \mathcal{X}}Y=X$ and covers $\{{\mathcal {U}}_Y\}_{Y \in \mathcal{X}}$ such that $\forall Y \in \mathcal{X}, {\mathcal {U}}_Y \supseteq Y$, we can define the corresponding *Multimapper*: $${\mathcal{M}}(\mathcal{X}, \{{\mathcal {U}}_Y\}_{Y \in \mathcal{X}}) = N(\cup_{Y \in \mathcal{X}}f^*({\mathcal {U}}_Y))$$
This piecewise approach makes Multimapper quite flexible, we can freely choose different local Mappers for different regions, while retaining the global relationships between them. Fig. \[fig:magnification\](b) shows an example of applying Multimapper on a specific region of dataset. Fig. \[fig:magnification\](c) shows the graph obtained by applying Multimapper repeatedly on separate regions and creating a single visualization by gluing them all. We can see it reveals new structure in the magnified regions as well as prevents the shattering of graph which was happening in case of Mapper with similar bin size as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:multimapper motivation\](c).\
Via the stability results in [@dey2016multiscale], we further know that Multimapper is locally as stable as Multiscale Mapper; and of course, since it after all arises from a cover, it is globally as stable as Mapper.
Detecting a Bad Mapper {#sec:det bad}
======================
[@singh2007topological] refer to the *Reeb graph* as a geometric representation suitable for obtaining information directly, and introduce Mapper as a generalization of Reeb graph. Later, [@carri19statistical] have shown that in the ideal setup, Mapper with a $1$-dimensional lens function statistically converges to the Reeb graph of the original space under the lens function. A general convergence result of Mapper to a generalization of Reeb graph called the *Reeb space* has been conjectured, and [@CatReeb] have studied a category-theoretic version of this relationship.\
The ideal convergence would not occur in case of real data since real data is a discrete point cloud. However, we can measure the correctness of a Mapper via its closeness to the Reeb space. We can thus reasonably demand that a good enough Mapper of a discrete point cloud, under a particular lens function $f$, should be similar in shape to the Reeb space (under $f$) of the connected paracompact space it approximates.
\[reeb space\] Given a continuous map $f:X \rightarrow Y$ between topological spaces $X$ and $Y$ , the *Reeb space* $R_f(X)$ of $X$ with respect to $f$ is $X/\sim$ where the equivalence relation $\sim$ on $X$ is defined as $p \sim q$ iff $p$ and $q$ lie in the same connected component of $f^{-1}(c)$ for some $c \in Y$.
When $Y = {\mathbb{R}}^n$, the connected components are same as path connected components [@sutherland2009introduction], and this is sufficient for our real-world setting. When $Y = {\mathbb{R}}$, the Reeb space is called the *Reeb graph*.
The Mapper algorithm is constructed using the Nerve Theorem, and we have characterized its goodness by its closeness to the Reeb space. Thus, to partially characterize bad Mappers i.e. Mappers far from the Reeb space, we can try to find regions of the Mapper where the contractibility hypotheses of Nerve Theorem is violated.\
Checking for contractibility, however, is complicated in a real world setting, especially since our actual space is a point cloud.\
To adapt our method to the real world, let us recall the association between the continuous and discrete ideas:
- Continuous $\leftrightarrow$ Discrete
- Paracompact space $\leftrightarrow$ Point cloud
- Path connected components $\leftrightarrow$ Clusters
- Nerve $\leftrightarrow$ Mapper
We know that if a space has more than one path connected component, it cannot be contractible – shrinking two separate pieces to the same point would require shrinking across the gap between them, which violates continuity. Translated to the point cloud setting, this means that if a data subset has multiple clusters, the corresponding space cannot be contractible. Hence, a sufficient condition for non-contractibility can be checked using the following general characterization:\
Given a Mapper on a set of nodes $V$ $$\exists \sigma \in M, \sigma = \sigma(S), S \subseteq V, \beta_0({\cap_{v \in S}C_v}) > 1$$ where:
- $\sigma(S)$ is the simplex on the vertices $S$
- For some topological space $A$, $\beta_0(A)$ is the number of connected components in $A$
- $C_v$ is the cluster corresponding to the node $v$ of the nerve.
This motivates our approach, which we illustrate via $1$-simplices (edges). However, the same technique can be iterated over all simplices in $M$. The most naive approach of identifying components in discrete setting is via any known clustering algorithms. We propose such a method next, followed by a modification on it that is independent of clustering algorithms.
Clustering-Dependent Version {#nerve app 1 .unnumbered}
----------------------------
**Procedure:** Given a Mapper $M$, for each edge $(u, v)$, $C_u \cap C_v \neq \emptyset$, we cluster within $C_u \cap C_v$ using a clustering algorithm like DBSCAN which does not fix the number of clusters *a priori*. If more than one cluster is obtained, we report it as a violation. Finding even a single violation is sufficient for the Mapper to be classified as *bad*.\
**Explanation:** If an edge $e = (u, v)$ leads to a violation, it means that the continuous space $C_u \cap C_v$ approximates has more than one path connected component. Hence the Reeb space of $C_u \cap C_v$ , obtained by collapsing each path connected component, will also have more than one connected component. But the Mapper restricted to $C_u \cap C_v$ is precisely the edge $e$, which is a single connected component. Hence in the region of data corresponding to $C_u \cap C_v$, the Mapper deviates in shape from the Reeb space.
Our Algorithm: Clustering-Independent Version {#nerve app 2}
---------------------------------------------
In the above naive approach, we depend on clustering to approximate path connected components. Thus we are constrained by the choice of clustering algorithm and its parameters, and must optimize this on a case-by-case basis as these are not generalizable to any dataset. To remove this dependency, we propose a method of approximating path connected components that is independent of clustering.\
The well-known TDA method of *persistence*, which is usually applied directly on the point cloud [@ghrist2008barcodes], can be translated to the Mapper setting via Multiscale Mapper – [@dey2016multiscale] have given an algorithm that, given a tower of covers, computes the *persistence diagram* of the resulting Multiscale Mapper. They have also provided an approximate computation suitable for the discrete point cloud setting.\
Hence, given ${\mathfrak{U}}= \{{\mathcal {U}}_{\varepsilon}\}_{\varepsilon}$, a Multiscale Mapper ${\mathrm{MM}}({\mathfrak{U}})$ and a void $H$ that appears in some $M({\mathcal {U}}_{\varepsilon}) \in {\mathrm{MM}}({\mathfrak{U}})$
1. $birth(H) = \textrm{min}\{{\varepsilon}: H \text{ appears in }M({\mathcal {U}}_{\varepsilon})\}$
2. $death(H) = \textrm{max}\{{\varepsilon}: H \text{ appears in }M({\mathcal {U}}_{\varepsilon})\}$
Hence, for every $0$-void, i.e. connected component, $1$-void, i.e. circular hole and so on, that appears in ${\mathrm{MM}}({\mathfrak{U}})$, we get a birth-death pair, a range of scales at which it is visible in the corresponding Mappers.\
We consider a topological feature, e.g. a void, to be truly present in the shape of the data if it remains, or is *persistent*, for a large range of scales. If $\beta_m^{\varepsilon}$ is the number of $m$-voids at scale ${\varepsilon}$, we remove the noisy features and calculate the *true* number of $m$-voids $\beta_m$ i.e. the persistent ones as: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_m : {\mathbb{N}}& \rightarrow {\mathbb{N}}\\
\beta & \mapsto {\left\lvert \{{\varepsilon}: \beta_m^{\varepsilon}= \beta\} \right\rvert}\\
\beta_m &= \textrm{arg max} (\phi_m)
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\beta_0$ is the number of connected components, persistence on Mapper via Multiscale Mapper gives us a cluster-independent way to compute the number of connected components in the data. This gives us the following procedure for detecting violations:\
Given a Mapper $M(X,{\mathcal {U}},f)$, for each edge $(u,v)$, we construct a tower of covers on $C_u \cap C_v$, beginning from $f^*({\mathcal {U}}){\raisebox{-.5ex}{$|$}_{C_u\cap C_v}}$ and decreasing the scale of cover up to a threshold of refining $f^*({\mathcal {U}}){\raisebox{-.5ex}{$|$}_{C_u\cap C_v}}$ by $2$.\
Thus in practice, where ${\mathcal {U}}{\raisebox{-.5ex}{$|$}_{f(C_u\cap C_v)}}$ has cuboidal[^2] bins of diameter ${\varepsilon}_0$ and ${\mathfrak{U}}'$ must be finite, we define covers of the form ${\mathcal {U}}_{\varepsilon}$ of $f(X)$ to have the same partition rule as ${\mathcal {U}}$, but with bin size ${\varepsilon}$. Thus the tower of covers of $f(C_u\cap C_v)$ is: $${\mathfrak{U}}'=\{{\mathcal {U}}_{\varepsilon}\}_{{\varepsilon}\in {\mathbb{N}}, 0.5{\varepsilon}_0 \leq {\varepsilon}\leq {\varepsilon}_0}$$ From this we obtain the pullback tower $f^*({\mathfrak{U}}')$ of covers of $C_u\cap C_v$. On this, using persistence via Multiscale Mapper as illustrated in [@dey2016multiscale], we can compute $\beta_0$, the persistence and hence *true* number of components. If $\beta_0 > 1$, we report a violation. To increase efficiency in implementation, we will compute only zeroth dimension persistence diagram.
Reducing Obscured Information via Brick-like Cover {#sec:brickcover}
==================================================
Construction of a cover from the implementation perspective for the Mapper algorithm can be conceptualized in two steps:
1. Construction of a partition
2. Growing each piece of the partition to introduce overlap, hence obtaining bins.
The most well-known, standard box-like cover partitions the image space into $n$-cuboids, where $n$ is the projected dimension. Hence with a $1$-dimensional lens, we get line segments; with a $2$-dimensional lens, we get rectangular boxes; and so on. In such a setup, $2^n$ bins can intersect where $2^n$ pieces of the partition meet; hence simplices in the nerve can have dimension up to $2^n$. However, simplices of dimension $>2$ are difficult to visualize. Because of this, the visualization we create will be truncated at $2$- or $3$-simplices, and not represent the complete information contained in the Mapper.\
Hence, it would be desirable to build covers such that the visualization represents all the topological information contained in Mapper through simplices of visualizable dimensions. This requires us to explore non-cuboidal lattices for the partition. As suggested in [@singh2007topological], hexagonal lattices are a natural choice – in $2$D, for example, hexagonal bins can intersect only $3$ at a time; hence the Mapper would have at most $2$-simplices.
The Brick Cover {#the-brick-cover .unnumbered}
---------------
Constructing bins over a hexagonal lattice is computationally difficult even in $2$ dimensions. Our proposed $2$D covering is more efficient and achieves the same goal with a few realistic constraints. Our partition of the $2$D plane uses offset rectangles, as in a brick wall. The underlying vertices are still a hexagonal lattice, which gives us an advantage over the usual rectangles: at most $3$ bricks can meet at a vertex. At overlap below $50\%$, this translates to a maximum of $3$-fold intersection of bins. Given the sparse nature of high-dimensional data, overlap below $50\%$ is a reasonable notion of nearness.\
The idea of using non-cuboidal bins can be extended to higher dimensions: for example, cuboidal lattice in $3$D gives up to $8$-fold intersections, while hexagonal lattice in $3$D gives only up to $6$-fold intersections.
![Bins built on brick-like mesh. Notice how at most $3$ bins intersect at once.[]{data-label="fig:brickcover"}](pix/brick_cover.png){width="0.5\linewidth"}
We *claim that our proposed brick-like cover gives the lowest possible maximum simultaneous intersections among all $2$D covers that use cuboidal bins*. This is because:
1. For the underlying partition of a cuboidal cover, let a ‘mesh point’ be a point at which some pieces of the partition meet, and at least one piece has that point as a vertex. At a mesh point:
- The total angle contributed by pieces incident on it must equal $2\pi$.
- A piece having the mesh point as its own vertex, contributes $\pi/2$, other surrounding pieces contribute $\pi$. Hence $2$ pieces cannot form a mesh point, since neither piece could have the said point as its own vertex.
- Thus, at a minimum, we are forced to build $2\pi$ as $\pi+\pi/2+\pi/2$, as in a brick-like mesh.
2. We are left to choose the ‘offset’, i.e. by how much the successive rows of pieces are shifted from each other. We assume that the overlap is added to the top right of the underlying pieces. Then, between two successive rows:
- If the top row is shifted to the right by $p\%$, then an overlap greater than $p\%$ would lead to $4$-intersections. So we must maximize $p$. But this is the same as the bottom row being shifted to the left by $(100-p)\%$, so an overlap greater than $(100-p)\%$ would also cause $4$-intersections. So we must maximize $(100-p)$.
- Symmetrically, when the top row is shifted to the left by $p$, we again need a simultaneous maximization of $p$ and $(100-p)$.
- Hence we must choose $p = (100-p) = 50$, which gives us the proposed cover.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we proposed improvements upon the existing Mapper algorithm solving many of its shortcomings partially. We have given a partial characterization of undesirable outputs of the Mapper algorithm and proposed a flexible method that corrects the choice of scale locally in a manner sensitive to the density of various data subsets. In all these methods, we have retained the *unsupervised* nature and stability of Mapper. Moreover, replacing the standard covering scheme with our brick-like cover reveals more topological information in a visualizable way. Our methods produce a visualization that is more true to the actual shape of data, via the Reeb space characterization, than the standard Mapper. Our contributions pave the path towards an automatic one-shot Mapper output which is the best visualization in terms of being close to the topological structure of data without any need of manual parameter optimization. This improves the efficacy of its applications in analysis and visualization of high dimensional big data.\
An interesting direction of future work that we mean to pursue is to study the relationship between successive applications of the Multimapper algorithm. Moreover, our method to detect deviations from Reeb space in Mapper via violations of Nerve Theorem hypothesis can be more powerfully implemented if a discrete analog of *contractibility* was reasonably defined, similar to how clusters are used to approximate connected components. Finally, a characterization of the best cover possible in any given dimension for the given data would be useful.
[^1]: [@Hatcher] provides a rigorous mathematical treatment of simplicial complexes.
[^2]: Cuboidal bins may be arranged in the standard way or as suggested in \[sec:brickcover\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the hierarchical wave functions on a sphere and on a torus. We simplify some wave functions on a sphere or a torus using the analytic properties of wave functions. The open question, the construction of the wave function for quasielectron excitations on a torus, is also solved in this paper.'
---
[Hierarchical Wave Functions Revisited ]{}\
\
The Abdus Salam International Center For Theoretical Physics\
P.O. Box 586, Strada Costiera 11, Trieste, Italy\
ICTP HE 97\
PACS: 73.40.Hm, 73.20.Dx,03.65.-w,03.80.+r
[Electronic address: [email protected]]{}
Introduction
============
The trial wave function of the fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) on a disk at filling $\nu =1/m$ with $m$ an old integer is given by the famous Laughlin wave function [@lau]. Laughlin wave function had been constructed on a spheric or a toric surface later in refs. [@sphere; @torus]. When $\nu \not= 1/m$, there are several proposals for constructing the trial wave function, notably Halperin’s hierarchical wave function [@halp; @sphere] and Jain’s composite fermion (CF) wave function [@Jain3]. In this paper, we will only discuss the construction of the hierarchical wave function (for a review of FQHE, see ref. [@girvin]).
Halperin’s theory for the FQHE at a hierarchical filling is based on the picture of hierarchical condensations of quasiparticles. The charge and statistics of quasiparticles are both fractional, and those quasiparticles were recently observed in experiments [@quasi].
For example, there are quasiparticle excitations in the case of Laughlin’s state ($\nu =1/m$). If those quasiparticles condense and form a Laughlin state them-self, a new fractional quantum Hall (FQH) state appears with $\nu =1/(m-p)$ or $\nu =1/(m+p)$ ($p$ is an even integer), where the minus sign is due to the condensation of quasielectrons (QEs), and the plus sign is due to the condensation of quasiholes (QHs). The condensation of quasiparticles at $\nu =1/(m-p)$ or $\nu
=1/(m+p)$ will lead to a higher hierarchical state. The process can continue and will form more complicated states.
Halperin also constructed the wave function at the hierarchical filling. The hierarchical wave function had been also further investigated in refs. [@Read; @wenblok]. The hierarchical wave function is simply equal to the multiplication of those Laughlin wave functions in all hierarchical levels with all quasiparticle coordinates integrated out (it will become clear in the next section).
To construct the hierarchical wave function, we need to construct the Laughlin wave function with quasiparticle excitations. The Laughlin wave function in the presence of QH excitations is easy to construct, so does the hierarchical wave function due to the condensation of QHs (however the constructed wave function can not be analytically integrated). On the other hand, the Laughlin wave function in the presence of QE excitations is quite complicated and involves derivative operators in the case of a plane or a sphere. Thus the hierarchical wave function due to QE condensations is quite complicated and intractable in its old form. We also note that, the Laughlin wave function with QE excitations on a torus is still unknown, and thus the hierarchical wave function on a torus due to the condensation of QEs has not been obtained yet. We comment that, although refs. [@torus2; @torus3] had constructed a hierarchical wave function at a hierarchical filling on a torus due to the condensation of QEs (such wave function on a sphere was first proposed in ref. [@Read]), the constructed wave function contains poles (or singularities) which are difficult to control.
Recently, some progresses in constructing the hierarchical wave function had been made in ref. [@carmem]. In ref. [@carmem], it was discovered that the Laughlin wave function in the presence of QEs can be obtained by projecting a rather simple wave function to the lowest Landau level. Using this fact and the analytic properties of the wave functions of quasiparticles at all hierarchical levels, the hierarchical wave function due to the condensations of QEs can be greatly simplified (the wave function can be integrated analytically). We note that most of observed states in experiments are due to the condensation of QEs, only very few observed states involves the condensation of QHs.
In this paper, we will generalize the construction to the case when the surface is a torus. How to construct a Laughlin wave function with QE excitations on a torus is an open problem as noted in ref. [@torus]. We will solve this problem by proposing explicitly a Laughlin wave function with QE excitations on a torus which satisfies all required properties. Based on this construction, a hierarchical wave function due to the condensation of QEs on a torus can be constructed. No singularity exists in the wave function, and the wave function is analytically computable.
In ref. [@torus1], the hierarchical wave function due to condensations of QHs was constructed. The wave function of QHs on a torus is multi-component and the multi-component nature of the QH wave function manifests clearly in the hierarchical wave function of electrons on a torus.
In refs. [@torus2; @torus3], a hierarchical wave function on a torus due to condensations of QEs is constructed, although this particular wave function contains poles. In the contrary to the case of QHs [@torus1], the multi-component nature of the wave function of QEs does not show in the wave function. The wave functions of QEs or QHs must be multi-component as any fractional statistics particles on a torus do [@ein; @eingen]. So it is a paradox. We will solve this paradox in this paper.
We organize the paper as follows: In the next section, we present a detailed discussion about constructing various hierarchical wave functions on a sphere (a brief discussion can be found in ref. [@carmem]). Different hierarchical wave functions will be constructed and simplified. In section $3$, we will review first what we have known about the hierarchical wave functions on a torus. Then we will present some new results, which include solving the puzzling of the multicomponent nature of the wave function of QEs and the construction of a hierarchical wave function without any singularity on a torus due to the condensation of QEs. Of course in studying the above mentioned problems, the open problem noted in ref. [@torus], the construction of a Laughlin wave function with QEs, would be addressed and solved.
Hierarchical wave functions on a sphere
=======================================
In this section, we will discuss the construction of the hierarchical wave function on a sphere [@sphere]. The quasiparticles satisfy fractional statistics [@halp], and the condensation of quasiparticles will give rise to the FQH state with $$\nu ={1\over \displaystyle p_1+
{\strut 1\over \displaystyle p_2+
{\strut 1\over \displaystyle \cdots +
{\strut 1\over \displaystyle p_{n}}}}} ,
\label{filling}$$ where $p_1$ is an old positive integer, and $p_i, i\not= 1$ are even integers (their signs are depend on the types of the quasiparticles, i.e., QH or QE excitations).
We use projective coordinates on the sphere (details of notations can be found in ref. [@carmem]). The projective coordinates are given by $z=2R\cot\frac{\theta}{2} e^{i\varphi}$ and its complex conjugate $\bar z$. We will take $R=1/2$ for simplicity.
Quasiparticle excitations of a Laughlin state
---------------------------------------------
The Laughlin wave function at filling $\nu =1/m$ is $$\Psi_m=\prod_{i<j}^Nd(z_i,z_j)^m,$$ where $$d(z_i,z_j)=\frac{z_i-z_j}
{\sqrt{1+z_i\bar{z_i}}\sqrt{1+z_j\bar{z_j}}}.$$ The magnetic flux quanta $\phi$ out of the surface is equal to $m(N-1)$ for the Laughlin state.
The Laughlin wave function with the presence of quasiparticle excitations is given by acting the quasiparticle excitation operators on the original Laughlin wave function. In the projective coordinates, the operators of the QH excitations and the quasielectron excitations are given in the following form, $$\begin{aligned}
A^{\dagger}(\omega_k, \bar \omega_k ) \Psi_m(z_i)
& = & \left [ \prod_{j=1}^{N} \prod_{k=1}^{N_q}
d(z_j, \omega_k) \right ] \Psi_m(z_i), \\
A(\omega_k, \bar \omega_k ) \Psi_{m}(z_i) & = & P(\phi )
\left \{ \left [ \prod_{j=1}^{N} \prod_{k=1}^{N_q}
{ d(\bar z_j, \bar \omega_k)} \right ] \Psi_m(z_i) \right \}
\label{uno}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_k \,\, , \bar \omega_k$ are the coordinates of the quasiparticle. The flux $\phi$ in the presence of $N_q$ QEs (QHs) is $m (N-1)-N_q$ ($m(N-1) +N_q$), and $P(\phi )$ is an operator which projects a state to the lowest Landau level with the magnetic flux quanta equal to $\phi$ [@carmem]. Ref. [@carmem] showed that the QE excitations given by eq. (\[uno\]) is the same as that in ref. [@sphere].
Laughlin wave function for quasiparticles
-----------------------------------------
To construct a hierarchical wave function, we shall construct the wave function of quasiparticles.
First we consider a Laughlin state of electrons and its quasiparticles. When the quasiparticles condense, the wave function is of Jastrow (or Laughlin) type. The charge of a QH is $-e/m$ where $e$ is the charge of an electron. As a QH has an opposite charge with respect to an electron, the wave function is anti-holomorphic with the coordinates of QHs. Because QHs satisfy fractional statistics with statistical parameter equal to $1/m$, the wave function for QHs of Laughlin type is found to be: $$[\Psi_1 (\bar \omega_k )]^{p +1/m},$$ where $\Psi_1$ is defined as $$\Psi_1 (\omega_k )= \prod_{k<l}^{N_q}d(\omega_k, \omega_l).$$ The notation here is consistent with our definition of the Laughlin wave function.
QEs obey the same statistics as QHs. But as the charge of a QE is $e/m$, the wave function of QEs is holomorphic with the coordinates of QEs. From these facts, one can deduce that the wave function of QEs of Laughlin type is $$[\Psi_1 ( \omega_k )]^{p - 1/m}$$
We have constructed the wave function for quasiparticles of a Laughlin state at filling $\nu =1/m$. The condensation of those quasiparticles lead to filling $\nu = 1/(m-1/p)$ or $\nu =1/(m+1/p)$. Let us define the Laughlin state at $\nu =1/m$ is a first level hierarchical state. The quasiparticles of a Laughlin state can form a new Laughlin state of their own, and this will lead a second level hierarchical state as just discussed. The new Laughlin state then can have their own quasiparticles. If the new quasiparticles condense, it will lead to a third level hierarchical state. This process can continue, and the more complicated hierarchical states can be formed.
Suppose we have a Laughlin state formed by the quasiparticles at the $nth$ level with $\theta_n$ as the statistical parameter. Our convention of the definition of $\theta_n$ here is: when we exchange the coordinates of two particles, we will get the same phase as we exchange two coordinates of the function $[\Psi_1 ( z_i^n )] ^{- \theta_n }$. $\theta_n$ can be a positive or a negative rational number, but $|\theta_n |$ is generally less or equal than one.
If the charge of a quasiparticle is negative (we assume that the charge of an electron is negative), the wave function will take the following form, $$[\Psi_1 ( z_i^n )] ^{p_n - \theta_n }
\label{quasi1}$$ where $z_i^n$ is the coordinates of those quasiparticles. If the charge of the quasiparticle is positive, then the wave function will take the following form, $$[\Psi_1 (\bar z_i^n )]^{p_n +\theta_n}.
\label{quasi2}$$ $p_n$ is a positive even integer.
The excitations for the Laughlin state of quasiparticles
--------------------------------------------------------
.
In order to construct the wave function of the quasiparticles at the $n+1th$ level, we need to know how to construct the wave function of quasiparticles of the $nth$ level with their own quasiparticle excitations. We shall study the excitation of those states in the previous subsection. For the QH excitations of eq. (\[quasi1\]) and eq. (\[quasi2\]), the wave functions in the presence of those QHs will become $$[\Psi_1 ( z_i^n )] ^{p_n - \theta_n }
\prod_{j=1}^{N_n} \prod_{k=1}^{N_{n+1}}
d(z_j^n, z_k^{n+1}),
\label{quasin1}$$ and $$[\Psi_1 (\bar z_i^n )]^{p_n +\theta_n}
\prod_{j=1}^{N_n} \prod_{k=1}^{N_{n+1}}
d(\bar z_j^n, \bar z_k^{n+1}) ,
\label{quasin2}$$ where $N_n$ is the number of quasiparticles at $nth$ level, and $z_i^n$ are the coordinates of those quasiparticles, $z_i^{n+1}$ are the coordinates of new quasiparticles (we will denote the electron coordinates as $z_i^1$ in this notation) and $N_{n+1}$ is the number of the new quasiparticles ($N_1$ is the number of electrons).
For the QE excitations of state (\[quasi1\]) and state (\[quasi2\]), the wave functions will be in the following forms; $$[\Psi_1 ( z_i^n )] ^{ - \theta_n }
P (\phi_n -N_{n+1}) \left \{
[\Psi_1 ( z_i^n )] ^{p_n }
\prod_{j=1}^{N_n} \prod_{k=1}^{N_{n+1}}
d(\bar z_j^n, \bar z_k^{n+1}) \right \},
\label{quasie1}$$ and $$[\Psi_1 ( \bar z_i^n )] ^{\theta_n }
P (\phi_n-N_{n+1}) \left \{
[\Psi_1 (\bar z_i^n )]^{p_n }
\prod_{j=1}^{N_n} \prod_{k=1}^{N_{n+1}}
d( z_j^n, z_k^{n+1}) \right \},
\label{quasie2}$$ where $\phi_n$ is equal to $N_np_n-N_n$, and $P(\phi_n-N_{n+1})$ is an operator which projects the states to the lowest Landau levels with the magnetic flux $\phi_n-N_{n+1}$ (as previously defined). The construction of QEs in eq. \[quasie1\] and eq. \[quasie2\] is a natural generalization of the construction of QEs of the Laughlin state (see eq. (\[uno\])).
The normalizations of the wave functions
----------------------------------------
We need to normalize those states in the previous subsection for constructing the hierarchical wave function. The normalized states of eq. (\[quasin1\]), eq. (\[quasin2\]), eq. (\[quasie1\]) and eq. (\[quasie2\]) will be $$\begin{aligned}
& & [\Psi_1 ( z_i^n )] ^{p_n - \theta_n }
[\Psi_1 ( z_i^{n+1} )] ^{1 \over p_n - \theta_n }
\prod_{j=1}^{N_n} \prod_{k=1}^{N_{n+1}}
d(z_j^n, z_k^{n+1}), \\
& &[\Psi_1 (\bar z_i^n )]^{p_n +\theta_n}
[\Psi_1 ( \bar z_i^{n+1} )] ^{1 \over p_n + \theta_n }
\prod_{j=1}^{N_n} \prod_{k=1}^{N_{n+1}}
d(\bar z_j^n, \bar z_k^{n+1}) , \\
& & [\Psi_1 ( z_i^n )] ^{ - \theta_n }
[\Psi_1 ( z_i^{n+1} )] ^{1 \over p_n - \theta_n }
\nonumber \\
& & \times P (\phi_n -N_{n+1}) \left \{
[\Psi_1 ( z_i^n )] ^{p_n }
\prod_{j=1}^{N_n} \prod_{k=1}^{N_{n+1}}
d(\bar z_j^n, \bar z_k^{n+1}) \right \}, \\
& & [\Psi_1 ( \bar z_i^n )] ^{\theta_n }
[\Psi_1 ( \bar z_i^{n+1} )] ^{1 \over p_n + \theta_n } \nonumber \\
& & \times P (\phi_n-N_{n+1}) \left \{
[\Psi_1 (\bar z_i^n )]^{p_n }
\prod_{j=1}^{N_n} \prod_{k=1}^{N_{n+1}}
d( z_j^n, z_k^{n+1}) \right \}.\end{aligned}$$ The amplitudes of normalization factors can be determined by plasma analogue or by the rotational properties of the wave functions, and the phase of normalization factors are determined by the statistics of quasiparticles. The statistical parameters of $\theta_{n+1}$ for the quasiparticles $z_k^{n+1}$ in eq. (\[quasin1\]), eq. (\[quasin2\]), eq. (\[quasie1\]) and eq. (\[quasie2\]) are respectively ${1 \over p_n - \theta_n }$, $-{1 \over p_n + \theta_n }$, ${1 \over p_n - \theta_n }$, and $-{1 \over p_n +\theta_n }$. With those parameters, we can build the Laughlin states for the news quasiparticles with coordinates $z_k^{n+1}$ again, thus we can obtain the hierarchical wave function of any level.
Constructions of hierarchical wave functions on a sphere
--------------------------------------------------------
We finally come to construct hierarchical wave functions. We first consider when $\nu$ is given by $${1\over \displaystyle p_1-
{\strut 1\over \displaystyle p_2-
{\strut 1\over \displaystyle \cdots -
{\strut 1\over \displaystyle p_{n}}}}}
\label{filling1}$$ with $p_i$ being positive integers. This state is obtained when the quasiparticles in any level are of QE type. Most of observed fillings in experiments can be given by eq. (\[filling1\]).
Take $n=3$, then the wave function is given as $$\int
\prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_2} [dz_{\alpha}^2]
\prod_{\beta=1}^{N_3} [dz_{\beta}^2]
\Psi^1 \Psi^2 \Psi^3,$$ where we define that $[dz_{\alpha}^i]$ is equal to $\frac{dz_{\alpha}^id\bar z_{\alpha}^i}{
(1+z_{\alpha}^i\bar z_{\alpha}^i)^2}$, and $\Psi^1$ as the normalized wave function of electrons with quasielectron excitations, $\Psi^2$ as the normalized wave function of quasiparticles of the electron state, etc.. By using formulas previously obtained in the last subsection, we can write the wave function explicitly, $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi = & & \int
\prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_2} [dz_{\alpha}^2]
\prod_{\beta=1}^{N_3} [dz_{\beta}^3]
P(p_1N_1-p_1-N_2, z^1_i)
\nonumber \\ & &
\times
\left [ \Psi_1(z_i^1) \right ]^{p_1}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_1} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_2}
d(\bar z_i^1, \bar z_{\alpha}^2)
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^2) \right ]^{1/p_1}
\nonumber \\ & &
\times
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^2) \right ]^{-1/p_1}
P(p_2N_2-p_2-N_3, z^2_i)
\nonumber \\ & &
\times
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^2) \right ]^{p_2}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_2} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_3}
d(\bar z_i^2, \bar z_{\alpha}^3)
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^3) \right ]^{1 \over p_2 - 1/p_1}
\nonumber \\ & &
\times
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^3) \right ]^{-1 \over p_2 - 1/p_1}
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^3) \right ]^{p_3}, \end{aligned}$$ and which can simplify to $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi = & & \int
\prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_2} [dz_{\alpha}^2]
\prod_{\beta=1}^{N_3} [dz_{\beta}^3]
P(p_1N_1-p_1-N_2, z^1_i)
\nonumber \\ & &
\times
\left [ \Psi_1(z_i^1) \right ]^{p_1}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_1} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_2}
d(\bar z_i^1, \bar z_{\alpha}^2)
P(p_2N_2-p_2-N_3, z^2_i)
\nonumber \\ & &
\times
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^2) \right ]^{p_2}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_2} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_3}
d(\bar z_i^2, \bar z_{\alpha}^3)
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^3) \right ]^{p_3}.
\label{simp}\end{aligned}$$ We can further simplify the wave function. The key observation is that the following equation holds $$<\psi_1 |P| \psi_2> =<\psi_1 | \psi_2>
\label{key}$$ where $\psi_1$ is a state in the lowest Landau level, and $P$ is an operator which projects $\psi_2$ to the lowest Landau Level. In eq. (\[simp\]). We consider only the part of function which depends on $z_i^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int \prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_2}
[dz_{\alpha}^2]
\prod_{i=1}^{N_1} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_2}
d(\bar z_i^1, \bar z_{\alpha}^2) \times
\nonumber \\ & &
P(p_2N_2-p_2-N_3, z^2_i)
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^2) \right ]^{p_2}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_2} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_3}
d(\bar z_i^2, \bar z_{\alpha}^3),
\label{simpl}\end{aligned}$$ which is equal to the inner product of two bosonic wave functions as in eq. (\[key\]), when $$\psi_1 =\prod_{i=1}^{N_1} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_2}
d(\bar z_i^1, \bar z_{\alpha}^2)$$ and $$\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^2) \right ]^{p_2}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_2} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_3}
d(\bar z_i^2, \bar z_{\alpha}^3).$$ Thus we can simply omit $P(p_2N_2-p_2-N_3, z^2_i)$ in eq. (\[simpl\]) and also in eq. (\[simp\]). Thus we can write the wave function in a simple form, $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi = & & P(\phi , z^1_i)
\int
\prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_2} [dz_{\alpha}^2]
\prod_{\beta=1}^{N_3} [dz_{\beta}^3]
\nonumber \\ & &
\times
\left [ \Psi_1(z_i^1) \right ]^{p_1}
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^2) \right ]^{p_2}
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^3) \right ]^{p_3}
\nonumber \\ & &
\times
\prod_{i=1}^{N_1} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_2}
d(\bar z_i^1, \bar z_{\alpha}^2)
\prod_{i=1}^{N_2} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_3}
d(\bar z_i^2, \bar z_{\alpha}^3)
\label{simpkey}\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi =p_1N_1-p_1-N_2$ is the magnetic flux out of the sphere (note again that $z^1_i$ are actually the coordinates of electrons).
We can construct the $n$ level hierarchical wave function with filling given by eq. (\[filling1\]), and then simplify it following previous discussions about the case of $n=3$. The wave function is $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi = & & P(\phi , z^1_i)
\int \prod_{l=2}^{n} \prod_{k=1}^{N_l} [dz_{k}^l]
\prod_{l=1}^n \left [ \Psi_1(z_i^l) \right ]^{p_l}
\nonumber \\ & &
\times \prod_{l=1}^{n-1}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_l} \prod_{j =1}^{N_{l+1}}
d(\bar z_i^l, \bar z_j^{l+1} ).
\label{simphi}\end{aligned}$$ The hierarchical wave function due to the condensations of quasielectrons is amazingly simple, and it could be calculated analytically.
Ref. [@Read] had proposed a different hierarchical wave function with the same filling as the hierarchical wave function of eq. (\[simphi\]). The wave function is $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi = & &
\int \prod_{l=2}^{n} \prod_{k=1}^{N_l} [dz_{k}^l]
\prod_{l=1}^n \left [ \Psi_1(z_i^l) \right ]^{p_l}
\nonumber \\ & &
\times \prod_{l=1}^{n-1}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_l} \prod_{j =1}^{N_{l+1}}
{1 \over d( z_i^l, z_j^{l+1} )}.
\label{ugly}\end{aligned}$$ However eq. (\[ugly\]) contains singularities and we do not know how to control them if we want to carry out the calculation of eq. (\[ugly\]). If we do the integration in eq. (\[ugly\]), the wave function will not be holomorphic because of those singularities, thus we need also to project the wave function of eq. (\[ugly\]) to the lowest Landau level after the integration.
We could derive eq. (\[ugly\]) by assuming that the Laughlin wave function with QE excitations is $$A(\omega_k, \bar \omega_k ) \Psi_{m}(z_i) =
\left \{ \left [ \prod_{j=1}^{N} \prod_{k=1}^{N_q}
{1 \over d( z_j, \omega_k)} \right ] \Psi_m(z_i) \right \}
\label{readquasi}$$ instead of eq. (\[uno\]), and similarly eq. (\[quasie1\]) and eq. (\[quasie2\]) are replaced by the following equations, $$[\Psi_1 ( z_i^n )] ^{ - \theta_n }
\left \{
[\Psi_1 ( z_i^n )] ^{p_n }
\prod_{j=1}^{N_n} \prod_{k=1}^{N_{n+1}}
{1\over d( z_j^n, z_k^{n+1})} \right \},$$ and $$[\Psi_1 ( \bar z_i^n )] ^{\theta_n }
\left \{
[\Psi_1 (\bar z_i^n )]^{p_n }
\prod_{j=1}^{N_n} \prod_{k=1}^{N_{n+1}}
{1\over d( \bar z_j^n, \bar z_k^{n+1}) }\right \}.$$ Of course we know that those constructions for QEs are not favorable as the previous constructions given by eq. (\[uno\]), eq. (\[quasie1\]) and eq. (\[quasie2\]).
All wave functions in the FQHE on the sphere shall be rotationally invariant. Apply this condition for the wave functions of eq. (\[simphi\]) and eq. (\[ugly\]), we obtain $$\left [ \sum_{j=1}^n \Lambda_{ij}N_j \right ] -\Lambda_{ii}
=\cases {\phi, &if $i=1$; \cr 0, &otherwise, \cr}
\label{4aav}$$ where $$\Lambda =\pmatrix{p_1&-1&0&\ldots&0&0\cr
-1&p_2&-1&0&\ldots&0\cr
0&-1&p_3&-1&0&\ldots\cr
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\cr
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\cr
0&\ldots&0&-1&p_{n-1}&-1\cr
0&0&\ldots&0&-1&p_n\cr} \, .
\label{4aat}$$
We will now discuss the case when the filling is given by eq. (\[filling\]) with $p_i$ all positive. When $n=3$, the wave function is $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi = & & \int
\prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_2} [dz_{\alpha}^2]
\prod_{\beta=1}^{N_3} [dz_{\beta}^3]
\left [ \Psi_1(z_i^1) \right ]^{p_1}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_1} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_2}
d( z_i^1, z_{\alpha}^2)
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^2) \right ]^{1/p_1}
\nonumber \\ & &
\times
\left [ \Psi_1 (\bar z_i^2) \right ]^{1/p_1}
\left [ \Psi_1 (\bar z_i^2) \right ]^{p_2}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_2} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_3}
d(\bar z_i^2, \bar z_{\alpha}^3)
\left [ \Psi_1 (\bar z_i^3) \right ]^{1 \over p_2 + 1/p_1}
\nonumber \\ & &
\times
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^3) \right ]^{1 \over p_2 + 1/p_1}
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^3) \right ]^{p_3}, \end{aligned}$$ and which can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi = & & \int
\prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_2} [dz_{\alpha}^2]
\prod_{\beta=1}^{N_3} [dz_{\beta}^3]
\left [ \Psi_1(z_i^1) \right ]^{p_1}
\left [ \Psi_1 (\bar z_i^2) \right ]^{p_2}
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^3) \right ]^{p_3}
\nonumber \\ & &
\times
\prod_{i=1}^{N_1} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_2}
d( z_i^1, z_{\alpha}^2)
\prod_{i=1}^{N_2} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_3}
d(\bar z_i^2, \bar z_{\alpha}^3)
\nonumber \\ & &
\times
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^2) \Psi_1 (\bar z_i^2) \right ]^{1/p_1}
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^3) \Psi_1 (\bar z_i^3) \right ]^{1 \over p_2 + 1/p_1} . \end{aligned}$$ The hierarchical wave function due to the condensations of quasiholes now appears more complicated and it can not be integrated analytically. For any $n$, the wave function is $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi = & & \int \prod_{l=2}^n
\prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_l} [dz_{\alpha}^l]
\prod_{ 1\leq 2l-1 \leq n}
\left [ \Psi_1(z_i^{2l-1}) \right ]^{p_{2l-1}}
\prod_{ 1\leq 2l \leq n}
\left [ \Psi_1(\bar z_i^{2l}) \right ]^{p_{2l}}
\nonumber \\ & &
\times
\prod_{ 1\leq 2l-1 \leq n}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_{2l-1}} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_{2l}}
d( z_i^{2l-1}, z_{\alpha}^{2l})
\prod_{ 1\leq 2l \leq n}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_{2l}} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_{2l+1}}
d(\bar z_i^{2l}, \bar z_{\alpha}^{2l+1})
\nonumber \\ & &
\times \prod_{l=2}^n
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^l) \Psi_1 (\bar z_i^l) \right ]^{\epsilon_l}
\label{wavequasi}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_l$ is determined by the relation $$\epsilon_{l+1}={1\over p_l +\epsilon_l}, \epsilon_l=0.$$ In refs. [@carmem; @greiter], it was argued that eq. (\[wavequasi\]) can be approximated by omitting $\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^l) \Psi_1 (\bar z_i^l) \right ]^{s_l}$ in the integration, $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi = & & \int \prod_{l=2}^n
\prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_l} [dz_{\alpha}^l]
\prod_{ 1\leq 2l-1 \leq n}
\left [ \Psi_1(z_i^{2l-1}) \right ]^{p_{2l-1}}
\prod_{ 1\leq 2l \leq n}
\left [ \Psi_1(\bar z_i^{2l}) \right ]^{p_{2l}}
\nonumber \\ & &
\times
\prod_{ 1\leq 2l-1 \leq n}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_{2l-1}} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_{2l}}
d( z_i^{2l-1}, z_{\alpha}^{2l})
\prod_{ 1\leq 2l \leq n}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_{2l}} \prod_{\alpha =1}^{N_{2l+1}}
d(\bar z_i^{2l}, \bar z_{\alpha}^{2l+1}) .
\label{waveomit}\end{aligned}$$ The wave function of eq. (\[waveomit\]) was also found to be a good trial wave function comparing the exact ground state of a small number of electrons. Apply the rotational invariance condition on the wave functions of eq. (\[wavequasi\]) and eq. (\[waveomit\]), one finds again that eq. (\[4aav\]) must be satisfied, however the matrix $\Lambda$ is now given by $$\Lambda =\pmatrix{p_1&+1&0&\ldots&0&0\cr
+1&-p_2&-1&0&\ldots&0\cr
0&-1&p_3&+1&0&\ldots\cr
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\cr
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\cr
0&\ldots&0&(-1)^{n-1}&(-1)^n p_{n-1}&(-1)^n\cr
0&0&\ldots&0&(-1)^n&(-1)^{n+1}p_n\cr} \, .
\label{3aat}$$
We have discussed hierarchical wave functions due to the QE condensation or due to the QH condensations. Experimentally, hierarchical states due to the condensation of both QEs and QHs were also observed, for example, $\nu =n/(4n-1)$ with $n \geq 3$. $\nu =n/(4n-1)$ can be written as $${1\over \displaystyle p_1+
{\strut 1\over \displaystyle p_2-
{\strut 1\over \displaystyle \cdots -
{\strut 1\over \displaystyle p_{n}}}}}
\label{filling2}$$ with $p_1=3$, $p_i =2, i\not= 1$. The wave function at $\nu $ of eq. (\[filling2\]) can be constructed straight forwardly. After the simplifications, the wave function is $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi = & & \left [ \Psi_1( z_i^1) \right ]^{p_1}
\int \prod_{k=1}^{N_2} [dz_{k}^2]
\prod_{i=1}^{N_1} \prod_{j =1}^{N_{2}}
d( z_i^1, z_j^{2} )
\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^2) \Psi_1 (\bar z_i^2) \right ]^{1/p_1}
\nonumber \\ & &
P(p_2N_2-p_2-N_3 , z^2_i)
\int \prod_{l=3}^{n} \prod_{k=1}^{N_l} [dz_{k}^l]
\prod_{l=2}^n \left [ \Psi_1(\bar z_i^l) \right ]^{p_l}
\nonumber \\ & &
\times \prod_{l=2}^{n-1}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_l} \prod_{j =1}^{N_{l+1}}
d( z_i^l, z_j^{l+1} ).
\label{simpno}\end{aligned}$$ We could approximate the wave function by taking out $\left [ \Psi_1 (z_i^2) \Psi_1 (\bar z_i^2) \right ]^{1/p_1}$ (note that all wave functions discussed in the paper are trial wave functions, not the exact wave function), the wave function can be then written as $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi = & & \left [ \Psi_1( z_i^1) \right ]^{p_1}
\int \prod_{k=1}^{N_2} [dz_{k}^2]
\prod_{i=1}^{N_1} \prod_{j =1}^{N_{2}}
d( z_i^1, z_j^{2} ) \times
\nonumber \\ & &
\int \prod_{l=3}^{n} \prod_{k=1}^{N_l} [dz_{k}^l]
\prod_{l=2}^n \left [ \Psi_1(\bar z_i^l) \right ]^{p_l}
\prod_{l=2}^{n-1}
\prod_{i=1}^{N_l} \prod_{j =1}^{N_{l+1}}
d( z_i^l, z_j^{l+1} ).
\label{simpmix}\end{aligned}$$ Now we apply the rotational invariance conditions on the wave functions of eq. (\[simpno\]) and eq. (\[simpmix\]). Again eq. (\[4aav\]) must be satisfied, and the matrix $\Lambda$ is now, $$\Lambda =\pmatrix{p_1&+1&0&\ldots&0&0\cr
+1&-p_2&+1&0&\ldots&0\cr
0&+1&-p_3&+1&0&\ldots\cr
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\cr
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\cr
0&\ldots&0&+1&- p_{n-1}&+1\cr
0&0&\ldots&0&+1&-p_n\cr} \, .$$
In this section, we construct various hierarchical wave functions. In the case of the hierarchical wave function with the filling given by eq. (\[filling1\]), we greatly simplified the wave function and obtained a very simple formula for the wave function. In other cases, we can also approximate the wave functions and the resulted wave functions also appear in quite simple forms.
Hierarchical wave functions on a torus
======================================
All the wave functions on the sphere constructed in the last section can be generalized to the case when the space is a torus. However the construction of the similar wave functions on a torus is much more complicated than on a sphere. The wave function of a Laughlin wave function on a torus with QE excitation has been unknown and the construction of such wave functions has remained as an open question. We will solve this open question in this section and discuss in detail the construction of hierarchical wave functions on a torus.
Quasiparticles on a torus
-------------------------
The Laughlin wave function on a torus was obtained in ref. [@torus] and was reformulated in refs. [@torus1; @torus2], which we will follow (see also the appendix).
The (normalized) Laughlin wave function of electrons with QH excitations on a torus is $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi^1(z_i^1, z_\alpha^2)
&=& \exp (-{\pi \phi
(\sum_i [y_i^1]^2+{1\over p_1} \sum_\alpha [y_\alpha^2 ]^2) \over
\tau_2})F^1(z_i^1, z_\alpha^2)\, ,\nonumber \\
F^1(z_i^1, z_\alpha^2) & = & \theta {a_1 \brack b_1}
(\sum_i z_i^1e_1+\sum_\alpha z_\alpha^2 e_1^{\ast}|e_1,\tau)
\prod_{i<j}^{N_1} {[\theta_3(z_i^1-z_j^1|\tau)]}^{p_1} \nonumber \\
& &
\times \prod_{i,\alpha}^{N_1,N_2} [\theta_3(z_i^1-z_{\alpha}^2|\tau)]
\prod_{\alpha < \beta}^{N_2}
[\theta_3(z_{\alpha}^2-z_{\beta}^2 |\tau)]^{1\over p_1}
\, ,
\label{3aauu} \end{aligned}$$ where $e_1^2=p_1 \, , e_1^{\ast}={1\over e}$ and $a_1, b_1$ are still given by eq. (\[3aas\]), e.g. $a_1^{\ast}=a_0+l, b_1^{\ast}=b_0$ ($a_1,b_1$ are determined by the boundary conditions), and magnetic flux $\phi =p_1N_1+N_2$ .
Now we want to construct the QE excitations on a torus. Before give the correct construction, we will construct the QE excitations on a torus with singularities similar to the QE excitations on a sphere with singularities given by eq. (\[readquasi\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi^1(z_i^1, z_\alpha^2)
&=& \exp (-{\pi \phi
(\sum_i [y_i^1]^2-{1\over p_1} \sum_\alpha [y_\alpha^2 ]^2) \over
\tau_2})F^1(z_i^1, z_\alpha^2)\, ,\nonumber \\
F^1(z_i^1, z_\alpha^2) & = & \theta {a_1 \brack b_1}
(\sum_i z_i^1e_1-\sum_\alpha z_\alpha^2 e_1^{\ast}|e_1,\tau)
\prod_{i<j} {[\theta_3(z_i^1-z_j^1|\tau)]}^{p_1} \nonumber \\
& &
\times \left ( \prod_{i,\alpha} [\theta_3(z_i^1-z_{\alpha}^2|\tau)]
\prod_{\alpha < \beta} \right )^{-1}
[\theta_3(z_{\alpha}^2-z_{\beta}^2 |\tau)]^{1\over p_1}
\, ,
\label{3aauue} \end{aligned}$$ with $a_1, b_1$ given by eq. (\[3aas\]) again, and $\phi =p_1N_1-N_2$.
In order to construct hierarchical wave functions on a torus, we shall generalize the quasiparticle wave function of Laughlin type on a sphere to the one on a torus.
Suppose that a wave function on a sphere is $\prod_{i<j}^N [d(z_i, z_j)]^{p/q}$ with $p$ and $q$ being coprime to each other. We find that, on a torus, the wave function with $N_q$ QH excitations would be [@torus1]: $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(z_i, \omega_\alpha)
&=& \exp \left (-{\pi (pN+qN_q)
(p\sum_i [y_i]^2+q \sum_\alpha [y_\alpha(\omega ) ]^2) \over pq
\tau_2} \right )F(z_i, \omega_\alpha )\, ,\nonumber \\
F(z_i, \omega_\alpha) & = & \theta {a \brack b}
(\sum_i z_is+\sum_\alpha \omega_\alpha s^{\ast}|e,\tau)
\prod_{i<j} {[\theta_3(z_i-z_j|\tau)]}^{p/q} \nonumber \\
& &
\times \prod_{i,\alpha} [\theta_3(z_i-\omega_{\alpha}|\tau)]
\prod_{\alpha < \beta}
[\theta_3(\omega_{\alpha}-\omega_{\beta} |\tau)]^{q/p}
\, ,
\label{3aquue} \end{aligned}$$ and the wave function with $N_q$ QE excitations (of the type which contains singularities) : $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(z_i, \omega_\alpha)
&=& \exp \left (-{\pi (pN-qN_q)
(p\sum_i [y_i]^2-q \sum_\alpha [y_\alpha(\omega ) ]^2) \over pq
\tau_2} \right )F(z_i, \omega_\alpha )\, ,\nonumber \\
F(z_i, \omega_\alpha) & = & \theta {a \brack b}
(\sum_i z_is-\sum_\alpha \omega_\alpha s^{\ast}|e,\tau)
\prod_{i<j} {[\theta_3(z_i-z_j|\tau)]}^{p/q} \nonumber \\
& &
\times \left ( \prod_{i,\alpha} [\theta_3(z_i-\omega_{\alpha}|\tau)]
\right )^{-1}
\prod_{\alpha < \beta}
[\theta_3(\omega_{\alpha}-\omega_{\beta} |\tau)]^{q/p}
\, ,
\label{3qquue} \end{aligned}$$ with $s=(p/q)^{1/2}, s^{\ast}=(q/p)^{1/2}, e=(pq)^{1/2}$. $a=a^{\ast}e^{\ast},b=b^{\ast}e^{\ast}$ with $e^{\ast}=1/e$ can be determined by the boundary conditions. They can be written as (of course there are other ways to write out the solutions as we will see later on): $$\begin{aligned}
& & a^{\ast}=a_0+p\lambda_1 +q\lambda_2 , b^{\ast}=b_0, \nonumber \\
& & \lambda_1 =1, \cdots, q,
\lambda_2=1, \cdots , p ,\end{aligned}$$ with $a_0, b_0$ fixed by the boundary conditions. We will denote the wave function $\Psi$ as $\Psi (z_i, \omega_\alpha | \lambda_1, \lambda_2 )$. For $z_i$ particles, the wave function has $\lambda_2$ degeneracies and $\lambda_1$ components (the wave function is represented by a column, not a single function). For $\omega_i$ particles, the wave function has $\lambda_2$ degeneracies and $\lambda_1$ components. This fact represents the particle-vortex duality in the system.
The wave functions of eq. (\[3aquue\]) and eq. (\[3qquue\]) satisfy the braid group relations required for anyons (particles obeying fractional statistics) on a torus [@ein; @eingen].
We can use eq. (\[3aquue\]) and eq. (\[3qquue\]) to obtain quasiparticle wave functions on a torus. Remind that for the wave function with QE excitations, eq. (\[3qquue\]), the wave function contains singularities and we will return to this point later on.
Constructions of hierarchical wave functions on a torus
-------------------------------------------------------
We will use eq. (\[3aquue\]) and eq. (\[3qquue\]) to construct the hierarchical wave function on a torus. When $\nu$ is given by eq. (\[filling\]) with $p_i$ all positive integers, all quasiparticles are of QH type, the wave function was obtained in ref. [@torus1], and we will not repeat its derivation here.
Generally, the wave function of the $n$ level hierarchy on a torus can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int \prod_{l=2}^n \prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_l} [dz_{\alpha}^l]
\sum_{\lambda_1, \cdots,
\lambda_{n-1}} \Psi^1 (z_i^1, z_\alpha^2 |\lambda_1)
\nonumber \\ & & \times \cdots
\Psi^l (z_i^l, z_\alpha^{l+1} | \lambda_{l-1}, \lambda_{l}) \cdots
\times
\Psi^n (z_i^n | \lambda_{n-1}, \lambda_{n})
\label{tortype}\end{aligned}$$ with $[dz_{\alpha}^l]=dz_{\alpha}^ld\bar z_{\alpha}^l$. We obtain a wave function with a degeneracy index $\lambda_{n}$.
We consider the case when $\nu$ is given by eq. (\[filling1\]). First we take the simplest case, $n=2$. Following eq. (\[tortype\]), the wave function would be: $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi (z_i^1 )
&=& \exp (-{\pi \phi
\sum_i [y_i^1]^2 \over
\tau_2}) \int \prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_2} [dz_{\alpha}^2]
\prod_{i<j} {[\theta_3(z_i^1-z_j^1|\tau)]}^{p_1}
\nonumber \\ & & \times \left (
\prod_{i,\alpha} [\theta_3(z_i^1-z_{\alpha}^2|\tau)] \right )^{-1}
\prod_{\alpha < \beta}
[\theta_3(z_{\alpha}^2-z_{\beta}^2 |\tau)]^{p_2}
\nonumber \\ & & \times \sum_{\lambda_1}
\Theta^1 (z_i^1, z_\alpha^2 | \lambda_1)
\Theta^2 (z_i^2 |\lambda_1, \lambda_2 )
\label{break} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& & \Theta^1 (z_i^1, z_\alpha^2 | \lambda_1) =\theta {a_1 \brack b_1}
(\sum_i z_i^1s_1-\sum_\alpha z_\alpha^2 s_1^{\ast}|e_1,\tau),
\nonumber \\
& & a_1^{\ast}=a_0 +\lambda_1, \lambda_1=1, \cdots, p_1, b_1^{\ast}=b_0,
\nonumber \\ & &
s_1=(p_1)^{1/2}, s_1^{\ast}={1\over (p_1)^{1/2}},
e_1=(p_1)^{1/2},
\label{theta1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& & \Theta^2 ( z_\alpha^2 | \lambda_1, \lambda_2 )
=\theta {a_2 \brack b_2}
(\sum_\alpha z_\alpha^2 s_2|e_2,\tau),
\nonumber \\
& & a_2^{\ast}=a_0 -\lambda_1 (p_1p_2-1)+ \lambda_2, b^{\ast}_2=b_0
\nonumber \\ & &
\lambda_1=1, \cdots, p_1, \lambda_2=1, \cdots, (p_1p_2-1),
\nonumber \\
& & s_2=(p_2- {1\over p_1})^{1/2}, e_2=[p_1(p_1p_2-1)]^{1/2},
\label{theta2}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& & p_1N_1-N_2=\phi, \nonumber \\
& & N_1-p_2N_2 =0,
\label{duereal}\end{aligned}$$ with $a_0, b_0$ given by eq. (\[3aas\]). $a_1, b_1$ are determined by the boundary conditions for electrons, $a_2, b_2$ are determined by requiring the function within the integration of eq. (\[break\]) being periodic with coordinates $z_i^2$. Those boundary conditions also lead to eq. (\[duereal\]).
$\lambda_2$ is the degeneracy index and the degeneracy is thus equal to $p_1p_2-1$, agreed with the general results obtained in ref. [@yongshi].
We can rewrite $$\sum_{\lambda_1}
\Theta^1 (z_i^1, z_\alpha^2 | \lambda_1)
\Theta^2 (z_i^2 |\lambda_1, \lambda_2 )
\label{threl}$$ as a theta function on a two dimensional lattice [@mum] . One can show that a theta function on a two dimensional lattice would satisfy the same translational properties as the function given by eq. (\[threl\]). The theta function on a two dimensional lattice is $$\theta {a\brack b} (z|e, \tau ) =\sum _{n_i}
\exp (\pi i {(v+a)}^2 \tau +2\pi i(v+a)\cdot (z+b))\, ,
%\label{3aak1}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
& & e_i \cdot e_j=A=\pmatrix{p_1&-1\cr
-1&p_2&\cr}, z=\sum_iz_1^2e_1+\sum_{\alpha}z_\alpha^2e_2,
\nonumber \\
& & a=[{\phi_1 \over 2\pi}+{\Phi +1\over 2}]e^{\ast}_1
+\sum_s n^se^{\ast}_s \, ,
b=[-{\phi_2 \over 2\pi}+{\Phi +1\over 2}]e^{\ast}_1 \, ,
\nonumber \\ & &
n^se^{\ast}_s \subset {\Lambda^{\ast}\over \Lambda } \, .
\label{4bbb1}\end{aligned}$$ $e_i$ defined here as a vector in a lattice should not be confused with $e_i$ defined in eq. (\[theta1\]) and eq. (\[theta2\]), we are sorry for the abuse of notations.
The linear independent theta functions appeared in eq. (\[4bbb1\]) are given by the independent vectors in $n^se^{\ast}_s \subset {\Lambda^{\ast}\over \Lambda }$, and the number of such independent vectors is simply $\det A =p_1p_2-1$.
Thus we conclude that the linear independent functions given by eq. (\[threl\]) can be expressed by the linear independent functions given by eq. (\[4bbb1\]). The discussion of such mathematical relations can be also found in ref. [@mum]. Using this result, the wave function of eq. (\[break\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi (z_i^1 )
&=& \exp (-{\pi \phi
\sum_i [y_i^1]^2 \over
\tau_2}) \int \prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_2} [dz_{\alpha}^2]
\prod_{i<j} {[\theta_3(z_i^1-z_j^1|\tau)]}^{p_1}
\nonumber \\ & & \times \left ( \prod_{i,\alpha}
[\theta_3(z_i^1-z_{\alpha}^2|\tau)] \right )^{-1}
\prod_{\alpha < \beta}
[\theta_3(z_{\alpha}^2-z_{\beta}^2 |\tau)]^{p_2}
\nonumber \\ & & \times
\theta {a\brack b} (\sum_i z_i^1e_1+\sum_\alpha z_\alpha^2 e_2 |e, \tau )
\label{breakread} \end{aligned}$$ with $a, b, e_i$ given by eq. (\[4bbb1\]).
Remarkably, the wave function of eq. (\[breakread\]) had been already obtained in refs. [@torus2; @torus3]. Here we give a derivation of the wave function of eq. (\[breakread\]) based on the picture of the hierarchical theory. It was quite puzzling that the wave function of eq. (\[breakread\]) does not show that the wave function of quasiparticles is a multicomponent wave function, in contrary to the wave function obtained in ref. [@torus1] when $\nu$ is given by eq. (\[filling\]). Now the puzzle is solved because the wave function of eq. (\[breakread\]) is equivalent to the wave function of eq. (\[break\]), and eq. (\[break\]) shows that the wave function of quasiparticles is a multicomponent wave function.
We can repeat the discussion for an arbitrary $n$, generalizing the wave function of eq. (\[break\]) to the one for the $n$ level hierarchy, and then simplifying it by using the relations of the theta function on a $n$ dimensional lattice, we will get: $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi (z_i^1 )
&=& \exp (-{\pi \phi
\sum_i [y_i^1]^2 \over
\tau_2}) \int \prod_{l=2}^n \prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_l} [dz_{\alpha}^l]
\nonumber \\ & &
\prod_{l=1}^n \prod_{i<j} {[\theta_3(z_i^l-z_j^l|\tau)]}^{p_l}
\prod_{l=1}^{n-1}
\left ( \prod_{i,\alpha}^{N_l, N_{l+1}}
[\theta_3(z_i^l-z_{\alpha}^{l+1}|\tau)] \right )^{-1}
\nonumber \\ & & \times
\theta {a\brack b}
(\sum_{i,l} z_i^le_l |e, \tau )
\label{breakread1} \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
& & e_i \cdot e_j=A=\pmatrix{p_1&-1&0&\ldots&0&0\cr
-1&p_2&-1&0&\ldots&0\cr
0&-1&p_3&-1&0&\ldots\cr
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\cr
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\cr
0&\ldots&0&-1&p_{l-1}&-1\cr
0&0&\ldots&0&-1&p_l\cr} \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & a=[{\phi_1 \over 2\pi}+{\Phi +1\over 2}]e^{\ast}_1
+\sum_s n^se^{\ast}_s \, ,
b=[-{\phi_2 \over 2\pi}+{\Phi +1\over 2}]e^{\ast}_1 \, ,
\nonumber \\ & &
n^se^{\ast}_s \subset {\Lambda^{\ast}\over \Lambda } \, ,
\nonumber \\ & &
A_{ij}N_j=\phi \delta_{i,1}.
\label{4bbb2}\end{aligned}$$ Because the wave function contains singularities, the wave function does not represent a state on the lowest Landau level and one needs to project the wave function to the lowest Landau level in the end. The degeneracy is given the number of independent vectors in $n^se^{\ast}_s \subset {\Lambda^{\ast}\over \Lambda }$ and it is equal to $\det A$.
Quasielectrons on a torus
-------------------------
We note that the QE wave function used in our construction of the wave function of eq. (\[breakread1\]) contains singularities. We will construct a Laughlin wave function with QE excitations on a torus without singularities, which was mentioned as an open problem in ref. ([@torus]) and still is an open problem today.
The Laughlin wave function with QE excitations on a sphere can be written as a derivative operator acts on the Laughlin wave function [@sphere]. It is very difficult to generalize this derivative operator on a sphere to an operators on a torus as suggested in ref. [@torus]. However the Laughlin wave function with QE excitations on a sphere can be also written as the projection to the lowest Landau level by a wave function which contains higher Landau level states as described in eq. (\[uno\]). We will find that it is actually quite [**easy**]{} to generalize eq. (\[uno\]) to the case on a torus. What we need to do is to replace $$\left ( \prod_{i,\alpha} [\theta_3(z_i-\omega_{\alpha}|\tau)]
\right )^{-1}$$ in eq. (\[3aauu\]) by a function, which is regular, satisfies the same translational properties (which must hold for any trial wave function), and is not necessary a holomorphic function.
The important observation is that the function $${\overline {\theta_3 (z|\tau)}} \exp \left [
{\pi (z-\bar z)^2 \over 2\tau_2} \right ]$$ with ${\overline {\theta_3 (z|\tau)}}$ as the complex conjugate of $ \theta_3 (z|\tau)$ has the same translational properties as $${1\over \theta_3 (z|\tau)}.$$ Thus we propose that the Laughlin wave function with QE excitations on a torus is $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi^1(z_i^1, z_\alpha^2)
&=& P(\phi, z_i^1) \exp (-{\pi \phi
(\sum_i [y_i^1]^2-{1\over p_1} \sum_\alpha [y_\alpha^2 ]^2) \over
\tau_2})F^1(z_i^1, z_\alpha^2)\, ,\nonumber \\
F^1(z_i^1, z_\alpha^2) & = & \theta {a_1 \brack b_1}
(\sum_i z_i^1e_1-\sum_\alpha z_\alpha^2 e_1^{\ast}|e_1,\tau)
\prod_{i<j} {[\theta_3(z_i^1-z_j^1|\tau)]}^{p_1} \nonumber \\
& &
\times \prod_{i,\alpha}
{\overline {\theta_3(z_i^1-z_{\alpha}^2|\tau)}}
\exp \left [
{\pi (z_i^1-z_{\alpha}^2-\bar z_i^1+\bar z_{\alpha}^2)^2
\over 2\tau_2} \right ]
\nonumber \\ & &
\times \prod_{\alpha < \beta}
[\theta_3(z_{\alpha}^2-z_{\beta}^2 |\tau)]^{1\over p_1}
\, ,
\label{qereal} \end{aligned}$$ where $P(\phi, z_i^1)$ with $\phi =p_1N_1-N_2$ is an operator which projects the wave function $$\exp (-{\pi \phi
(\sum_i [y_i^1]^2-{1\over p_1} \sum_\alpha [y_\alpha^2 ]^2) \over
\tau_2})F^1(z_i^1, z_\alpha^2)
\label{anareal}$$ to the lowest Landau level. All parameters in eq. (\[qereal\]) are the same as those in eq. (\[3aauue\]).
One can check the wave function of eq. (\[anareal\]) satisfies the translational properties required for the electrons on a torus with magnetic flux $\phi =p_1N_1-N_2$ (see the appendix). However the state represented by the wave function of eq. (\[anareal\]) does not lie purely on the lowest Landau level and one needs to project it to the lowest Landau level in the end to obtain the Laughlin wave function with QE excitations on a torus. We note that eq. (\[qereal\]) is a direct generalization of eq. (\[uno\]) which is a construction of the similar wave function on a sphere. In the case of eq. (\[uno\]), one can replace the projection operator and function $d(\bar z_j, \bar \omega_k) $ by a derivative operator. However in the case of eq. (\[qereal\]), one can [**not**]{} find a similar derivative operator for constructing QE excitations on a torus as in the case of a sphere (at least we do not know how to do that now). It seems that the construction of QE excitations involves intrinsically higher Landau levels on a torus. The construction on the torus can also be generalized to the case when the surface is a high genus Riemann surface or other complicated surfaces (the Laughlin wave function on a Riemann surface was obtained in ref. ([@iengoli]). We finally comment that it seems that the construction of the Laughlin wave function with QE excitations given by eq. (\[qereal\]) is quite unique and we do not know any other plausible constructions. Such construction by eq. (\[qereal\]) could (and should) be checked by numerical calculations.
We can also construct QE excitations for the Laughlin wave function of quasiparticles. We will not discuss it here, and we comment that it involves more deep understandings of the singular gauge for anyons on a torus (see ref. [@iengo] for the detailed discussions of the singular gauge on a torus).
Hierarchical wave functions on a torus revisited
------------------------------------------------
We can now construct the hierarchical wave function on a torus by using the construction of QE excitations discussed in the previous subsection. The part of the wave function which is dependent on the center coordinates is the same as the one we obtained by using the construction of QE excitations with singularities. We have a trick to derive the wave function without doing similar calculations done in the previous subsections. The trick is that we simply replace all functions like $(\theta_3(z))^{-1}$ by $\overline {\theta_3(z)}
\exp { \pi (z-\bar z)^2 \over 2\tau_2}$ in the wave function of eq. (\[breakread1\]), and we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi (z_i^1 )
&=& P(\phi, z_i^1)\exp (-{\pi \phi
\sum_i [y_i^1]^2 \over
\tau_2}) \int \prod_{l=2}^n \prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_l} [dz_{\alpha}^l]
\nonumber \\ & & \times
\prod_{l=1}^n \prod_{i<j} {[\theta_3(z_i^l-z_j^l|\tau)]}^{p_l}
\prod_{l=1}^{n-1}
\prod_{i,\alpha}^{N_l, N_{l+1}}
{\overline {\theta_3(z_i^l-z_{\alpha}^{l+1}|\tau)} }
\nonumber \\ & & \times
\exp { {\pi [z_i^l-z_{\alpha}^{l+1}-\bar z_i^l+\bar z_{\alpha}^{l+1}]^2}
\over 2\tau_2}
\theta {a\brack b}
(\sum_{i,l} z_i^le_l |e, \tau ),
\label{breakread3} \end{aligned}$$ with all parameters given by eq. (\[4bbb2\]).
Now we show an example when $\nu $ is given by eq. (\[filling\]) (detailed discussions can be found in ref. [@torus1]). The wave function at $\nu ={1\over p_1 +1/p_2}$ is $$\int \prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_2} [dz_{\alpha}^2]
\sum_{\lambda_1}
\Psi^1(z_i^1, z_\alpha^2|\lambda_1)
\Psi^2( z_\alpha^2|\lambda_1, \lambda_2)$$ where $\Psi^1(z_i^1, z_\alpha^2|\lambda_1) $ is given by eq. (\[3aauu\]) with $a^{\ast}=a_0+\lambda_1$, and $\Psi^2( z_\alpha^2|\lambda_1, \lambda_2)$ is given by the following equation, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \Psi^2 (z_{\alpha}^2|\lambda_1, \lambda_2)
= \exp [-{
\pi \phi \sum_\alpha (y_{\alpha}^2)^2 \over
p_1 \tau_2}]
F^2(z_{\alpha}^2 |\lambda_1, \lambda_2)
\, ,\nonumber \\ & &
{\overline {F^2(z_{\alpha}^2 |\lambda_1, \lambda_2)}}
= \theta {a_2\brack b_2}
(\sum_\alpha z_{\alpha}^2 s_2|e_2, \tau)
\prod_{\alpha < \beta} [\theta_3(z_{\alpha}^2-z_{\beta}^2 |\tau)]^
{{1\over p_1}+p_2} \, ,
\label{3bba} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& & e_2=[p_1(p_1p_2+1)]^{1/2} \, , s_2=[p_2+{1\over p_1}]^{1/2}
\nonumber \\ & &
a_2=a_2^{\ast}e_2, b_2=b_2^{\ast},
\nonumber \\ & &
a_2^{\ast}= a_0+ \lambda_1(p_1p_2+1)+ \lambda_2p_1,
b_2^{\ast}=b_0
\nonumber \\ & &
\lambda_1 =1, \cdots , p_1, \lambda_2 =1, \cdots , p_1p_2+1,
\nonumber \\ & &
p_1N_1+N_2=\phi \, , N_1-p_2N_2=0 .
\label{theta5}\end{aligned}$$ Thus the wave function is $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi (z_i^1 )
&=& \int \prod_{\alpha=1}^{N_2} [dz_{\alpha}^2]
\exp \left (-{\pi \phi
(\sum_i [y_i^1]^2+{2\over p_1} \sum_\alpha [y_\alpha^2 ]^2) \over
\tau_2} \right ) \nonumber \\ & & \times
\prod_{i<j}^{N_1} [\theta_3(z_i^1-z_j^1|\tau)]^{p_1}
\prod_{\alpha< \beta}^{N_2} \left [
{\overline {\theta_3(z_{\alpha}^2-z_{\beta}^2|\tau)} }\right ]^{p_2}
\nonumber \\ & &
\times \prod_{i,\alpha}^{N_1,N_2} [\theta_3(z_i^1-z_{\alpha}^2|\tau)]
\prod_{\alpha < \beta}^{N_2}
|\theta_3(z_{\alpha}^2-z_{\beta}^2 |\tau)|^{2\over p_1}
\nonumber \\ & &
\times \sum_{\lambda_1}
\Theta^1 (z_i^1, z_\alpha^2 | \lambda_1)
\Theta^2 (z_i^2 |\lambda_1, \lambda_2 ),
\label{mixing}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Theta^1 (z_i^1, z_\alpha^2 | \lambda_1)
=\theta {a_1(\lambda_1) \brack b_1}
(\sum_i z_i^1e_1+\sum_\alpha z_\alpha^2 e_1^{\ast}|e_1,\tau).$$ with all parameters are given by eq. (\[theta1\]), except that $a_1^{\ast}=a_0+\lambda_1$, and $$\Theta^2 (z_i^2 |\lambda_1, \lambda_2 )
=\overline {\theta {a_2(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)
\brack b_2} (\sum_\alpha z_{\alpha}^2 s_2|e_2, \tau)}$$ where $a_2(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)$ is given by eq. (\[theta5\]). We note that $$\sum_{\lambda_1}
\Theta^1 (z_i^1, z_\alpha^2 | \lambda_1)
\Theta^2 (z_i^2 |\lambda_1, \lambda_2 )$$ in eq. (\[mixing\]) is not equal to a theta function on a two dimensional lattice as in the case of $\nu ={1 \over p_1 -1/p_2}$, because $\Theta^2 (z_i^2 |\lambda_1, \lambda_2 )$ is now an anti-holomorphic function.
As in the case of the corresponding wave function on a sphere, the wave function of eq. (\[mixing\]) also can not be integrated out analytically. Similarly as discussed in the previous section, we can approximate eq. (\[mixing\]) by a wave function which is analytically integrable. We can replace $$\prod_{\alpha < \beta}^{N_2}
|\theta_3(z_{\alpha}^2-z_{\beta}^2 |\tau)|^{2\over p_1}$$ in eq. (\[mixing\]) by $$\exp \left [ -{\pi \over 2p_1 \tau_2}
\sum_{\alpha < \beta}^{N_2}
(z_{\alpha}^2-z_{\beta}^2- \bar z_{\alpha}^2+ \bar z_{\beta}^2)^2
\right ].$$
Conclusions
===========
We have discussed various hierarchical wave functions on a sphere and on a torus. The wave functions can be simplified by using the analytical properties of the wave functions. We also gave a derivation of the hierarchical wave function due to the condensations of QEs on a torus proposed in ref. [@torus2; @torus3]. The wave function for quasiparticles must be multicomponent even in the case of QEs. We also solved an open problem, the construction of the Laughlin wave function with QE excitations on a torus.
Acknowledgments
===============
We would like to thank ICTP for financial supports. We also thank ISI Foundation of Torino for giving us the opportunity to present partial results of this paper in the workshop of “Quantum Hall Effect" (May 25, 1997 to June 14, 1997) at Villa Gualino, Torino.
Landau Levels on a torus
========================
Consider a magnetic field with potential ${\bf A}=- B y $x. The Hamiltonian is $$H={1\over 2m} [{(p_x+By)}^2+{(p_y)}^2] \, .
\label{3aaf}$$ On a torus, we identify $z \sim z+m+n \tau$ with $\tau =\tau_1 +i\tau_2$ and $\tau_2 \geq 0$. The identification will impose boundary conditions on the wave function $$e^{it_x} \psi = e^{i\phi_1} \psi \, , e^{i\tau_1 t_x +i\tau_2 t_y}
\psi = e^{i\phi_2} \psi \, ,
\label{3aag}$$ with $$t_x=p_x \, , t_y=p_y+Bx
\label{3aae}$$ as magnetic translation operators and they commute with Hamiltonian. The Dirac quantization condition $\tau_2 B=2\pi \phi$, with the magnetic flux $\phi$ being an integer can be derived by requiring operators $e^{it_x}, e^{i\tau_1 t_x +i\tau_2 t_y}$ commuting with each other for the consistence of the boundary conditions of eq. (\[3aag\]).
The wave function describing an electron in the lowest Landau level has the form $$\psi_l (x,y)=e^{-{ B y^2\over 2}}f(z) \, ,
\label{3aaa}$$ where $f(z)$ is the holomorphic function. Higher Landau levels can be obtained by acting operator $a^+$ on $\psi_l$, $(a^+)^k\psi_l$, with $a^+= \partial_{z} +{B(z-\bar z)\over 4}$. We can write any Landau level state as $$\psi (x,y)=e^{-{ B y^2\over 2}}f(z,\bar z) .
\label{3aaahl}$$ Now function $f$ is not necessary to be a holomorphic function unless the wave function describes a lowest Landau level states.
By using the relation $$e^{i\tau_1 t_x +i\tau_2 t_y}=e^{-i\tau_2 Bx^2 \over 2\tau_1}
e^{i\tau_1 p_x +i\tau_2 p_y}e^{i\tau_2 Bx^2 \over 2\tau_1}\, ,$$ Eq. (\[3aag\]) can be written as $$f(z+1, \bar z +1)=e^{i\phi_1} f(z, \bar z) \, ,
f(z+\tau, \bar z +\bar \tau )
=e^{i\phi_2}e^{-i\pi \phi (2z+\tau)}f(z, \bar z) \, .
\label{3aah}$$ In the case of lowest landau levels, $f$ is a holomorphic function, and the solutions of eq. (\[3aah\]) are theta functions. For the many-particle wave functions, the condition of eq. (\[3aah\]) shall be imposed on every particle.
Theta functions
===============
$\theta$ function is defined as $$\theta (z|\tau ) =\sum _n \exp (\pi in^2 \tau +2\pi inz)\, ,
n\subset integer \, .
\label{3aai}$$ We will generalize the $\theta$ function of eq. (\[3aai\]) to the theta function on the lattice: $$\theta (z|e, \tau ) =\sum _{n_i} \exp (\pi i v^2 \tau +2\pi iv\cdot z)
\, ,
\label{3aaj}$$ where $v$ is a vector on a [*l-dimension*]{} lattice (we will call it $\Lambda$), $v=\sum_{i=1}^l n_i e_i$, with $n_i$ being integers, $e_i \cdot e_j =A_{ij}$ and $z$ is a vector on the lattice. $A_{ij}$ needs to be a positive definite matrix in order to have a well defined theta function. The $\theta$ function in Eq. (\[3aai\]) is a special case of the $\theta$ function defined by Eq. (\[3aaj\]) with $l=1, e_1 \cdot e_1 =1$. We define also $$\theta {a\brack b} (z|e, \tau ) =\sum _{n_i}
\exp (\pi i {(v+a)}^2 \tau +2\pi i(v+a)\cdot (z+b))\, ,
\label{3aak}$$ where $a, b$ are arbitrary constant vectors on the lattice. The dual lattice $e^{\ast}_i$ is defined as (we will call the dual lattice as $\Lambda^{\ast}$) $$e_i^{\ast} \cdot e_j =\delta_{ij} \, ,
\label{3aal}$$ then we have $e^{\ast}_i\cdot e^{\ast}_j=A^{-1}_{i,j}$. One can check that the following relations hold: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \theta {a\brack b} (z+e_i|e, \tau )=e^{2\pi ia\cdot e_i}
\theta {a\brack b} (z|e, \tau )\, , \nonumber \\
& & \theta {a\brack b}
(z+\tau e_i|e, \tau )=\exp {[-\pi i \tau e_i^2 -2\pi i e_i \cdot (z+b)]}
\theta {a\brack b} (z|e, \tau ) \, , \nonumber \\
& & \theta {a\brack b} (z+e^{\ast}_i|e, \tau )=e^{2\pi ia\cdot e^{\ast}_i}
\theta {a\brack b} (z|e, \tau )\, , \\
& & \theta {a\brack b}
(z+\tau e^{\ast}_i|e, \tau )=\exp {[-\pi i \tau {(e_i^{\ast})}^2
-2\pi i e^{\ast}_i \cdot (z+b)]}
\theta {a+e^{\ast}_i\brack b} (z|e, \tau ) \, , \nonumber
\label{3aakm}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\theta {a+e_i\brack b+e^{\ast}_j} (z|e, \tau )=\exp (2\pi i a \cdot
e_j^{\ast}) \theta {a\brack b} (z|e, \tau ) \, .
\label{3aar}$$
In a [*1-dimension*]{} lattice with $e_1 \cdot e_1 =1$, $a=b=1/2$, the $\theta$ function is denoted as $$\theta_3(z|\tau)=\theta {{1\over 2}\brack {1\over 2}}
(z|\tau )\, ,
\label{3aal1}$$ is an odd function of $z$. And we have equations $$\begin{aligned}
& & \theta_3(z+1|\tau)=e^{\pi i}
\theta_3(z| \tau )\, , \nonumber \\
& & \theta_3
(z+\tau | \tau )=\exp {[-\pi i \tau -2\pi i \cdot (z+{1\over 2})]}
\theta_3(z|\tau ) \, .
\label{3aam}\end{aligned}$$
Laughlin wave function on a torus
=================================
Laughlin wave function on a torus was obtained in ref. [@torus]. The wave function could be written in a more compact form [@torus1; @torus2]. we will follow those constructions in refs. [@torus1; @torus2].
The Laughlin-Jastrow wave function on the torus at the filling $1\over m$ ($m$ is an odd positive integer) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
& &\Psi (z_i)=\exp (-{\pi \phi \sum_i y^2_i \over
\tau_2})F(z_i)\, , \nonumber \\
& & F(z_i)=\theta {a\brack b} (\sum_i z_ie|e,\tau)
\prod_{i<j} {[\theta_3(z_i-z_j|\tau)]}^m \, ,
\label{3aan} \end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ function is on a [*1-dimension*]{} lattice, $e^2=m$ , $i=1, 2
\ldots , N$ with $N$ being the number of the electrons and $a=a^{\ast}e^{\ast}, b=b^{\ast}e^{\ast}$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
& &F(z_i+1)={(-1)}^{N-1}e^{2\pi a^{\ast} }
F(z_i)\, , \nonumber \\
& & F(z_i+\tau)=\exp (-\pi (N-1)-2\pi i b^{\ast})
\exp [-i\pi mN(2z_i+\tau)] F(z_i)\, .
\label{3aao}\end{aligned}$$ Compared to Eq. (\[3aah\]), we get $$\Phi=mN, \phi_1=\pi (\phi +1)+2\pi n_1 +2\pi a^{\ast} ,
\phi_2=\pi (\phi +1)+2\pi n_2 -2\pi b^{\ast} \, .
\label{3aap}$$ Eq. (\[3aap\]) has solutions $$\begin{aligned}
& &a^{\ast} =a_0+i, \, \, ,
b^{\ast}=b_0 \, \, , i=0,1,\ldots , m-1 \, , \nonumber \\
& & a_0={\phi_1 \over 2\pi }+{\phi +1\over 2} \, \, ,
b_0=-{\phi_2 \over 2\pi }+{\phi+1\over 2} \, ,
\label{3aas}\end{aligned}$$ which will give $m$ orthogonal Laughlin-Jastrow wave function (other solutions are not independent on the solutions given by Eq. (\[3aas\]), which can be seen from Eq. (\[3aar\])). So there is a $m$-fold center-mass degeneracy.
[999]{} =12truept
R.B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [50]{} (1983) 1395. F.D.M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 605 F.D.M. Haldane and E.H. Rezayi, Phys. Rev. B [31]{} (1985) 2529. B. Halperin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [52]{} (1984) 1583; [52]{} (1984) 2390(E). J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ 63]{} (1989) 199; Phys. Rev. B [ 41]{} (1990) 7653; Adv. Phys. [ 41]{} (1992) 105. Prange and S. Girvin, “The Quantum Hall Effect ", Springer-Verlag, New York, Heideberg, 1990, 2nd ed.; and references therein. R. de-Picciotto, M. Reznikov, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, G. Bunin and D. Mahalu, Nature 389 (1997) 162; L. Saminadayar, D.C. Glattli, Y. Jin and B. Etienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, (1997) 2562. N. Read, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ 65]{} (1990) 1502. B. Blok and X.G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B[ 42]{} (1990) 8133; [42]{} (1990) 8145; [ 43]{} (1991) 8337. D. Li, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [ 7]{} (1993) 2655. E. Keski-Vakkuri and X.G. Wen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [7]{} (1993) 4277. C. L. de Souza Batista and D. Li, Phys. Rev. B 55 (1997) 1582. D. Li, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [7]{} (1993) 2779. T. Einarsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 1995. D. Li, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 7 (1993) 1103. M. Greiter, Phys. Lett. B [48]{} (1994) 3336. R. Tao and Y.-S. Wu, Phys. Rev. B [ 30]{} (1984) 1097; R. Tao and F.D.M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. B [33]{} (1986) 3844; F.D.M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ 55]{} (1985) 2095. D. Mumford, M. Nori and P. Norman, “Tata Lectures on Theta III", Birkhaüser, Boston 1991. R. Iengo and D. Li, Nucl. Phys. B [**413**]{} (1994) 735 (FS). R. Iengo and K. Lechner, Phys. Rep. C213 (1992) 179; and references therein.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Belief propagation is known to perform extremely well in many practical statistical inference and learning problems using graphical models, even in the presence of multiple loops. The use of the belief propagation algorithm on graphical models with loops is referred to as Loopy Belief Propagation (LBP). Various sufficient conditions for convergence of LBP have been presented; however, general necessary conditions for its convergence to a unique fixed point remain unknown. Because the approximation of beliefs to true marginal probabilities has been shown to relate to the convergence of LBP, several methods have been explored whose aim is to obtain distance bounds on beliefs when LBP fails to converge. In this paper, we derive uniform and non-uniform error bounds on LBP, which are tighter than existing ones in literature, and use these bounds to study the dynamic behavior of the sum-product algorithm. We subsequently use these bounds to derive sufficient conditions for the convergence of the sum-product algorithm, and analyze the relation between convergence of LBP and sparsity and walk-summability of graphical models. We finally use the bounds derived to investigate the accuracy of LBP, as well as the scheduling priority in asynchronous LBP.'
author:
- |
Xiangqiong Shi [email protected]\
Dan Schonfeld [email protected]\
Daniela Tuninetti [email protected]\
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering\
University of Illinois at Chicago\
Chicago, IL , USA
bibliography:
- 'sample.bib'
title: 'Message Error Analysis of Loopy Belief Propagation for the Sum-Product Algorithm'
---
Graphical Model, Bayesian Networks, Markov Random Fields, Loopy Belief Propagation, Error Analysis.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Probabilistic inference for large-scale multivariate random variables is very expensive computationally. Belief propagation (BP) algorithms are designed to reduce the computational burden by exploiting the factorization of joint density functions captured by the topological structure of graphical models \[[@Bishop_06; @Jordan_99; @Kschischang_01; @Wainwright_08]\]. BP is known to converge to the exact inference on acyclic graphs (i.e. trees) or graphs that contain a single loop. In the case of graphs with multiple loops, BP results in an iterative method referred to as loopy belief propagation (LBP). The use of LBP generally provides remarkably good approximations in real-world applications; e.g., turbo decoding and stereo matching \[[@Mceliece_98; @Sun03stereomatching]\].
Because LBP does not always converge, sufficient conditions for its convergence have been extensively investigated in the past using various approaches \[[@TatikondaJ02; @heskes2004a; @ihler05b; @MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07]\]. Necessary conditions for convergence of LBP, however, remain unknown. [@TatikondaJ02] related convergence of LBP to the uniqueness of a sequence of Gibbs measures defined on the associated computation tree. He subsequently developed a testable sufficient condition for convergence of LBP by applying Simon’s condition \[[@Georgii_1988]\]. [@heskes2004a] presented sufficient conditions for uniqueness of fixed points in LBP by relying on the uniqueness of minima of the Bethe free energy. He related the strength of the potentials with the convergence of the LBP algorithm, which leads to better sufficient conditions than those exclusively relying on the structure of the graph.
Recently, several papers have investigated the message updating functions of the LBP algorithm as contractive mappings. [@ihler05b] analyzed the contractive dynamics of message-error propagation in belief networks using dynamic-range measure as a metric, and obtained error bounds and sufficient conditions for convergence of LBP message passing. [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07] derived sufficient conditions for convergence of LBP based on quotient norms of contractive mappings, which are invariant to scaling and shown to be valid for potential functions containing zeros.
For Gaussian graphical models, [@Malioutov2006] related the convergence of means and variances to walk sums and defined walk-summability with respect to spectral radius of partial correlation coefficient matrix. For binary graphs, [@NIPS2009_Yusuke] presented an edge zeta function based on weighted prime cycles, and related convexity of Bethe free energy with the determinant formula of edge zeta function. They showed similar walk-summability of binary graphs by relating the spectra of correlation coefficient matrix with Hessian of Bethe free energy. For general graphical models, [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07] derived certain interaction coefficients between random variables based on strength of potential functions, and related the spectral radius of coefficient matrix with the convergence of LBP. Enlightened by those similar analysis, we defined walk-summable for general graphs and compared walk-summability with other existing convergence conditions.
Although the beliefs may not be true marginal probabilities when the LBP algorithm converges, they have been shown to provide good approximations by [@Weiss_00]. When the LBP algorithm does not converge, however, beliefs are not good approximations of true marginals because the Bethe free energy does not provide a good approximation of the Gibbs-Helmholtz free energy \[[@Yedidia04]\]. Exactness and accuracy of the LBP algorithm has consequently gained interest in recent years. [@Tatikonda03] derived bounds on exact marginals by relying on the girth of the graph (i.e. the number of edges in the shortest cycle in the graph) and the properties of Dobrushin’s interdependence matrix \[[@Salas1997]\]. [@TagaM06MICAI] used Dobrushin’s theorem to present a distance bound on the marginal probabilities. [@ihler07b] introduced a distance bound on the error between beliefs and marginals based on recent results for computing marginal probabilities for pairwise Markov random fields using Self-Avoiding Walk (SAW) trees \[[@Weitz06]\]. [@MooijKappen_NIPS_08] propagate bounds on marginal probabilities over a subtree or the SAW tree of the factor graph, and demonstrate that their bounds perform well in terms of accuracy and computation time of LBP.
Several investigators have explored the consequence of scheduling on the convergence of BP. [@TagaM06IEICE] discussed the impatient and lazy belief propagation algorithms and showed that the former is expected to converge faster than the latter. [@Elidan06] proposed a residual belief propagation algorithm, which schedules messages in an informed manner thus significantly reducing the running time needed for convergence of LBP. Inspired by [@Elidan06]’s work, [@Sutton07] further increased the rate of convergence by estimating the residual rather than computing it directly.
In this paper, we derive tight error bounds on LBP and use these bounds to study the dynamics—error, convergence, accuracy, and scheduling—of the sum-product algorithm.[^1] Specifically, in Section \[sec:message error\] and Section \[sec:bounds belief\], we rely on the contractive mapping property of message errors to present novel uniform and non-uniform distance bounds between multiple fixed-point solutions. Several graphical networks are investigated and used to demonstrate that the proposed distance bounds are tighter than existing bounds. We subsequently use these bounds to derive uniform and non-uniform sufficient conditions for convergence of the sum-product algorithm. Moreover, in Section \[sec:LBP convergence\], we analyze the relation between convergence and sparsity of graphs, and extend the convergence perspective of walk-summability from Gaussian graphical models to general graphical models. In Section \[sec:accuracy\], we present bounds on the distance between beliefs and true marginals by applying SAW trees and show that the proposed bounds can be used to improve existing bounds. Furthermore, in Section \[sec:residual scheduling\], we explore the use of the upper-bound on message errors as a criterion to rank the priority of message passing for scheduling in asynchronous LBP. We then present a case study of LBP by studying its dynamics on completely uniform graphs and analyzing its true fixed points and message-error functions in Section \[sec:uniform graph\]. We conclude the paper in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Message-Error Propagation for the Sum-Product Algorithm {#sec:message error}
=======================================================
Belief propagation originated from exact inference on tree structured graphical models, though for graphs with loops it shows remarkable performance of approximate inference. BP is synonymously called sum-product algorithm for marginalization of global distribution or max-product algorithm to compute Maximum-A-Posteriori (MAP). In this paper, we will mainly talk about sum-product algorithm for graphs with loops.
Loopy Belief Propagation Updates
--------------------------------
![Graphical models: (a) message passing in a portion of a belief network; (b) a simple graph; and (c) Bethe tree (all nodes and edges) and Self-Avoiding Walk tree (black solid only) of (b).[]{data-label="fig:msg passing"}](figure1.eps){height="4.64" width="12.79"}
Let us consider a general graphical model $\mathbb{G}=(\mathbb{V},\mathbb{E})$ whose distribution factors as follows: $$p(X)=\frac{1}{Z}\prod_{(s,t)\in
\mathbb{E}}\psi_{st}(x_s,x_t)\prod_{s\in\mathbb{V}} \psi_s(x_s),
\label{eq:pdf}$$ where $Z$ is a normalization factor, $\psi_{st}(x_s,x_t)$ is the pairwise potential function between random variables $x_s$ and $x_t$, and $\psi_s(x_s)$ is the single node potential function on $x_s$. $(s,t)$ denotes an undirected edge, $\mathbb{V}$ is the set of nodes, and $\mathbb{E}$ is the set of edges. We assume that all the potential functions are positive. Fig. \[fig:msg passing\](a) illustrates the message passing mechanism used in BP. The updating rule of the sum-product algorithm for the message sent by node $t$ to its neighbor node $s$ at iteration $i$ is: $$m_{ts}^i(x_s)\propto\int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)\psi_t(x_t)\prod_{u\in
\Gamma_t\backslash s}m_{ut}^{i-1}(x_t)dx_t, \label{eq:msg}$$ where $\Gamma_t$ is the set of neighbors of node $t$. The belief, or pseudo-marginal probability of $x_t$, on node $t$ at iteration $i$, is: $$B_t^i(x_t)\propto\psi_t(x_t)\prod_{u\in
\Gamma_t}m_{ut}^i(x_t).\label{eq:singlebelive}$$ A stable fixed point has been reached if $m_{ts}^i(x_s)=m_{ts}^{i+1}(x_s)$, $\forall s\in\mathbb{V}$. The pairwise belief of random variables $x_s,x_t$ at iteration $i$ is defined as: $$B_{ts}^i(x_t,x_s)\propto\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)\psi_t(x_t)\psi_s(x_s)\prod_{u\in
\Gamma_t\backslash s}m_{ut}^i(x_t)\prod_{p\in \Gamma_s\backslash
t}m_{ps}^i(x_s).\label{eq:pairbelive}$$
The computation tree first introduced in [@Wiberg_1996] is always applied in the analysis of LBP. Bethe tree and SAW tree are two types of computation trees used in [@ihler07b], which will also be used in the rest of the paper. Both Bethe tree and SAW tree are tree-structured unwrappings of a graph $\mathbb{G}$ from some node $v$. The Bethe tree, denoted as $T_B(\mathbb{G},v,n)$, contains all paths of length $n$ from $v$ that do not backtrack, while the SAW tree, denoted as $T_{SAW}(\mathbb{G},v,n)$, contains all paths of length $n\leq
|\mathbb{V}|+1$ that do not backtrack and have all nodes on the path unique. The belief on node $v$ at iteration $n$ in synchronous LBP is equivalent to the exact marginal of the root $v$ in the $n$-level Bethe tree.
Figure \[fig:msg passing\](c) illustrates the Bethe tree and the SAW tree for the graphical model in Figure \[fig:msg passing\](b). For synchronous BP, each iteration of Equations , and corresponds to a level in the Bethe tree.
Approaches to Analyze Convergence of LBP
----------------------------------------
Various approaches have been presented to derive convergence conditions for the sum-product algorithm, including Gibbs measure \[[@TatikondaJ02]\], equivalent minimax problem \[[@heskes2004a]\], and contraction property of LBP updates \[[@ihler05b; @MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07]\]. [@TatikondaJ02] proved that, when the Gibbs measure on the corresponding computation tree is unique, LBP converges to a unique fixed point. [@heskes2004a] proved that, when the minima of Bethe free energy is unique, there is a unique fixed point for LBP. [@ihler05b] and [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07] used similar methodology by applying $\ell_\infty$ measure on potential functions. They proved that when LBP updating is a contractive mapping, LBP will converge. They both compared their convergence results with those of [@TatikondaJ02] and [@heskes2004a], and showed that their results are stronger. [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07] further showed that they derived more general results than [@ihler05b]. Enlightened by the discussion in [@ihler05b] and [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07], and based on the framework of [@ihler05b], we use a new measure on message errors of LBP, in order to obtain distance bound and accuracy bound.
Our contributions are as follows:
1\. We present a tight upper- and lower- bound for multiplicative message error $e(x)$ in Section \[sec:upper lower bd\]. Furthermore, based on the upper- and lower- bound, we derive tight uniform distance bound and non-uniform distance bound for beliefs $B(x)$ in Section \[sec:bounds belief\], which help to tighten the accuracy bounds between beliefs and true marginals in Section \[sec:accuracy\] and correct the upper-bound on message residuals for residual scheduling in Section \[sec:residual scheduling\].
2\. We investigate the relation between convergence of LBP with sparsity and walk-summability of graphical models in Section \[sec:LBP convergence\]. We extend walk-summability for Gaussian graphical models to general graphical models and compare the tightness of existing convergence conditions.
3\. We analyze the paramagnetic fixed point and two other fixed points for uniform binary graphs using message updating functions, and present true message error variation functions to show dynamics of sum-product algorithm in Section \[sec:uniform graph\].
Message-Error Measures
----------------------
Define [*message error*]{} as a multiplicative function $e_{ts}^i(x_s)$ that perturbs the fixed-point message $m_{ts}(x_s)$. The perturbed message at iteration $i$ is hence $$\hat{m}_{ts}^i(x_s)=m_{ts}(x_s)e_{ts}^i(x_s).$$Dealing with normalized messages, we define [*fixed-point incoming message products*]{} as $$M_{ts}(x_t)\propto
\psi_t(x_t)\prod_{u\in\Gamma_t\backslash s}m_{ut}(x_t),$$ and [*perturbed incoming message products*]{} as $$M_{ts}^i(x_t)\propto
\psi_t(x_t)\prod_{u\in\Gamma_t\backslash s}m_{ut}^i(x_t),$$ and [*incoming error products*]{} as $$E_{ts}^i(x_t)=\prod_{u\in\Gamma_t\backslash
s}e_{ut}^i(x_t).$$ We have $$M_{ts}^i(x_t)\propto
M_{ts}(x_t)E_{ts}^i(x_t).$$ Thus, the [*outgoing message error*]{} from node $t$ to node $s$ at iteration $i+1$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
e_{ts}^{i+1}(x_{s})=\frac{\hat{m}_{ts}^{i+1}(x_s)}{m_{ts}(x_s)}
=\frac{\int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t) E_{ts}^i(x_t)
dx_t}{\int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t) E_{ts}^i(x_t) dx_t dx_s}
\times\frac{\int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t
dx_s}{\int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}.\end{aligned}$$
In the following, we will introduce two measures on message errors.
### Dynamic-Range Measure {#sec:dynamic range measure}
The [*dynamic-range measure*]{} of error introduced by [@ihler05b] is defined as: $$d(e^i_{ts})=\max_{a,b}\sqrt{\frac{e^i_{ts}(a)}{e^i_{ts}(b)}}.
\label{eq:dynamic range}$$ We have $d(e^i_{ts})\to 1$ when $e^i_{ts}(x)\to 1$. In [@ihler05b] \[Th.8\] it was shown that when $d(\psi_{ts})=\max_{a,b,c,d}\sqrt{\frac{\psi_{ts}(a,b)}{\psi_{ts}(c,d)}}$ is finite, the dynamic-range measure satisfies the following contraction: $$d(e_{ts}^{i+1})\leq\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2d(E_{ts}^i)+1}{d(\psi_{ts})^2+d(E_{ts}^i)},
\label{eq:dynamiccontraction}$$ in other words, based on the dynamic-range measure, the outgoing message error is bounded by a non-linear function of the potential function and the incoming error product.
### Maximum-Error Measure
To study the dynamics of message error propagation, dealing directly with errors is more interesting than dealing with dynamic range. Moreover, we target to tighten distance bounds of LBP results by using a new error measure. We thus introduce the following [*maximum multiplicative error*]{} function as an error measure: $$\max_{x_s} e^{i+1}_{ts}(x_{s})=\max_{x_s}
\frac{\int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)E^i_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\int\psi_{t\star}(x_t)M_{ts}(x_t)E^i_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}\times
\frac{\int\psi_{t\star}(x_t)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t},\label{eq:max
measure}$$ where $\psi_{t\star}(x_t) = \int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)dx_s$. It is immediate that the maximum-error measure approaches one when multiplicative errors vanish. We will show later that this error measure satisfies the following contraction: $$\max_{x_s}e_{ts}^{i+1}(x_s)
\leq\left(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})d(E_{ts}^i)+1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+d(E_{ts}^i)}\right)^2.\label{eq:maxcontraction}$$
Dynamic-range measure and maximum-error measure are equivalent when the maximum and minimum of an error function are reciprocal. By comparison, maximum-error measure gives an absolute error, while dynamic-range measure gives a relative error which is invariant to scaling. We will show in the following of the paper that maximum-error measure should be used, when we are interested in absolute errors. Furthermore, both defined in dynamic-range measure, $d(\psi_{ts})$ and $d(\psi_{t\star})$ correspond to two types of matrix norms on $\psi_{ts}$. $d(\psi_{t\star})$ in the RHS of Inequality characterizes the effect of normalization factor on $\max_{x_s}
e^{i+1}_{ts}(x_{s})$. We will discuss the influence of $d(\psi_{t\star})$ on error bounds in Section \[sec:upper lower bd\].
Strength of Potential Functions
-------------------------------
[@heskes2004a], [@ihler05b] and [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07] have defined measures of strength of potential functions respectively, which help to obtain better convergence conditions than those only related with topology of graphical models. In the following, we will show the relationship between beliefs and strength of pairwise potential functions.
### Strength of Potential functions in [@heskes2004a]
[@heskes2004a] defined $\sigma_{t,s}$ as the strength of a pairwise potential function $\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)$ meeting the following equation: $$\frac{1}{1-\sigma_{t,s}}=\max_{x_t,x_s,\hat{x}_t,\hat{x}_s}\frac{\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)\psi_{ts}(\hat{x}_t,\hat{x}_s)}{\psi_{ts}(x_t,\hat{x}_s)\psi_{ts}(\hat{x}_t,x_s)}.$$ This strength is related with the correlation of LBP marginals as follows: $$\frac{B_{ts}(x_t,\hat{x}_s)}{B_t(x_t)B_s(\hat{x}_s)}\leq\frac{1}{1-\sigma_{t,s}},$$ which was then utilized to give a better convergence condition than the one only depending on graph topology.
### Strength of Potential functions in [@ihler05b]
[@ihler05b] proposed the dynamic-range measure $d(\psi_{ts})$ as the strength of potential functions $\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)$. Let us restate the definition of the strength of potential functions and its relationship with message errors in Section \[sec:dynamic range measure\] as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&d(\psi_{ts})=\max_{x_t,x_s,\hat{x}_t,\hat{x}_s}\sqrt{\frac{\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)}{\psi_{ts}(\hat{x}_t,\hat{x}_s)}},\\
&d(e_{ts})\leq\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2d(E_{ts})+1}{d(\psi_{ts})^2+d(E_{ts})}.\end{aligned}$$ By considering single node potentials $\psi_{t}(x_t)$ and $\psi_{s}(x_s)$, [@ihler05b] weakened the strength of pairwise potential functions by using the following dynamic range measure: $$d(\psi_{ts})^2=\min_{\psi_t,\psi_s}d(\frac{\psi_{ts}}{\psi_t\psi_s})^2=\sup_{x_t,x_s,\hat{x}_t,\hat{x}_s}\sqrt{\frac{\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)\psi_{ts}(\hat{x}_t,\hat{x}_s)}{\psi_{ts}(\hat{x}_t,x_s)\psi_{ts}(x_t,\hat{x}_s)}}.\label{eq:dmr
with single potential}$$ We will apply the strength of potential functions in Equation \[eq:dmr with single potential\] in our following results.
### Strength of Potential functions in [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07]
[@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07] mentioned a measure of the strength of potential function $\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)$, which is defined as: $$N(\psi_{ts})=\max_{x_t\neq\hat{x}_t,x_s\neq\hat{x}_s}\frac{\sqrt{\frac{\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)\psi_{ts}(\hat{x}_t,\hat{x}_s)}{\psi_{ts}(\hat{x}_t,x_s)\psi_{ts}(x_t,\hat{x}_s)}}-1}{\sqrt{\frac{\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)\psi_{ts}(\hat{x}_t,\hat{x}_s)}{\psi_{ts}(\hat{x}_t,x_s)\psi_{ts}(x_t,\hat{x}_s)}}+1}
=\frac{1-\sqrt{1-\sigma_{t,s}}}{1+\sqrt{1-\sigma_{t,s}}}.\label{eq:mooij
function strength}$$ They defined log dynamic range measure as metric of errors. Let $\lambda_{ts}$ be the log message reparameterization of message $m_{ts}$. That is, $$\lambda_{ts}(x_s)=\log m_{ts}(x_s).$$ Denote $\Delta\lambda$ as the difference of log messages. Thus, we have $$\Delta\lambda_{ts}(x_s)=\log\hat{m}_{ts}(x_s)-\log
m_{ts}(x_s)=\log e_{ts}(x_s).$$ By the quotient norm and Equation (41) in [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07], we have the following metric of error $$\|\overline{\Delta\lambda_{ts}}\|=\frac{1}{2}\sup_{x_s,x'_s}|\Delta\lambda_{ts}(x_s)-\Delta\lambda_{ts}(x'_s)|=\log
d(e_{ts}).\label{eq:mooij error measure}$$
Using the quotient mapping approach of parallel LBP update in [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07], we will find the relationship between the strength of potential functions in Equation and the metric of message errors in Equation in the following.
Because $\|\overline{\Delta\lambda_{ts}}\|\leq\sum_{u\in\Gamma_{t}\backslash
s}\|\overline{\frac{\partial\lambda_{ts}}{\partial\lambda_{ut}}}\|\|\overline{\Delta\lambda_{ut}}\|$ and $\|\overline{\frac{\partial\lambda_{ts}}{\partial\lambda_{ut}}}\|\leq
N(\psi_{ts})$ by Equation (36-45) in [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07], we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\log d(e_{ts})\leq N(\psi_{ts})\sum_{u\in\Gamma_{t}\backslash
s}\log
d(e_{ut})\leq N(\psi_{ts})\log d(E_{ts}),\\
&or,\quad d(e_{ts})\leq d(E_{ts})^{N(\psi_{ts})}.\end{aligned}$$ We can observe that the smaller $N(\psi_{ts})$ is, the smaller is $d(e_{ts})$; therefore, the faster is the contraction of errors. The previous inequality reveals another result on contractive property of message errors beside the one in Equation .
In the following, we use the maximum-error measure in Equation to explore upper and lower bounds on message errors, and upper bounds on the distances between beliefs.
Upper- and Lower-Bounds on Message Errors {#sec:upper lower bd}
-----------------------------------------
We have the multiplicative error function as follows: $$e^{i+1}_{ts}(x_{s})=
\frac{\int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)E^i_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\int\psi_{t\star}(x_t)M_{ts}(x_t)E^i_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}\times
\frac{\int\psi_{t\star}(x_t)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t},$$ where $\psi_{t\star}(x_t) = \int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)dx_s$. We will show that the error function is upper- and lower- bounded.
Multiplicative outgoing errors are bounded as: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+d(E_{ts})}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})d(E_{ts})+1}\right)^2
\leq \min_{x_s}e_{ts}(x_s) \leq e_{ts}(x_s)\leq
\max_{x_s}e_{ts}(x_s) \leq
\left(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})d(E_{ts})+1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+d(E_{ts})}\right)^2.\end{aligned}$$\[theo:error upper&lower\]
The proof appears in Appendix A.
Let us use the following denotation for our upper-bound: $$\Delta_1 =
\left(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})d(E_{ts})+1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+d(E_{ts})}\right)^2.
\label{eq:up}$$ From [@ihler05b Th.2 and Th.8], we can derive their upper-bound for $\max_{x_s}e_{ts}(x_s)$: $$\max_{x_s} e_{ts}(x_s) \leq
d(e_{ts})^2\leq\left(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2
d(E_{ts})+1}{d(\psi_{ts})^2+d(E_{ts})}\right)^2=\Delta_2.
\label{eq:up not us}$$
The upper bound $\Delta_1$ on the multiplicative error provided in Theorem \[theo:error upper&lower\] is tighter than the upper bound $\Delta_2$ from [@ihler05b Th.2 and Th.8]: \[theo:better error upper \]
Because $\Delta_1$ in is increasing in $d(\psi_{t\star})$ we conclude that implies , i.e., $\Delta_1\leq \Delta_2$, because $$\begin{aligned}
&d(\psi_{t\star})
=\max_{a,b}\sqrt{\frac{\psi_{t\star}(a)}{\psi_{t\star}(b)}}
=\max_{a,b}\sqrt{\frac{\int\psi_{ts}(a,x_s)dx_s}{\int\psi_{ts}(b,x_s)dx_s}}
\\
&\leq\max_{a,b}\sqrt{\max_{c,d}\frac{\psi_{ts}(a,c)}{\psi_{ts}(b,d)}}
=\max_{a,b,c,d}\sqrt{\frac{\psi_{ts}(a,c)}{\psi_{ts}(b,d)}}=d(\psi_{ts}).\end{aligned}$$
We can see how $d(\psi_{t\star})$ tightens the upper-bound by analyzing the log-distance between $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$. Let $d(\psi_{t\star})=K d(\psi_{ts})$, where $1/d(\psi_{ts})\leq K\leq
1$. Therefore, the log-distance between $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$ is denoted as $$D(K)=\log{\Delta_1}-\log{\Delta_2}=2\times\log{\{\frac{K
d(\psi_{ts})^2 d(E_{ts})+1}{K
d(\psi_{ts})^2+d(E_{ts})}\times\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2+d(E_{ts})}{d(\psi_{ts})^2
d(E_{ts})+1}\}}.$$ We can easily find that the first gradient $D^{(1)}(K)>0$ when $d(E_{ts})>1$. Thus, the maximum log-distance between $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$ is obtained at $K=1/d(\psi_{ts})$. In other words, when $d(\psi_{t\star})=1$, our upper-bound $\Delta_1$ is tighter than $\Delta_2$ at farthest.
Distance Bounds on Beliefs {#sec:bounds belief}
==========================
In the study of convergence, we are interested to know how beliefs will vary at each iteration, when LBP fails to converge. We will show that beliefs are bounded given the strength of potential functions and the structure of the graph. In the following, we will present our [*uniform distance bound*]{} and [*non-uniform distance bound*]{} on beliefs. Based on those bounds, we further present [*uniform convergence condition*]{} and [*non-uniform convergence condition*]{} for synchronous LBP.
Uniform Distance Bound
----------------------
[**(Uniform Distance Bound)**]{}\
The log-distance bound of fixed points on belief at node $s$ is $$\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s}\log(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})
\varepsilon+1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+\varepsilon})^2,$$ where $\varepsilon$ should satisfy $$\log{\varepsilon}=\max_{(s,p)\in
\mathbb{E}}\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\log({\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})\varepsilon+1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+\varepsilon}})^2.$$\[coro:uniform distance bd\]
The proof appears in Appendix A.
Let us reintroduce the [*error bound-variation function*]{} used in the proof for Corollary \[coro:uniform distance bd\]: $$G_{sp}^{O}(\log{\varepsilon})=\log{\prod_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})\varepsilon+1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+\varepsilon}})^2-\log{\varepsilon},\varepsilon\geq
1.\label{eq:bd variation}$$ Adopting the upper-bound $\Delta_2$ in , the error bound-variation function is: $$G_{sp}^{I}(\log{\varepsilon})=\log{\prod_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2\varepsilon+1}{d(\psi_{ts})^2+\varepsilon}})^2-\log{\varepsilon},\varepsilon\geq
1.$$
Those error bound-variation functions describe the upper-bound on variation of maximal message errors throughout the belief networks. We can see that $G_{sp}^{O}(\log{\varepsilon})<G_{sp}^{I}(\log{\varepsilon})$. In other words, the error bound-variation function using our upper-bound $\Delta_1$ is tighter than that using [@ihler05b]’s upper-bound $\Delta_2$, which is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:bd variation\]. However, in [@ihler05b], they used the following error bound-variation function: $$G_{sp}^{II}(\log{\varepsilon'})=\log{\prod_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2\varepsilon'+1}{d(\psi_{ts})^2+\varepsilon'}})-\log{\varepsilon'},$$ where $\varepsilon'$ is an upper-bound on dynamic range measure $d(E_{ts})$. Since our $\varepsilon$ is an upper-bound on maximum error measure $\max{E_{ts}}$, it’s hard to compare $G_{sp}^{O}(\log{\varepsilon})$ and $G_{sp}^{II}(\log{\varepsilon'})$. In other words, we cannot say our Uniform Distance Bound in Corollary \[coro:uniform distance bd\] is better than that in [@ihler05b Theorem 13].
![Error bound-variation functions versus true error-variation function for the local graph of node s. Potential functions on edges $(t_1,s),(t_2,s),(t_3,s)$ are the same, where $\eta=0.7$. We also impose the same incoming error product $E_{ts}$ on nodes $t_1,t_2,t_3$. The dotted curves depict the true error variation functions, $\{\log{\max_x E_{sp}(x)}-\log{\max_x
E_{ts}(x)},t\in\Gamma_s\backslash p\}$, which are enveloped by our error bound-variation function $G_{sp}^{O}(\log{\varepsilon})$.[]{data-label="fig:bd variation"}](figure2.ps){height="7.44" width="14.02"}
![Four simple graphical models: (a) a four-node fully connected graph; (b) a partial graph that has one less edge than (a); (c) a nine-node graph with uniform degree; and (d) a $3\times
3$ grid that is a partial graph of (c).[]{data-label="fig:graphs"}](figure3.eps){height="3.91" width="10.25"}
When the error bound-variation function is always less than zero, the maximum of error bounds decreases after each iteration of LBP. In other words, LBP will converge. Therefore, our uniform distance bound in Corollary \[coro:uniform distance bd\] will lead to a sufficient condition for convergence of LBP.
[ **(Uniform Convergence Condition)**]{}\
Based on maximum-error measure, the sufficient condition for the sum-product algorithm to converge to a unique fixed point is $$\max_{(s,p)\in\mathbb{E}}\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})-1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+1}<\frac{1}{2}.$$\[theo:uniform converge\]
The proof appears in Appendix A.
Since we cannot compare $G_{sp}^{O}(\log{\varepsilon})$ and $G_{sp}^{II}(\log{\varepsilon'})$ directly because $\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon'$ correspond to different measures, let us take the maximum of the two measures and deal with it as a new measure. Specifically, let $\tilde{\varepsilon}=\max\{\varepsilon,\varepsilon'\}$. After some calculation, we can find that $G_{sp}^{O}(\log{\tilde{\varepsilon}})$ is greater than $G_{sp}^{II}(\log{\tilde{\varepsilon}})$. In other words, $G_{sp}^{II}(\log{\tilde{\varepsilon}})$ is tighter than $G_{sp}^{O}(\log{\tilde{\varepsilon}})$. Therefore, the convergence condition derived from $G_{sp}^{II}(\log{\tilde{\varepsilon}})$ will be better. The following lemma provides a proof for this observation.
Our sufficient condition $\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})-1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+1}<\frac{1}{2}$ is worse than the sufficient condition in [@ihler05b], which is $\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2-1}{d(\psi_{ts})^2+1}<1$.\[lemma:weak convergence\]
$2(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})-1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+1})>\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2-1}{d(\psi_{ts})^2+1}$.
Our failure to improve the uniform convergence condition by using [*maximum-error measure*]{} shows that [*dynamic-range measure*]{} is better than [*maximum-error measure*]{} with respect to the sensitivity of the measure to convergence. Nevertheless, as for the upper bound on a multiplicative message error $e_{ts}(x)$, [*maximum-error measure*]{} gives a tighter result, which is shown in Theorem \[theo:better error upper \]. Furthermore, the [*maximum-error measure*]{} may provide better distance bounds for beliefs.
Inspired by the sensitivity of dynamic-range measure to convergence, we present the following [*improved uniform distance bound*]{}, which first calculates the fixed-point values of error bounds in dynamic-range measure, and then computes the error bounds among beliefs in maximum-error measure.
[**(Improved Uniform Distance Bound)**]{}\
The log-distance bound of fixed points on belief at node $s$ is $$\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s}\log(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})
\varepsilon+1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+\varepsilon})^2,$$ where $\varepsilon$ should satisfy $$\log{\varepsilon}=\max_{(s,p)\in
\mathbb{E}}\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\log{\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2\varepsilon+1}{d(\psi_{ts})^2+\varepsilon}}.$$\[coro:improved uniform distance\]
Using the approach in [@ihler05b Theorem 12] to obtain distance bounds on incoming error products in dynamic-range measure and applying our Theorem \[theo:error upper&lower\], we obtain our corollary.
 with various $\eta$’s. The empirical critical value of $\eta$ for LBP to converge is $\eta<0.75$.[]{data-label="fig:bounds fig3a"}](figure4.eps){height="10.1" width="14"}
 with various $\eta$’s. The empirical critical value of $\eta$ for LBP to converge is $\eta<0.67$.[]{data-label="fig:bounds fig3c"}](figure6.eps){height="10.33" width="14"}
 with various $\eta$’s. The empirical critical value of $\eta$ for LBP to converge is $\eta<0.83$.[]{data-label="fig:bounds fig3b"}](figure5.eps){height="10.1" width="14"}
 with various $\eta$’s. The empirical critical value of $\eta$ for LBP to converge is $\eta<0.79$.[]{data-label="fig:bounds fig3d"}](figure7.eps){height="10.33" width="14"}
Let see how our [*uniform distance bound*]{} and [*improved uniform distance bound*]{} perform for graphical models in Fig. \[fig:graphs\] by comparison to the [*Fixed-point distance bound*]{} in [@ihler05b]. Let all the pairwise potential functions be $\begin{pmatrix} \eta & 1-\eta \\
1-\eta & \eta \end{pmatrix}$ where $\eta>0.5$ and all the single node potentials be $\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}$. Therefore, $d(\psi_{ts})=\sqrt{\eta/(1-\eta)}$ and $d(\psi_{t\star})=1$ for $\forall~(t,s)\in \mathbb{E}$.
We compare the following bounds in our simulations: UDB, our uniform distance bound in Corollary \[coro:uniform distance bd\]; Improved-UDB, our improved uniform distance bound in Corollary \[coro:improved uniform distance\]; Ihler-UDB, Fixed-point distance bound in [@ihler05b Theorem 13]. Fig.\[fig:bounds fig3a\] - Fig. \[fig:bounds fig3d\] illustrate the performances of those bounds for graphs in Figs. \[fig:graphs\](a), (c), (b) and (d), respectively.
Graphs in Figs. \[fig:graphs\](a) and (c) are uniform (uniform degrees, uniform potential functions). Given a specific $\eta$, all nodes have the same distance bound. The **critical value** of $\eta$ is the value beyond which LBP will not converge. For those two graphs, the empirical critical values of $\eta$ with respect to the convergence of LBP are $0.75$ and $0.67$ respectively. We can see that, for various $\eta$’s, our Improved-UDBs are very close to the true errors between beliefs. Our UDBs become tighter when $\eta$ increases, while Ihler-UDBs become looser. From Fig. \[fig:bounds fig3a\] and Fig. \[fig:bounds fig3c\], we can see that, compared to Ihler-UDB, our UDB requires stricter critical values of $\eta$ to ensure error bounds to be zeros. Specifically, for Fig. \[fig:bounds fig3a\], when $\eta=0.745$, our UDBs are non-zeros and Ihler-UDBs are zeros; hence, our UDB requires $\eta<0.745$ for the convergence of LBP, while Ihler-UDB only requires $\eta<0.75$. Nevertheless, the critical values by our UDB are $0.735$ for Fig. \[fig:graphs\](a) and $0.66$ for Fig. \[fig:graphs\](c), which are close to the empirical critical values. Based on our UDB and Ihler-UDB, our Improved-UDBs will approximate zeros when $\eta$ approaches $0.75$ and give tightest distance bounds for any $\eta$.
Non-Uniform Distance Bound {#sec:nonuniform bd}
--------------------------
Fig. \[fig:graphs\](b) and Fig. \[fig:graphs\] (d) are non-uniform graphs. Because uniform distance bounds are computed locally, beliefs on the nodes with different topologies will have different error bounds, which can be observed from Fig. \[fig:bounds fig3b\] and Fig. \[fig:bounds fig3d\]. We can also find that when the true errors are zeros, uniform bounds are not all zeros. In other words, $\eta$ must be smaller than the empirical critical value to ensure the largest uniform distance bounds to be zero. Furthermore, in such cases, uniform convergence conditions derived from uniform distance bounds will not perform well as for uniform graphs. Therefore, when every loop contains potentials with various strengths and each node has different topology, we present the following [*non-uniform distance bound*]{} and [*improved non-uniform distance bound*]{}.
[ **(Non-uniform Distance Bound)**]{}\
The non-uniform log-distance bound of fixed points on belief at node $s$ after $n\geq 1$ iterations is $$\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s}\log(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})
\varepsilon^n_{ts}+1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+\varepsilon^n_{ts}})^2,$$ where $\varepsilon^i_{ts}$ is updated by $$\log{\varepsilon^{i}_{ts}}=\sum_{u\in\Gamma_t\backslash
s}\log({\frac{d(\psi_{ut})d(\psi_{u\star})\varepsilon^{i-1}_{ut}+1}{d(\psi_{ut})d(\psi_{u\star})+\varepsilon^{i-1}_{ut}}})^2$$ with initial condition $$\log\varepsilon^1_{ut}=\sum_{v\in\Gamma_u\backslash t}\log
(d(\psi_{vu})d(\psi_{v\star}))^2.$$\[coro:nonuniform distance\]
The result can be easily proved from Corollary \[coro:uniform distance bd\], by defining the [*error bound-variation function*]{} in as follows: $$G_{ts}(\log{\varepsilon_{ts}^{i}})=\log\prod_{u\in\Gamma_t\backslash
s}\Delta_{ut}(\varepsilon_{ut}^{i-1})-\log{\varepsilon_{ts}^{i}}=\sum_{u\in\Gamma_t\backslash
s}\log({\frac{d(\psi_{ut})d(\psi_{u\star})\varepsilon^{i-1}_{ut}+1}{d(\psi_{ut})d(\psi_{u\star})+\varepsilon^{i-1}_{ut}}})^2-\log{\varepsilon^{i}_{ts}}.$$
Similarly, based on the fact that the dynamic-range measure gives better convergence condition than the maximum-error measure, we improve the previous non-uniform distance bound in the following.
[**(Improved Non-uniform Distance Bound)**]{}\
The improved non-uniform log-distance bound of fixed points on belief at node $s$ after $n\geq 1$ iterations is $$\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s}\log(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})
\varepsilon^n_{ts}+1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+\varepsilon^n_{ts}})^2,$$ where $\varepsilon^i_{ts}$ is updated by $$\log{\varepsilon^{i}_{ts}}=\sum_{u\in\Gamma_t\backslash
s}\log{\frac{d(\psi_{ut})^2\varepsilon^{i-1}_{ut}+1}{d(\psi_{ut})^2+\varepsilon^{i-1}_{ut}}}$$ with initial condition $\log\varepsilon^1_{ut}=\sum_{v\in\Gamma_u\backslash t}\log
d(\psi_{vu})^2$.\[coro:improved nonuniform distance\]
Using the approach in [@ihler05b Theorem 14] to obtain distance bounds on incoming error products in dynamic-range measure and applying our Theorem \[theo:error upper&lower\], we obtain our corollary.
Let see the performaces of our [*non-uniform distance bound*]{} and [*improved non-uniform distance bound*]{} for the graphs in Fig. \[fig:graphs\] compared with the non-uniform distance bound in [@ihler05b Thm. 14]. We denote the bounds in our simulation as follows: NUDB, our non-uniform distance bound in Corollary \[coro:nonuniform distance\]; Improved-NUDB, our improved non-uniform distance bound in Corollary \[coro:improved nonuniform distance\]; Ihler-NUDB, non-uniform distance bound in [@ihler05b Theorem 14].
For uniform graphs in Fig. \[fig:graphs\](a) and (c), NUDB performs exactly the same as UDB. However, for non-uniform graphs in Fig. \[fig:graphs\](b) and (d), because NUDB propagates error bounds throughout the whole graph rather than on a local neighborhood, NUDBs are tighter than UDBs, which can be observed from Fig. \[fig:bounds fig3b\] and Fig. \[fig:bounds fig3d\]. For various $\eta$’s, our Improved-NUDBs always approach the true errors. Therefore, when our Improved-NUDB is zero, $\eta$ almost equals the empirical critical value to ensure convergence of LBP. Though worse than Improved-NUDB, our NUDB performs better than Ihler-NUDB when $\eta$ is far way from the area of convergence.
### Non-Uniform Convergence {#sec:nonuniform convergence}
Based on our Improved-NUDB or Ihler-NUDB, a sufficient convergence condition of LBP can be derived, which is based on the dynamic-range measure of propagating errors.
For each cycle-involved vertex $v$, $T(\mathbb{G},v)$ is the corresponding computation tree. Let $\mathbb{V}$ be the set of vertices in the computation tree. For $w_{i}\in
\mathbb{V},i=0,...,|\mathbb{V}|-1$, $l(w_{i})$ is the labelling function which maps $w_{i}$ to the original vertex in $\mathbb{G}$. Let $l(w_0)=v$.
[**(Non-Uniform Convergence Condition)**]{}\
For a graphical model $\mathbb{G}(\mathbb{V},\mathbb{E})$, $\{T(\mathbb{G},v), v\in\mathbb{V}\}$ is the set of computation trees. Let $\mathbb{\bar{E}}$ denote the set of directed edges. For each $T(\mathbb{G},v), v\in\mathbb{V}$, given $vu\in\mathbb{\bar{E}}$, $\mathcal{H}_{vu}$ denotes an expression on edge $vu$: $$\mathcal{H}_{vu}=\sum_{w_i\in\Gamma_{v}\backslash
u}\frac{d(\psi_{l(w_i)v})^2-1}{d(\psi_{l(w_i)v})^2+1}\sum_{w_j\in\Gamma_{w_i}\backslash
v}\frac{d(\psi_{l(w_j)l(w_i)})^2-1}{d(\psi_{l(w_j)l(w_i)})^2+1}...
\sum_{w_r\in\Gamma_{w_q}\backslash
w_p}\frac{d(\psi_{l(w_r)l(w_q)})^2-1}{d(\psi_{l(w_r)l(w_q)})^2+1},\label{eq:non-uniform
walk sums}$$ where $\Gamma_{w_i}$ is the set of neighbors of $w_i$. The non-uniform sufficient condition for the sum-product algorithm to converge to a local stable fixed point is: $$\max_{vu\in\mathbb{\bar{E}}}\mathcal{H}_{vu}<1.$$ \[theo:nonuniform convergence\]
The proof appears in Appendix A. Based on the type of computation tree, the non-uniform convergence condition will be called *non-uniform convergence condition based on $N$-th level Bethe tree*, or *non-uniform convergence condition based on infinite Bethe tree*, or *non-uniform convergence condition based on SAW tree*. Our non-uniform convergence condition based on infinite Bethe tree is equivalent to [@ihler05b Theorem 14].
When a graph has uniform potential functions with strength $d(\psi)$, to ensure convergence, it is sufficient to have $$\max_{vu\in\mathbb{\bar{E}}}\sum_{w_i\in\Gamma_{v}\backslash
u}\frac{d(\psi)^2-1}{d(\psi)^2+1}\sum_{w_j\in\Gamma_{w_i}\backslash
v}\frac{d(\psi)^2-1}{d(\psi)^2+1}...\sum_{w_r\in\Gamma_{w_q}\backslash
w_p}\frac{d(\psi)^2-1}{d(\psi)^2+1}<1.\label{eq:walk sums uniform}$$
Let us apply our [*non-uniform convergence condition based on SAW tree*]{} to the graphs in Fig. \[fig:graphs\](b) and (d) with uniform potential functions as in the previous simulations. For the graph in Fig. \[fig:graphs\](b), we obtain the critical value $\eta<0.78$ for convergence of LBP, which is closer to the empirical value $\eta<0.83$, compared to $\eta<0.75$ obtained by [*uniform convergence condition*]{}. For the graph in Fig. \[fig:graphs\](d), we obtain the critical value $\eta<0.77$, while the empirical value is $\eta<0.79$ and the critical value obtained by [*uniform convergence condition*]{} is $\eta<0.67$. Therefore, our [*non-uniform convergence condition*]{} is tighter than our [*uniform convergence condition*]{}. However, since our [*non-uniform convergence condition*]{} is derived from [@ihler05b Theorem 14], we do not improve the convergence condition. Rather than in the form of distance bound in [@ihler05b Theorem 14], we express the convergence condition explicitly, which will be used in our later analysis of walk-summability of graphical models. Furthermore, we improve distance bounds between beliefs in Corollary \[coro:improved uniform distance\] and Corollary \[coro:improved nonuniform distance\], which are useful in tightening accuracy bounds in Section \[sec:accuracy\].
Convergence of Loopy Belief Propagation {#sec:LBP convergence}
=======================================
Sparsity and Convergence
------------------------
To compute our [*non-uniform convergence condition*]{} in Theorem \[theo:nonuniform convergence\] is not easy, when the graph is not sparse or not symmetric. Nevertheless, our Theorem \[theo:nonuniform convergence\] can be used to deduce convergence properties of sparse graphs.
It lacks theoretical verification that the more sparse a graph is, the less stricter is its convergence condition. However, the definition of sparse graphs is vague; therefore, to be confined, we would relate sparsity with partial graphs. Let us define partial graphs and introduce the convergence property of such graphs in the following.
[**(Walk)**]{}\
In a graph G(V,E), a walk of length $l$ is a sequence of nodes $w=(v_0,v_1,...,v_l)$, $v_i\in V$, such that each step of walk $(v_i,v_i+1)$ corresponds to an edge in $E$.\[def:walk\]
[**(Prime Cycle)**]{}\
A closed walk is called a prime cycle if it is not backtracking and not a repeated concatenation of a shorter closed walk.\[def:prime cycle\]
[**(Reduction)**]{}\
A walk composed of two edges $(v_1,v_2)$ and $(v_2,v_3)$ can be reduced to a walk composed of one edge $(v_1,v_3)$, where $\psi_{v_1v_3}(x_{v_1},x_{v_3})=\int_{x_{v_2}}\psi_{v_1v_2}(x_{v_1},x_{v_2})\psi_{v_2v_3}(x_{v_2},x_{v_3})dx_{v_2}$, when there is no branch on the walk.
[**(Extension)**]{}\
A walk composed of one edge $(v_1,v_3)$ can be extended to a walk composed of two edges $(v_1,v_2)$ and $(v_2,v_3)$, where $\int_{x_{v_2}}\psi_{v_1v_2}(x_{v_1},x_{v_2})\psi_{v_2v_3}(x_{v_2},x_{v_3})dx_{v_2}=\psi_{v_1v_3}(x_{v_1},x_{v_3})$.
[**(Partial Graphs)**]{}\
For two graphical models $\mathbb{G}_1(\mathbb{V}_1,\mathbb{E}_1)$ and $\mathbb{G}_2(\mathbb{V}_2,\mathbb{E}_2)$ after reduction and extension, there exists an isomorphism between graphs $\mathbb{G}_1(\mathbb{V}_1,\mathbb{E}_1)$ and $\mathbb{G}_2(\mathbb{V}_2^{\ast},\mathbb{E}_2^{\ast})$, when $\mathbb{V}_2^{\ast}\subseteq\mathbb{V}_2$ and $\mathbb{E}_2^{\ast}\subset\mathbb{E}_2$. When $\mathbb{E}_2-\mathbb{E}_2^{\ast}$ is cycle-involved, we call $\mathbb{G}_1$ a partial graph of $\mathbb{G}_2$ and denote it as $\mathbb{G}_1\subset\mathbb{G}_2$.\[def:partial graph\]
[**[ (Strictness of Convergence Condition for Two Partial Graphs)]{}**]{}\
Given $\mathbb{G}_1$ and $\mathbb{G}_2$ as defined in Definition \[def:partial graph\], assume that $\mathbb{G}_1\subset\mathbb{G}_2$. Assume the dynamic-range measures of potential functions for edges in $\mathbb{E}_1$ are not greater than those of potential functions for corresponding edges in $\mathbb{E}_2^{\ast}$. Then, when LBP for $\mathbb{G}_2(\mathbb{V}_2,\mathbb{E}_2)$ converges, LBP for $\mathbb{G}_1(\mathbb{V}_1,\mathbb{E}_1)$ must converge; however, the reverse implication is not true in general.\[theo:strictness convergence\]
Because $\mathbb{G}_1\subset \mathbb{G}_2$ and $\mathbb{E}_2-\mathbb{E}_2^{\ast}$ are cycle-involved, $T_{B}(\mathbb{G}_1,v,n)\subset T_{B}(\mathbb{G}_2,v,n)$. Therefore, the expression in for $\mathbb{G}_2$ has more summands than that for $\mathbb{G}_1$. When $\mathbb{G}_2$ satisfies the convergence condition in Theorem \[theo:nonuniform convergence\], $\mathbb{G}_1$ must satisfy it. However, when $\mathbb{G}_1$ satisfies the convergence condition, $\mathbb{G}_2$ may not satisfy it.
When the potential functions of a graph are uniform, we have the following corollary.
[**(Critical Values of Convergence for Two Partial Graphs)**]{}\
Given $\mathbb{G}_1\subset\mathbb{G}_2$, $\mathbb{G}_1$ and $\mathbb{G}_2$ have uniform potential functions $\psi_{i}=\begin{pmatrix} \eta_i & 1-\eta_i \\
1-\eta_i & \eta_i \end{pmatrix}, i=1,2$ on all edges. Then, the critical values for convergence of LBP satisfy $\eta_{2}<\eta_{1}$.\[coro:critical value convergence\]
Because for $\mathbb{G}_2$ has more summands than that for $\mathbb{G}_1$, we easily have $d(\psi_{2})<d(\psi_{1})$ to satisfy the inequality. Because $d(\psi_i)=\sqrt{\eta_i/(1-\eta_i)}$, we get $\eta_{2}<\eta_{1}$.
Our Theorem \[theo:strictness convergence\] and Corollary \[coro:critical value convergence\] can be easily extended to strictness of convergence condition of LBP for a set of partial graphs, and for those with uniform potential functions.
[**[ (Strictness of Convergence Condition for Set of Partial Graphs)]{}**]{}\
Given $\mathbb{G}_1\subset\mathbb{G}_2...\subset\mathbb{G}_N$, assuming the dynamic-range measures of potential functions on isomorphous edges of those graphs are correspondingly non-decreasing in the previous partial order, LBP convergence for $\mathbb{G}_j$ implies LBP convergence for $\mathbb{G}_i$, where $i<j$ and $i,j=1,...,N$. However, the reverse implication is not true in general.\[coro:strictness convergence set partial graphs\]
For any $\mathbb{G}_i\subset\mathbb{G}_j$ in the set of $\{\mathbb{G}_i,1\leq i\leq N\}$, according to Theorem \[theo:strictness convergence\], we have the convergence of $\mathbb{G}_j$ implies the convergence of $\mathbb{G}_i$.
[**(Critical Value of Convergence for Set of Partial Graphs)**]{}\
Given $\mathbb{G}_1\subset\mathbb{G}_2...\subset\mathbb{G}_k$, $\mathbb{G}_1$,..., $\mathbb{G}_k$ have uniform potential functions $\begin{pmatrix} \eta_i & 1-\eta_i \\
1-\eta_i & \eta_i \end{pmatrix},1\leq i\leq k$ on all edges. Then, the critical values for convergence of LBP satisfy $\eta_{k}<\eta_{k-1}...<\eta_{1}$.\[coro:critical value convergence set partial graphs\]
For any $\mathbb{G}_i\subset\mathbb{G}_j$ in the set of $\{\mathbb{G}_i,1\leq i\leq N\}$, according to Corollary \[coro:critical value convergence\], we have the convergence of $\eta_{j}<\eta_{i}$.
By our Corollary \[coro:strictness convergence set partial graphs\] on partially ordered graphs, we can conclude that graphs with less cycle-induced edges are more sparse and thus have weaker convergence condition. It is intuitively true that the strength of potential functions for Fig. \[fig:graphs\](a) or Fig. \[fig:graphs\](c) should be weaker than that for Fig. \[fig:graphs\](b) or Fig. \[fig:graphs\](d) to ensure convergence of LBP. This observation can be soundly verified by our previous corollaries.
Walk-Summability and Convergence
--------------------------------
![Diagram summarizing mildness of convergence conditions. The SAW tree is a partial tree of the $N$-level Bethe tree, therefore, convergence condition based on the SAW tree is stronger.[]{data-label="fig:tightness_nonuniform"}](figure8.eps){height="4.5" width="9.93"}
[@Malioutov2006] related the convergence of LBP with the spectral radius of partial correlation matrix of Gaussian graphical model, for which they introduced a concept called walk-summability. We observe similarity between walk-summability of Gaussian graphical model and our convergence condition for general graphcial model discussed in Section \[sec:nonuniform convergence\]. Therefore, based on some existing works in literature, we extend the walk-summability defined in [@Malioutov2006] to that for general graphical models.
A Gaussian graphical model is defined by an undirected graph $G(V,E)$, where $V$ is the set of nodes and $E$ is the set of edges, and a set of jointly Gaussian random variables $\{x_i, i\in
V\}$. The joint density function is defined as follows: $$p(X)\propto
\exp\{-\frac{1}{2}\textsc{x}^TJ\textsc{x}+h^T\textsc{x}\},$$ where $J$ is a symmetric and positive definite matrix called information matrix and $h$ is a potential vector. The partial correlation coefficient between random variable $x_i$ and $x_j$ is defined as follows: $$r_{ij}\triangleq\frac{\textrm{cov}(x_i,x_j|x_{V\backslash
ij})}{\sqrt{\textrm{var}(x_i|x_{V\backslash
ij})\textrm{var}(x_j|x_{V\backslash
ij})}}=-\frac{J_{ij}}{\sqrt{J_{ii}J_{jj}}}.$$ A walk is defined in Definition \[def:walk\]. The weight $\phi(w)$ of a walk $w=(v_0,v_1,...,v_{l(w)})$ with length $l(w)$ is defined as: $$\phi(w)=\prod_{k=1}^{l(w)}r_{v_{k-1}v_{k}}.\label{eq:walk weight}$$
([@Malioutov2006])[**(Walk-Summable)**]{}\
A Gaussian distribution is walk-summable if for all $i,j\in V$ the unordered walk $w$ from $i$ to $j$, $\sum_{w:i\rightarrow
j}\phi(w)$, is well defined.\[def:walk-summable\]
([@Malioutov2006])[**(Walk-Summability)**]{}\
Let $R$ be a partial correlation coefficient matrix of a Gaussian graphical model, of which diagonal entries are zeros. Each of the following conditions are equivalent to walk-summability:\
(i) $\sum_{w:i\rightarrow j}|\phi(w)|$ converges for all $i,j\in
V$,\
(ii) $\sum_{l}\bar{R}^{l}$ converges, where $\bar{R}_{ij}=|R_{ij}|$ and $l$ is the length of walk,\
(iii) $\rho(\bar{R})<1$, where $\rho(\bar{R})$ is the spectral radius of $\bar{R}$,\
(iv) $I-\bar{R}\succ 0$.
The walk-summability of a Gaussian graphical model has been shown to be related with the convergence of LBP. Proposition 21 in [@Malioutov2006] states that “If a model on a (Gaussian) graph G is walk-summable, then LBP is well-posed, the means converge to the true means and the LBP variances converge to walk-sums over the backtracking self-return walks at each node". Enlightened by the analysis for Gaussian graphical model, we extend the walk-summability perspective to general graphical models in the following.
For a Gaussian graphical model, the interaction between two random variables is the partial correlation coefficient. However, for a general graphical model, we have multi-dimensional potential functions between two random variables. We hope to find a scalar quantity to represent the interaction between them as well.
[@NIPS2009_Yusuke] introduced weights on edges of an arbitrary binary graph, defined an edge zeta function based on those weights and related the convexity of Bethe free energy with the edge zeta function. Specifically, given $\mathcal{P}$ be the set of prime cycles $\{v_{k_0}v_{k_1}...v_{k_{i-1}}v_{k_i}...v_{k_l}v_{k_0}\}$ defined in Definition \[def:prime cycle\], for given weights $\textbf{u}$, the edge zeta function is defined in [@NIPS2009_Yusuke] by $$\zeta_{G}(\textbf{u}):=\prod_{w\in
\mathcal{P}}(1-g(w))^{-1},g(w):=u_{v_{k_0}v_{k_1}}...u_{v_{k_{i-1}}v_{k_i}}...u_{v_{k_l}v_{k_0}}.$$ We find that $(1-g(w))^{-1}=\sum_{i=0}^\infty(g(w))^i$, which represents the walk sums of a prime cycle and its repeated concatenations.
They introduced an adjacency matrix of directed edges, which is defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{i\rightarrow j,p\rightarrow
q}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}
1,\quad\textrm{if}~p\in\Gamma_{i}\backslash
j,\\0,\quad\textrm{otherwise}.\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ Here we use $i\rightarrow j$ rather than $ij$ to explicitly represent directed edge. They showed that $$\zeta_{G}(\textbf{u})^{-1}=det(I-\mathcal{U}\mathcal{M}),\label{eq:zeta
determinant}$$ where $\mathcal{U}$ is a diagonal matrix defined by $\mathcal{U}_{i\rightarrow j,p\rightarrow q}=u_{i\rightarrow
j}\delta_{i\rightarrow j,p\rightarrow q}$.
Let us define two directed edges $i\rightarrow j$ and $p\rightarrow q$ satisfying $p\in \Gamma_i\backslash j$ as [**adjacent**]{} edges, and call $\mathcal{U}\mathcal{M}$ an [**interaction coefficient matrix**]{} for adjacent edges. Therefore, Equation relates weighted prime cycles with interaction coefficient matrix. Comparatively, for Gaussian graphical model, $J^{-1}=(I-R)^{-1}=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}R^l$ and $(R^l)_{ij}=\sum_{w:i\stackrel{l}{\longrightarrow} j}\phi(w)$, which characterizes relationship between summation of weighted walks and partial correlation coefficient matrix.
Unlike correlation coefficient between two nodes (random variables), interaction coefficient is between two edges. We introduce a [**weight matrix**]{} $\mathbb{U}$, and $\mathbb{U}_{ij}=u_{i\rightarrow j}$. Notice that $\mathbb{U}$ is not symmetric. $(\mathbb{U}^l)_{qj}=\sum_{w:q\stackrel{l}{\longrightarrow}
j}g(w)$ corresponds to weighted walks of length $l$ from $q$ to $j$, while $((\mathcal{U}\mathcal{M})^l)_{i\rightarrow
j,p\rightarrow q}$ corresponds to weighted walks of length $l$ from $q$ of edge $p\rightarrow q$ to $j$ of edge $i\rightarrow j$. They are actually related in terms of weighted walks as follows: $$(\mathbb{U}^l)_{qj}=\sum_{i\in\Gamma_j}((\mathcal{U}\mathcal{M})^l)_{i\rightarrow
j,p\rightarrow q}+\sum_{i\in\Gamma_j}u_{q\rightarrow
p}((\mathcal{U}\mathcal{M})^{l-1})_{i\rightarrow j,q\rightarrow
p}.$$
[@NIPS2009_Yusuke] further defined weights as follows: $$u_{i\rightarrow j}:=\frac{\chi_{ij}-m_im_j}{1-m_j^2},$$ where mean $m_i=E_{b_i}[x_i]$ and correlation $\chi_{ij}=E_{b_{ij}}[x_ix_j]$. Let $Spec(\mathcal{U}\mathcal{M})\subset \mathbb{C}$ denote the spectra. They presented the following theorem.
(Theorem 4.,[@NIPS2009_Yusuke])\
Given $\mathcal{U}$,$\mathcal{M}$,$m_i$ and $\chi_{ij}$, $Spec(\mathcal{U}\mathcal{M})$$\subset \mathbb{C}\backslash
\mathbb{R}_{\geq 1}$$\Longrightarrow$ Hessian of Bethe free energy is positive definite at $\{m_i,\chi_{ij}\}$.
Since convexity of Bethe free energy implies the uniqueness of the fixed point, $Spec(\mathcal{U}\mathcal{M})$$\subset
\mathbb{C}\backslash \mathbb{R}_{\geq 1}$ is a corresponding walk-summability condition for a binary graph.
A symmetrization of $u_{i\rightarrow j}$ and $u_{j\rightarrow i}$ was defined in [@NIPS2009_Yusuke] by $$\beta_{ij}:=\frac{\chi_{ij}-m_im_j}{\{(1-m_i^2)(1-m_j^2)\}^{1/2}}=\frac{\textrm{Cov}_{b_{ij}}[x_i,x_j]}{\{\textrm{Var}_{b_i}[x_i]\textrm{Var}_{b_j}[x_j]\}^{1/2}}.$$ $\beta_{ij}$ is the correlation coefficient between $x_i$ and $x_j$. They showed $\mathrm{Spec}(\mathcal{U}\mathcal{M})=\mathrm{Spec}(\mathcal{B}\mathcal{M})$, where $(\mathcal{B})_{i\rightarrow j,p\rightarrow
q}=\beta_{ij}\delta_{i\rightarrow j,p\rightarrow q}$. Therefore, similar to Gaussian graphical model, for an arbitrary binary graph, we can also use correlation coefficient $\beta_{ij}$ to characterize the interaction between two random variables and analyze the convergence of LBP.
We find another interaction coefficient matrix in [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07]. They proved that for pairwise binary graphs, LBP converges to a unique fixed point, if the spectral radius of $\mathcal{A}\mathcal{M}$ is strictly smaller than $1$, where $\mathcal{A}_{ij}:=tanh|J_{ij}|$. $\mathcal{A}\mathcal{M}$ is also an interaction coefficient matrix between neighboring edges. We can see $Spec(\mathcal{B}\mathcal{M})\subset \mathbb{C}\backslash
\mathbb{R}_{\geq 1}$ or $Spec(\mathcal{A}\mathcal{M})\subset
\mathbb{C}\backslash \mathbb{R}_{\geq 1}$ as a walk-summable condition for binary graphs. However, [@NIPS2009_Yusuke Lemma 3] showed that: given $\beta_{ij}$ at any fixed point of LBP, $|\beta_{ij}|\leq tanh|J_{ij}|$. In other words $\mathcal{B}\mathcal{M}$ is tighter than $\mathcal{A}\mathcal{M}$.
In the non-uniform convergence condition in Theorem \[theo:nonuniform convergence\], for a $N$-th level Bethe tree, we add up all the $N$-th step walks from a root node, where the weight on edge $(t,s)$ is the quantity $\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2-1}{d(\psi_{ts})^2+1}$ and $d(\psi_{ts})^2=\sup_{x_t,x_s,\hat{x}_t,\hat{x}_s}\sqrt{\frac{\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)\psi_{ts}(\hat{x}_t,\hat{x}_s)}{\psi_{ts}(\hat{x}_t,x_s)\psi_{ts}(x_t,\hat{x}_s)}}$. Similarly to the previous analysis, we interpret this quantity as an interaction coefficient. Let $\mathcal{W}$ be the interaction coefficient matrix with entry $w_{ts}\delta_{ts,pq}$ and $w_{ts}=\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2-1}{d(\psi_{ts})^2+1}$. We define the walk-summability of a general graphical model as follows:
[**(Walk-summability of General Graphical Model)**]{}\
Given $\mathcal{W}$, a general pairwise graphical model is walk-summable, when $\rho(\mathcal{W}\mathcal{M})<1$.\[def:walk-summable general\]
Like that for binary graphs, the walk-summability of a general graph is also related with the convergence of LBP. [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07 Theorem 4] present a convergence condition for general graphical model: LBP converges to a unique fixed point, when spectral radius $\rho(\mathcal{W}\mathcal{M})<1$. When factors in [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07] correspond to pairwise potential functions, $d(\psi_{ts})^2=\sup_{x_t,x_s,\hat{x}_t,\hat{x}_s}\sqrt{\frac{\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)\psi_{ts}(\hat{x}_t,\hat{x}_s)}{\psi_{ts}(\hat{x}_t,x_s)\psi_{ts}(x_t,\hat{x}_s)}}$. Therefore, the convergence condition is equivalent to the walk-summability of the graphical model with the interaction coefficient matrix $\mathcal{W}\mathcal{M}$.
Our non-uniform convergence condition in Theorem \[theo:nonuniform convergence\] is better than Theorem 4 in [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07], or walk-summable condition in Definition \[def:walk-summable general\].\[lemma:compare with walk-sum\]
Let $A=\mathcal{W}\mathcal{M}$. $\rho(A)<1$ is equivalent to $\|A^{N}\|_1<1,N\rightarrow\infty$ ( [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07]). $(A^{N})_{i\rightarrow
j,k\rightarrow l}$ is the summation of all the weighted walks from edge $i\rightarrow j$ to $k\rightarrow l$, including backtracking walks. However, the walk-sum in for a $N$-level Bethe tree does not include backtracking walks; thus, it is smaller than $\|A^{N}\|_1$. Therefore, our non-uniform convergence condition in Theorem \[theo:nonuniform convergence\] is milder than $\rho(A)<1$, or walk-summable condition, which is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:tightness\_nonuniform\](a).
By ”milder", we mean the set satisfying the sufficient convergence condition is bigger. Since our non-uniform convergence condition is derived from [@ihler05b Theorem 14] and they are equivalent for infinite Bethe tree, [@ihler05b Theorem 14] is better than [@MooijKappen_IEEETIT_07 Theorem 4]. When the convergence condition based on $N$-level Bethe tree is satisfied, the convergence condition based on infinite Bethe tree must be satisfied, because the error bounds are guaranteed to decrease after $N$ iterations of error propagation. Similarly, convergence condition based on $N$-level Bethe tree is milder than that based on SAW tree. Therefore, we obtain mildness of convergence conditions **, which is shown in Fig. \[fig:tightness\_nonuniform\](b).
In the following, we will analyze the performance of LBP with respect to accuracy and convergence rate.
Accuracy Bounds for Loopy Belief Propagation {#sec:accuracy}
============================================
Recently, [@ihler07b] presented an accuracy bound for LBP which relates the belief of a random variable to its true marginal. He showed that there exists a configuration on some nodes of the SAW tree rooted at certain node $s$ of the original graph, such that the true maginal at node $s$ of the original graph is equal to the belief at root $s$ of the SAW tree. Therefore, given certain external force functions on a subset of nodes, he adopted the non-uniform distance bound in [@ihler05b Thm. 14] to obtain an accuracy bound between beliefs and true marginals.
Given $d(p(x)/b(x))\leq\delta$, his accuracy bound is as follows: $$\frac{b(x)}{\delta^2+(1-\delta^2)b(x)}\leq
p(x)\leq\frac{\delta^2b(x)}{1-(1-\delta^2)b(x)},\label{eq:Ihler
accuracy bd}$$ where $\delta$ is an error bound in dynamic-range measure, $p(x)$ is the normalized true marginal and $b(x)$ is the normalized belief. Note that $\delta$ in [@ihler07b Lemma 5] should be $\delta^2$.
Because our [*improved non-uniform distance bound*]{} has been shown tighter than his non-uniform bound, we can improve his accuracy bound between the belief and the true marginal. Let $\max_{x}|\log{p(x)/b(x)}|\leq\log{\varepsilon}$, where $\varepsilon$ is an error bound in maximum-error measure applying our Corollary \[coro:nonuniform distance\], under certain external force functions on a subset of nodes of a SAW tree. Therefore, we have the accuracy bound as $b(x)/\varepsilon\leq
p(x)\leq\varepsilon b(x)$, where $\varepsilon<\delta^2$. Combining our accuracy bound with the bound in , we have the improved bound $$\max\{b(x)/\varepsilon,\frac{b(x)}{\delta^2+(1-\delta^2)b(x)}\}\leq
p(x)\leq\min\{\varepsilon
b(x),\frac{\delta^2b(x)}{1-(1-\delta^2)b(x)}\}.$$
Rate of Convergence and Residual Scheduling {#sec:residual scheduling}
===========================================
For an iterative algorithm such as LBP, the rate of convergence is an important criteria of performance. We will analyze the convergence rate of LBP by looking into the gradient of error bounds on messages. The error bound-variation function $G_{sp}(\log{\varepsilon})$ in is a measure of the variation of error bounds between successive iterations; on the other hand, it reflects how fast LBP converges, because the smaller $G_{sp}(\log{\varepsilon})$ is, the faster error bounds tighten. Because dynamic-range measure is better than maximum-error measure in terms of convergence of LBP, we will use the following error bound-variation function: $$G_{sp}(\log{\varepsilon})=\log{\prod_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2\varepsilon+1}{d(\psi_{ts})^2+\varepsilon}}-\log{\varepsilon},$$ where $\varepsilon$ is an error bound in dynamic-range measure on incoming error product. We will use the first derivative of the function as a metric on the rate of convergence: $$G_{sp}^{(1)}(\log{\varepsilon})=\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\frac{\varepsilon((d(\psi_{ts})^4-1)}{(d(\psi_{ts})^2\varepsilon+1)(d(\psi_{ts})^2+\varepsilon)}-1.$$ Recall that $G_{sp}^{(1)}(\log{\varepsilon})$ should be less than zero to ensure convergence. When we have infinitesimal error disturbance, $|G_{sp}^{(1)}(0)|$ will be used as a local rate of convergence. Because our rate of convergence varies on each direction of message passing, messages on the direction with the greatest rate will be updated prior to others in dynamic scheduling.
Some works have been done to utilize message residuals as a way of priority in dynamic scheduling by [@Elidan06] and [@Sutton07]. Rather than calculating future message residuals, [@Sutton07] utilized their upper-bounds as estimates of message residuals in their scheduling algorithm [*RBP0L*]{}. They adopted maximum-error measure as a metric of message residuals, which was defined by them as $r(m_{ts})=\max_{x_{s}}|\log{e_{ts}(x_s)}|$. They showed that by the contraction property of maximum-error measure it can be upper-bounded as $r(m_{ts})\leq\sum_{u\in\Gamma_{t}\backslash
s}r(m_{ut})$. However, their upper-bound is not theoretically sound, because they ignored the normalization factor in their proof. Therefore, we can modify their [*RBP0L*]{} by utilizing our upper-bound in .
Fixed Points and Message Errors for Uniform Binary Graphs {#sec:uniform graph}
=========================================================
[@MooijKappen_JSTAT_05] analyzed the phase transition for binary graphs based on Hessian of Bethe free energy. They presented ferromagnetic interactions, antiferromagnetic interactions and spin-glass interactions, by analyzing stability of paramagnetic fixed point and other stable or unstable fixed points. [@NIPS2009_Yusuke] obtained several interesting results on binary graphs based on edge zeta function and Bethe free energy. They stated that Bethe free energy is never convex for any connected graph with at least two linearly independent cycles. They also stated that the number of the fixed points of LBP is always odd for binary graphs. We will analyze the behavior of fixed points of LBP based on message updating function directly.
In Section \[sec:bounds belief\], we discussed uniform and non-uniform distance bounds on beliefs. An error bound-variation function was introduced to study the variation of error bounds between successive iterations. However, to study the mechanism behind message passing, we are more interested to know the variation of true errors. Since it is usually hard to formulate the true error-variation function for general graphical models, in this section, we will only explore true error variation functions for binary graphs.
Let us first introduce a well-studied binary graph – Ising model. The probability measure of Ising model can be expressed as: $$P(x)=\frac{1}{Z}\exp{(\sum_{(s,t)\in\mathbb{E}}J_{st}x_sx_t+\sum_{s\in\mathbb{V}}
\theta_s x_s)},\label{eq:Ising}$$ corresponding to $\psi_{st}(x_s,x_t)=\exp{(J_{st}x_sx_t)}$ and $\psi_s(x_s)=\exp{(\theta_s x_s)}$ in . Because $\{x_s\}$ are $\pm1$-valued, potential functions can also be expressed as $\begin{pmatrix}\exp{(J_{st})}&\exp{(-J_{st})}\\\exp{(-J_{st})}&\exp{(J_{st})}\end{pmatrix}$ and $\begin{pmatrix}\exp{(\theta_s)}\\\exp{(-\theta_s)}\end{pmatrix}$. However, rather than working on the Ising model, we will study a more simple model. We call it completely uniform model (uniform connectivity, uniform potential functions), which has the pairwise potential functions $\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\b&a\end{pmatrix}$ and single-node potential functions $\begin{pmatrix}c\\d\end{pmatrix}$, where $a,b,c,d$ are positive. Similar to , we will put single-node potential functions into beliefs and only discuss the influence of pairwise potential functions on message errors. We can easily find that a completely uniform graph has uniform messages.
For a completely uniform graphical model, when synchronous LBP reaches a steady state, all messages are the same.\[prop:steady state\]
Completely uniform graphs are topologically invariant for each node. In other words, each message has the same LBP update equation. If some messages are different, for the symmetric network, LBP will not reach a steady state.
Because all messages have the same LBP update equation, we can calculate the fixed-point messages exactly and discuss the distances between them.
Fixed Points and Quasi-Fixed Points
-----------------------------------
Let us first discuss fixed-point messages for completely uniform graphs. Assume the degree of each node is $k$. Let $m_{out}=\begin{pmatrix} y\\1-y
\end{pmatrix}$ denote the outgoing message and $m_{in}=\begin{pmatrix} x\\1-x \end{pmatrix}$ denote each incoming message. Therefore, we have the following LBP updating function: $$y=F(x)=\frac{ax^k+b(1-x)^k}{(a+b)(x^k+(1-x)^k)}.\label{eq:binary
message}$$ We can easily find that is symmetric with respect to the point $(x=0.5,y=0.5)$. Synchronous LBP update corresponds to the fixed-point iteration function $x_{n+1}=F(x_n)$, where $n$ is the iteration number. When $x_{n+1}=x_{n}$, LBP message reaches a [*fixed point*]{}. However, we sometimes have $x_{n+k}=x_{n}$ or $F^k(x)=x$, where $F^k(x)$ is the composition function of $F(x)$ with itself $k$ times, which shows $k$th-order periodicity. We define the solutions to $F^k(x)=x,k>1$ as [*quasi-fixed points*]{}, when a belief network will oscillate. In the following, we will show that LBP for completely uniform binary graphs will have at most second order periodicity.
LBP updating function in has at most three real fixed points.\[prop:three fixed points\]
The second derivative of $F(x)$ is as follows: when $a>b$ $$F^{(2)}(x)=((2x-k-1)x^k+(2x+k-1)(1-x)^k)\times\frac{k(a-b)x^{k-2}(1-x)^{k-2}}{(a+b)(x^k+(1-x)^k)^3}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}
>0,x\in(0,0.5)\\<0,x\in(0.5,1)\\=0,x=0,1,0.5\end{array}\right..$$ We can see that $F(x)$ is strictly convex when $0<x<0.5$ and strictly concave when $0.5<x<1$. Similarly, for $a<b$, $F(x)$ is strictly concave when $0<x<0.5$ and strictly convex when $0.5<x<1$. When this function intersects with an arbitrary line, there must be at most three crossing points. As shown in Fig. \[fig:binary LBP\](a), it must have at most three crossings with $y=x$; similarly with $y=1-x$ in Fig. \[fig:binary LBP\](b).
![LBP updating function in for $a>b$ and $a<b$.[]{data-label="fig:binary LBP"}](figure9.eps){height="5.14" width="10.94"}
This property conforms to the analysis of [@MooijKappen_JSTAT_05] and [@NIPS2009_Yusuke]. We will show the symmetry of fixed-point messages for uniform binary graphs as follows.
For a completely uniform binary graph, synchronous LBP will either converge to the unique fixed point $\begin{pmatrix}0.5\\0.5\end{pmatrix}$ (paramagnetic fixed point), or converge to one of $\begin{pmatrix}x^*\\1-x^*\end{pmatrix}$ and $\begin{pmatrix}1-x^*\\x^*\end{pmatrix}$ when $a>b$ (ferromagnetic), or oscillate between $\begin{pmatrix}x^*\\1-x^*\end{pmatrix}$ and $\begin{pmatrix}1-x^*\\x^*\end{pmatrix}$ when $a<b$ (anti-ferromagnetic). When $a>b$, $x^*$ is the solution to $x^*=F(x^*)$; otherwise, $x^*$ is the solution to $1-x^*=F(x^*)$.\[prop:fixed or oscilloate\]
The proof appears in Appendix A.
From the previous property, we can conclude that completely uniform binary graphs will have at most second order periodicity. In other words, $F^{2n}(x)=x\Leftrightarrow F^{2}(x)=x$ and $F^{2n-1}(x)=x\Leftrightarrow F(x)=x$.
Let us calculate the fixed points and quasi-fixed points for the uniform graph in Fig. \[fig:graphs\](c) with $a=\eta$ and $b=1-\eta$. Solving $x=\frac{\eta
x^3+(1-\eta)(1-x)^3}{x^3+(1-x)^3}$ and $1-x=\frac{\eta
x^3+(1-\eta)(1-x)^3}{x^3+(1-x)^3}$ yields the fixed points and quasi-fixed points respectively, for the graph in Fig. \[fig:graphs\](c). Specifically, we can obtain four solutions of fixed points $\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{-2+\eta-\sqrt{-4+8\eta-3\eta^2}}{2(-2+\eta)},
\frac{-2+\eta+\sqrt{-4+8\eta-3\eta^2}}{2(-2+\eta)}\}$ and four solutions of quasi-fixed points $\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1+\eta-\sqrt{1-2\eta-3\eta^2}}{2(1+\eta)},
\frac{1+\eta+\sqrt{1-2\eta-3\eta^2}}{2(1+\eta)}\}$. When $\eta>2/3$, the graph has two real fixed points except $0.5$; when $\eta<1/3$, the graph has two real quasi-fixed points except $0.5$; when $1/3<\eta<2/3$, the graph has one real fixed point $0.5$. For instance, when $\eta=0.7$, we have two stable fixed points $(0.9071, 0.0929)$ and $(0.0929, 0.9071)$; when $\eta=0.3$, we have two quasi-fixed points $(0.9071, 0.0929)$ and $(0.0929,
0.9071)$. We observe that both cases have the same strength of potential function $d(\psi)^2=0.7/0.3$, though their dynamic characteristics are different.
Based on Property \[prop:fixed or oscilloate\], we find that for completely uniform graphs, the maximum multiplicative error and the minimum multiplicative error between two fixed-point messages are reciprocal. In other words, $d(e(x))=\max{e(x)}$. Therefore, compared to our [*uniform distance bound*]{} in Corollary \[coro:uniform distance bd\], we have a tighter distance bound as follows.
[ **(Uniform Distance Bound for Completely Uniform Binary Graph)**]{}\
$\mathbb{G}(\mathbb{V},\mathbb{E})$ is a completely uniform binary graphical model. The log-distance bound on beliefs at node $s$ is $$\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s}\log\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2
\varepsilon+1}{d(\psi_{ts})^2+\varepsilon},$$ where $\varepsilon$ should satisfy $$\log{\varepsilon}=\max_{(s,p)\in
\mathbb{E}}\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\log{\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2\varepsilon+1}{d(\psi_{ts})^2+\varepsilon}}.$$\[coro:uniform distance bd completely uniform graph\]
$\log\max E_s=\log d(E_s)\leq\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s}\log d(e_{ts})\leq
\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s}\log\frac{d(\psi_{ts})^2\varepsilon+1}{d(\psi_{ts})^2+\varepsilon}$.
For the uniform graph in Fig. \[fig:graphs\](c), when $\eta=0.7$, we have the true log-distance equal to $2.2785$, while our previous log-distance bound in Corollary \[coro:uniform distance bd completely uniform graph\] obtains $2.2785$, which is exactly equal to the true value, and our [*Improved-UDB*]{} in Corollary 7 obtains $2.3318$.
True Error-Variation Function
-----------------------------
. $a=0.7$, $b=0.3$. The fixed-point messages are: $M=(0.8467,0.1533)$, $M=(0.1533,0.8467)$ and $M=(0.5,0.5)$.[]{data-label="fig:true variation"}](figure10.eps){height="8.18" width="11.09"}
In this section, we characterize the true error-variation function for a completely uniform binary graph. We have the following message updating equation: $$\begin{pmatrix} m e^{out}_1\\(1-m)e^{out}_2\end{pmatrix}=\frac{1}{a+b}\begin{pmatrix}
a&b\\b&a\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}M
E^{in}_1\\(1-M)E^{in}_2\end{pmatrix},$$ where $M$ is the product of fixed-point incoming messages, $m$ is the fixed-point outgoing message, $E^{in}$ represents the product of incoming errors and $e^{out}$ represents the outgoing error. Assuming $E^{in}$ is the same for each node at a level on the Bethe tree, we have the following error equation: $$\begin{pmatrix}E^{out}_1\\E^{out}_2\end{pmatrix}=\frac{(aM+b(1-M))^k+(bM+a(1-M))^k}{(aME^{in}_1+b(1-M)E^{in}_2)^k+(bME^{in}_1+a(1-M)E^{in}_2)^k}\begin{pmatrix}\frac{(aME^{in}_1+b(1-M)E^{in}_2)^k}{(aM+b(1-M))^k}\\\frac{(bME^{in}_1+a(1-M)E^{in}_2)^k}{(bM+a(1-M))^k}\end{pmatrix},$$ where $E^{out}$ is the product of outgoing errors flowing into a node at the upper level.
When $E^{in}_1>E^{in}_2$ and $a>b$, we have $E^{out}_1>E^{out}_2$. Therefore, letting $E$ denote $E^{in}_1$, we obtain the true error variation function: $$G(log(E))=\log\max{E^{out}}-\log\max{E^{in}}$$ $$=\log{(\frac{(aME+b(1-ME))^k}{(aM+b(1-M))^k}\cdot\frac{(aM+b(1-M))^k+(bM+a(1-M))^k}{(aME+b(1-ME))^k+(bME+a(1-ME))^k})}-\log{E},\label{eq:true
error bd}$$ when $1<E<1/M$ and $a>b$.
An example of the true error variation function is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:true variation\] for the graphical model in Fig. \[fig:graphs\] (c). The curve of the error variation function $G(\log{E})$ in Equation varies with the choice of $M$. The black curve corresponds to $G(\log{E})$ for $M = (0.5, 0.5)$, while the blue curve corresponds to $G(\log{E})$ for $M = (0.8467, 0.1533)$ or $M =
(0.1533, 0.8467)$. Since $G^{(1)}(\infty) = -1$, when $G(\log{E})$ does not cross the horizontal axis except the point at $\log{E}=0$, we have $G(\log{E})<0$ for $\log{E}>0$. In other words, $\log{E}$ will eventually decrease to zero and LBP converges to a unique fixed point. However, when $G(\log{E})$ crosses the horizontal axis besides $\log{E}=0$, $\log{E}$ will eventually stay at stable points, in which case, the product of the incoming errors at one level of Bethe tree equals the product of the incoming errors at its upper level. In other words, errors will not decrease after one LBP update. In Fig. \[fig:true variation\], for the black curve, when $\log{E}$ leaves zero, it will eventually stay at $A$. For the blue curve in Fig. \[fig:true variation\], when $\log{E}$ is between zero and the value at point $B$, it will decrease and finally stay at zero; when $\log{E}$ is bigger than the value at point $B$, it will increase and finally stay at point $C$. We can see that point $B$ is an unstable point.
From the example in Fig. \[fig:true variation\], we can observe that the zero-crossing points of $\log{E}$ correspond to the exact log distances between two fixed-point messages. Specifically, the value at point $A$ is equal to the maximal log distance between $M
= (0.8467, 0.1533)$ and $M = (0.5, 0.5)$, and the value at point $B$ is equal to the maximal log distance between $M = (0.5, 0.5)$ and $M = (0.1533, 0.8467)$, and the value at point $C$ is equal to the maximal log distance between $M = (0.8467, 0.1533)$ and $M =
(0.1533, 0.8467)$. Therefore, our true error function in Equation characterizes the true distance between fixed points, when LBP does not converge.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we presented tighter error bounds on Loopy Belief Propagation (LBP) and used these bounds to study the dynamics—error, convergence, accuracy, and scheduling—of the sum-product algorithm. Specifically, we derived tight upper- and lower-bounds on error propagation in synchronous belief networks. We subsequently relied on these bounds to provide uniform and non-uniform distance bounds for the sum-product algorithm. We then used the distance bounds to obtain uniform and non-uniform sufficient conditions for convergence of the sum-product algorithm. We investigated the relation between convergence of LBP with sparsity and walk-summability of graphical models. We also showed that upper-bounds on message errors can be utilized to determine a priority for scheduling in sequential belief propagation. Moreover, we studied the accuracy of the bounds on the sum-product algorithm based on our error bounds. We also presented a case study of LBP by characterizing the dynamics of the sum-product algorithm for completely uniform graphs and analyzed its fixed and quasi-fixed (oscillatory) points.
Appendix A. Detailed Proofs {#app:theorem .unnumbered}
===========================
**Proof of Theorem \[theo:error upper&lower\]**
We use [*maximum multiplicative error*]{} function as an error measure: $$\max_{x_s} e^{i+1}_{ts}(x_{s})=\max_{x_s}
\frac{\int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)E^i_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\int\psi_{t\star}(x_t)M_{ts}(x_t)E^i_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}\times
\frac{\int\psi_{t\star}(x_t)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t},$$ where $\psi_{t\star}(x_t) = \int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)dx_s$. The [*minimum multiplicative error*]{} function $\min_{x_s}
e^{i+1}_{ts}(x_{s})$ is also used as an error measure in this theorem. Some assumptions throughout this proof are: $\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)$ is positive; message product $M_{ts}(x_t)$ and polluted message product $M_{ts}(x_t)E^i_{ts}(x_t)$ are positive and normalized.
We use the same framework of proof as that in [@ihler05b Thm. 8]. Let us first introduce a lemma that will be used in our proof.
For $f_1,f_2,g_1,g_2$ all positive, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{f_1+f_2}{g_1+g_2}\leq\max[\frac{f_1}{g_1},\frac{f_2}{g_2}],\quad\frac{f_1+f_2}{g_1+g_2}\geq\min[\frac{f_1}{g_1},\frac{f_2}{g_2}].\end{aligned}$$\[lemma:sum fraction upper lower\]
The left inequality is proved in [@ihler05b]. Let us restate it here. Assume without loss of generality that $f_1/g_1\geq
f_2/g_2$ so that $f_1 g_2\geq f_2 g_1\Rightarrow f_1 g_2+f_1
g_1\geq f_2 g_1+f_1 g_1\Rightarrow
\frac{f_1}{g_1}\geq\frac{f_1+f_2}{g_1+g_2}$. For the right inequality assume without loss of generality that $f_1/g_1\leq
f_2/g_2$ so that $f_1 g_2\leq f_2 g_1\Rightarrow f_1 g_2+f_1
g_1\leq f_2 g_1+f_1 g_1\Rightarrow
\frac{f_1}{g_1}\leq\frac{f_1+f_2}{g_1+g_2}$.
Similar to the analysis in [@ihler05b Lemma 26],we need the following lemma to assist our proof. In the following, we shall omit reference to the iteration number of the messages and errors for simplicity and clarity of the presentation.
The maximum of $\max_{x_s} e_{ts}(x_{s})$ or the minimum of $\min_{x_s} e_{ts}(x_{s})$ is attained when $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)=1+(d(\psi_{ts})^2-1)\chi_\psi(x_t),
\quad\psi_{t\star}(x_t)=1+(d(\psi_{t\star})^2-1)\chi_\star(x_t)\\
&E_{ts}(x_t)=1+(d(E_{ts})^2-1)\chi_E(x_t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_\psi$, $\chi_\star$ and $\chi_E$ are indicator functions.\[lemma:max attained at extreme psi\]
Let $\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)=\alpha_1\psi_{1}(x_t,x_s)+\alpha_2\psi_{2}(x_t,x_s)$,where $\alpha_1\geq0$,$\alpha_2\geq0$, $\alpha_1+\alpha_2=1$. In other words,$\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)$ is a convex combination of two arbitrary positive functions $\psi_{1}(x_t,x_s)$ and $\psi_{2}(x_t,x_s)$. Thus, by applying Lemma \[lemma:sum fraction upper lower\], we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\alpha_1\int\psi_{1}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)E_{ts}(x_t)dx_t+\alpha_2\int\psi_{2}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)E_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\alpha_1\int\psi_{1}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t+\alpha_2\int\psi_{2}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}\\
\leq\max[\frac{\int\psi_{1}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)E_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\int\psi_{1}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t},\frac{\int\psi_{2}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)E_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\int\psi_{2}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}].\end{aligned}$$ We find that $\max_{x_s} e_{ts}(x_{s})$ is maximized when we take the maximum of the RHS expression in the previous inequality. Let us scale $\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)$ so that the minimal value of the function is $1$. Thus, $\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)$ can be composed by a convex combination of functions which have the form $1+(d(\psi_{ts})^2-1)\chi_\psi(x_t)$, where $\chi_\psi(x_t)$ is an indicator function. We can find that the $\max_{x_s}
e_{ts}(x_{s})$ is maximized when $\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)=1+(d(\psi_{ts})^2-1)\chi_\psi(x_t)$. Similar are the proofs for $\psi_{t\star}(x_t)$ and $E_{ts}(x_t)$.
To minimize the $\min_{x_s} e_{ts}(x_{s})$, by applying Lemma \[lemma:sum fraction upper lower\], we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\alpha_1\int\psi_{1}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)E_{ts}(x_t)dx_t+\alpha_2\int\psi_{2}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)E_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\alpha_1\int\psi_{1}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t+\alpha_2\int\psi_{2}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}\\
\geq\min[\frac{\int\psi_{1}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)E_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\int\psi_{1}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t},\frac{\int\psi_{2}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)E_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\int\psi_{2}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}].\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, by constructing the potential function $\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)$ as a convex combination of functions of the form $1+(d(\psi_{ts})^2-1)\chi_\psi(x_t)$, where $\chi_\psi(x_t)$ is an indicator function, we can find that $\min_{x_s}
e_{ts}(x_{s})$ is minimized when $\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s))$ is one of these functions. Similar are the proofs for $\psi_{t\star}(x_t)$ and $E_{ts}(x_t)$.
So we have $\max_{x_s} e_{ts}(x_{s})$ is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{\int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)E_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\int\psi_{t\star}(x_t)M_{ts}(x_t)E_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}\times
\frac{\int\psi_{t\star}(x_t)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\int\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}\\
&&=\frac{\int(1+(d(\psi_{ts})^2-1)\chi_\psi(x_t))M_{ts}(x_t)(1+(d(E_{ts})^2-1)\chi_E(x_t))dx_t}{\int(1+(d(\psi_{t\star})^2-1)\chi_\star(x_t))M_{ts}(x_t)(1+(d(E_{ts})^2-1)\chi_E(x_t))dx_t}\\
&&\times\frac{\int(1+(d(\psi_{t\star})^2-1)\chi_\star(x_t))M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}{\int(1+(d(\psi_{ts})^2-1)\chi_\psi(x_t))M_{ts}(x_t)dx_t}.\end{aligned}$$ Define the quantities: $$\begin{aligned}
&M_A =\int M_{ts}(x_t)\chi_\psi(x_t)d x_t,\quad M_B =\int
M_{ts}(x_t)\chi_\star(x_t)d x_t,\quad M_E =\int
M_{ts}(x_t)\chi_E(x_t)d
x_t,\\
&M_{AE} =\int M_{ts}(x_t)\chi_\psi(x_t)\chi_E(x_t)d x_t,\quad M_{BE} =\int M_{ts}(x_t)\chi_\star(x_t)\chi_E(x_t)dx_t,\\
&\alpha_1 =d(\psi_{ts})^2-1,\quad
\alpha_2=d(\psi_{t\star})^2-1,\quad \beta=d(E_{ts})^2-1.\end{aligned}$$ The maximum multiplicative error $\max_{x_s} e_{ts}(x_s)$ is upper-bounded by $\Delta_1$ where $$\Delta_1 = \max_{M}\frac{1+\alpha_1 M_A+\beta M_E+\alpha_1\beta
M_{AE}}{1+\alpha_2 M_B+\beta M_E+\alpha_2\beta
M_{BE}}\,\frac{1+\alpha_2 M_B}{1+\alpha_1 M_A}.$$ The maximum is obtained when $M_{AE}=M_A=M_E=1-M_B$ and $M_{BE}=0$, which gives $$\Delta_1 =
\max_{M_E}\frac{1+(\alpha_1+\beta+\alpha_1\beta)M_E}{1+\alpha_2+(\beta-\alpha_2)M_E}
\,\frac{1+\alpha_2-\alpha_2M_E}{1+\alpha_1 M_E}.$$ Taking the derivative wrt $M_E$ and setting it to zero, we obtain $$\max_{x_s} e_{ts}(x_s)\leq \Delta_1 =
\left(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})d(E_{ts})+1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+d(E_{ts})}\right)^2.$$
Similarly to what we have done so far, we can lower-bound $\min_{x_s} e_{ts}(x_{s})$ with respect to $\psi_{ts}(x_t,x_s)$, $\psi_{t\star}(x_t)$ and $E_{ts}(x_t)$, to obtain $$\min_{x_s}
e_{ts}(x_s)\geq\left(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+d(E_{ts})}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})d(E_{ts})+1}\right)^2=\frac{1}{\Delta_1}.$$
**Proof of Corollary \[coro:uniform distance bd\]**
Let $\Delta_{ut}(x)=(\frac{d(\psi_{ut})d(\psi_{u\star})x+1}{d(\psi_{ut})d(\psi_{u\star})+x})^2,x\geq1,ut\in\mathbb{E}$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
d(E_{ts}^i)\leq\prod_{u\in\Gamma_t\backslash
s}d(e_{ut}^i)=\prod_{u\in\Gamma_t\backslash
s}\frac{\max\sqrt{e_{ut}^i(x_t)}}{\min\sqrt{e_{ut}^i(x_t)}}\leq\varepsilon_{ts}^i=\prod_{u\in\Gamma_t\backslash
s}\Delta_{ut}(d(E_{ut}^{i-1})).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{x_s}E_{sp}^{i+1}(x_s)\leq\prod_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\max_{x_s}e_{ts}^{i+1}(x_s)\leq\varepsilon_{sp}^{i+1}=\prod_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\Delta_{ts}(d(E_{ts}^i))\\
&\leq\prod_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\Delta_{ts}(\varepsilon_{ts}^{i})\leq\prod_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\Delta_{ts}(\max_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\varepsilon_{ts}^{i})=\Delta_3(\max_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\varepsilon_{ts}^{i}).\end{aligned}$$
The term $\varepsilon_{sp}^{i+1}$ is an upper-bound on the incoming error product $E_{sp}^{i+1}(x_s)$ at iteration $i+1$, while $\max_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash p}\varepsilon_{ts}^{i}$ is the maximum of the upper-bounds on the incoming error products $\{E_{ts}^{i}(x_t),t\in\Gamma_s\backslash p\}$ at iteration $i$. We hope to achieve that $\varepsilon_{sp}^{i+1}<\max_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\varepsilon_{ts}^{i}$. Denoting $\varepsilon=\max_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash p}\varepsilon_{ts}^{i}$, let us introduce an [*error bound-variation function*]{}: $$G_{sp}(\log{\varepsilon})=\log
\Delta_3(\varepsilon)-\log{\varepsilon}\geq\log\varepsilon_{sp}^{i+1}-\log\max_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\varepsilon_{ts}^{i},\varepsilon\geq 1,$$ which describes variation of error bound after each iteration. When $G_{sp}(\log{\varepsilon})=0$, the log-distance bound $\log{\varepsilon}$ will reach a fixed point, which is the maximal distance between message products at various iterations. Because $G_{sp}^{(2)}(\log{\varepsilon})<0$ for $\log{\varepsilon}>0$ and $G_{sp}^{(1)}(\infty)=-1/2$, $G_{sp}^{(1)}(\log{\varepsilon})$ will decrease until it is equal to $-1/2$. Therefore, it only has one crossing point besides $\log{\varepsilon}=0$ (zero crossing point). This nonzero crossing point is a stable fixed point of function $G_{sp}(\log{\varepsilon})$. In other words, once $\log{\varepsilon}$ leaves the zero crossing point, it will stay at this stable crossing point, $\log{\varepsilon^*}$, which corresponds to the upper bound on error products.
Because the distance between fixed points of $B_s(x_s)$ is $$\log{E_s(x_s)}=\log{\prod_{t\in\Gamma_s}e_{ts}(x_s)}\leq
\log{\prod_{t\in\Gamma_s}\Delta_{ts}(\varepsilon^*)},$$ we can obtain the log-distance bound on $B_s(x_s)$ by taking the maximum $\varepsilon^*$.
**Proof of Theorem \[theo:uniform converge\]**
Let us revisit the [*error bound-variation function*]{} in Equation : $$G_{sp}(\log{\varepsilon})=\log{\prod_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}(\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})\varepsilon+1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+\varepsilon}})^2-\log{\varepsilon},$$ which describes the variation of the error bound after each iteration. To guarantee that LBP converges, it is sufficient to require $G_{sp}(\log{\varepsilon})<0,\forall \log{\varepsilon}>0$. Let $z=\log{\varepsilon}$. The second derivative of $G_{sp}(z)$ is $$G_{sp}^{(2)}(z)=2\times\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})e^z((d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star}))^2-1)(1-e^{2z})}{(d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})e^z+1)^2(d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+e^z)^2}\leq
0,$$ when $d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})>1$ and $z\geq 0$. When $z>0$, $G_{sp}(z)$ is strictly concave.
The first derivation of $G_{sp}(z)$ is $$G_{sp}^{(1)}(z)=2\times\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\frac{e^z((d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star}))^2-1)}{(d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})e^z+1)(d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+e^z)}-1.$$ Because $G_{sp}(z=0)=0$, if the first derivative $G_{sp}^{(1)}(z=0)<0$, we will have $G_{sp}(z>0)<0$. Therefore, $$G_{sp}^{(1)}(0)=2\times\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\frac{((d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star}))^2-1)}{(d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+1)(d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+1)}-1<0$$$$\Rightarrow\sum_{t\in\Gamma_s\backslash
p}\frac{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})-1}{d(\psi_{ts})d(\psi_{t\star})+1}<\frac{1}{2}.$$
**Proof of Theorem \[theo:nonuniform convergence\]**
Recall that in the proof of [*uniform convergence condition*]{}, we use an [*error bound-variation function*]{} $G_{sp}(\log{\varepsilon})$, which is originally to describe $(\log{\varepsilon_{sp}^{i+1}}-\log{\varepsilon_{ts}^{i}})$, for $\forall (s,p)\in \mathbb{E}$. For each $T(\mathbb{G},v)$, given $vu\in\mathbb{\bar{E}}$, let us introduce the following error bound-variation function: $$\begin{aligned}
&G_{vu}(\{\log{\varepsilon_{w_iv}}\},\log{\varepsilon})=\sum_{w_i\in\Gamma_{v}\backslash u}\log{\frac{d(\psi_{l(w_i)v})^2\varepsilon_{w_iv}+1}{d(\psi_{l(w_i)v})^2+\varepsilon_{w_iv}}}-\log{\varepsilon},\\
&\log{\varepsilon_{w_iv}}=\sum_{w_j\in\Gamma_{w_i}\backslash
v}\log{\frac{d(\psi_{l(w_j)l(w_i)})^2\varepsilon_{w_jw_i}+1}{d(\psi_{l(w_j)l(w_i)})^2+\varepsilon_{w_jw_i}}},\\
&...\\
&\log{\varepsilon_{w_qw_p}}=\sum_{w_r\in\Gamma_{w_q}\backslash
w_p}\log{\frac{d(\psi_{l(w_r)l(w_q)})^2\varepsilon+1}{d(\psi_{l(w_r)l(w_q)})^2+\varepsilon}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\{w_r\}$ is the set of leaf nodes of $T(\mathbb{G},v)$.
To guarantee LBP to converge, it is sufficient to have $G_{vu}(\log{\varepsilon})<0$ for $\forall \log{\varepsilon}>0$. Because $G_{vu}(\log{\varepsilon}=0)=0$, when $G_{vu}'(\log{\varepsilon}=0)<0$, we will definitely have $G_{vu}(0<\log{\varepsilon}<\delta)<0$, where $\delta$ is a small positive value. When $G_{vu}(\log{\varepsilon})$ is concave, $\delta$ can be infinity so that the convergence of LBP is true for $\forall \log{\varepsilon}>0$. However, because $G_{vu}(\log{\varepsilon})$ is not guaranteed to be concave, we will only obtain local convergence for an infinitesimal $\delta$.
Define $f_{w_jw_i}(\varepsilon_{w_jw_i})=\log{\frac{d(\psi_{l(w_j)l(w_i)})^2\varepsilon_{w_jw_i}+1}{d(\psi_{l(w_j)l(w_i)})^2+\varepsilon_{w_jw_i}}}$. Thus, we have the first derivative of\
$G_{vu}(\{\log{\varepsilon_{w_iv}}\},\log{\varepsilon})$ as follows: $$\frac{\partial
G_{vu}(\{\log{\varepsilon_{w_iv}}\},\log{\varepsilon})}{\partial
\log{\varepsilon}}=\sum_{w_i\in\Gamma_{v}\backslash
u}f_{w_iv}'\sum_{w_j\in\Gamma_{w_i}\backslash
v}f_{w_jw_i}'....\sum_{w_r\in\Gamma_{w_q}\backslash
w_p}f_{w_rw_q}'-1,$$ where $f'=\frac{\partial f(\log{\varepsilon})}{\partial
\log{\varepsilon}}=\frac{(d(\psi)^4-1)\varepsilon}{(d(\psi)^2\varepsilon+1)(d(\psi)^2+\varepsilon)}$. Plugging $\log{\varepsilon}=0$ into the previous equation, we obtain our non-uniform convergence condition.
**Proof of Property \[prop:fixed or oscilloate\]**
Let us analyze the fixed points by solving the set of equations
$$\begin{aligned}
y=F(x)\label{eq:y=f(x)}\\
x=F(y)\label{eq:x=f(y)}\end{aligned}$$
which corresponds to second order periodicity $x=F^2(x)$. The set of equations is depicted in Fig. \[fig:binary LBP\] for $a>b$ and $a<b$ respectively. We can easily find that $F(x)$ and $F(y)$ are symmetric with respect to $y=x$. Moreover, because $F(x)$ is symmetric about the point $(0.5,0.5)$, we have $F(1-x)=1-F(x)$. Therefore, it is easy to see that $F(x)$ and $F(y)$ are also symmetric with respect to $y=1-x$. Let us check whether the two functions are symmetric with respect to other lines such as $y=\beta+\alpha x$. Substitute $y=\beta+\alpha x$ and $x=\frac{1}{\alpha}(y-\beta)$ in . We have $\beta+\alpha
x=\frac{a(y-\beta)^k+b(\alpha-(y-\beta))^k}{(a+b)((y-\beta)^k+(\alpha-(y-\beta))^k)}$. For this equation to be always equivalent to , we have $(\alpha=1,\beta=0)$ or $(\alpha=-1,\beta=1)$. Thus, the set of equations is only symmetric with respect to $y=x$ and $y=1-x$.
When $y=F(x)$ and $x=F(y)$ intersect, they must have crossing points on $y=x$ or $y=1-x$. In the following, we will show that they do not cross elsewhere. When $a>b$, let us assume these two functions have one crossing point [*A*]{} not on $y=x$ and $y=1-x$, which is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:binary LBP\] (a). Due to the symmetry between $F(x)$ and $F(y)$, they must have the other three crossing points $B,C$ and $D$ shown in Fig. \[fig:binary LBP\] (a) respectively. Both functions must go through those points. The first derivative of $F(x)$ is $F^{(1)}(x)=\frac{k(a-b)x^{k-1}(1-x)^{k-1}}{(a+b)((1-x)^k+x^k)^2}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}
>0,a>b\\<0,a<b\end{array}\right.$, which shows that function $F(x)$ is either monotonic increasing or monotonic decreasing. Because $y_B<y_A$, when $x_B>x_A$, we arrive at a contradiction with the monotonic increasing property under the condition $a>b$. Similar result is for $a<b$. According to Property \[prop:three fixed points\], $y=F(x)$ and $x=F(y)$ have at most three real crossings points with an arbitrary line. Therefore, we can see that the set of equations will have at most three crossing points with either $y=x$ or $y=1-x$.
The set of equations in and has a naive fixed point $(0.5, 0.5)$. However, it is only stable when the set of equations crosses nowhere else on $y=x$ and $y=1-x$. When $a>b$ and $F^{(1)}(\frac{1}{2})=\frac{k(a-b)}{(a+b)}>1$, we can see that the belief network will either converge at fixed point E or at fixed point F on $y=x$ in Fig.\[fig:binary LBP\] (a). In this case, the fixed point at $x=0.5$ is an unstable point. When $a<b$ and $F^{(1)}(\frac{1}{2})<-1$, the belief network will eventually oscillate between E and F on $y=1-x$, which is shown in Fig. \[fig:binary LBP\] (b). The fixed point at $x=0.5$ is again an unstable fixed point. Because $F(x)$ is symmetric with respect to $(x=0.5,y=0.5)$, points E and F are symmetric with respect to $(x=0.5,y=0.5)$.
0.2in
[^1]: A preliminary version of some of the error bounds presented in this paper has appeared in [@Shi2009].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Within the general setting of algebraic quantum field theory, a new approach to the analysis of the physical state space of a theory is presented; it covers theories with long range forces, such as quantum electrodynamics. Making use of the notion of charge class, which generalizes the concept of superselection sector, infrared problems are avoided. In fact, on this basis one can determine and classify in a systematic manner the proper charge content of a theory, the statistics of the corresponding states and their spectral properties. A key ingredient in this approach is the fact that in real experiments the arrow of time gives rise to a Lorentz invariant infrared cutoff of a purely geometric nature.'
author:
- |
Detlev Buchholz\
Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Göttingen,\
37073 Göttingen, Germany
date: 'August 22, 2012'
title: |
New Light on Infrared Problems:\
Sectors, Statistics, Spectrum and All That[^1]
---
[[*Keywords:*]{} algebraic quantum field theory; infrared problem; charge classes; statistics; Lorentz covariance; energy–momentum spectrum]{}
Outline {#sec1}
=======
The understanding of the sector structure in quantum field theories with long range forces, such as quantum electrodynamics, is a longstanding problem. Its various aspects have received considerable attention in the past, cf. for example [@FrMoSt; @Bu1; @St; @Ha] and references quoted there. But a fully satisfactory solution has not yet been accomplished. We report here on a novel approach which has been developed in collaborations with Sergio Doplicher and John E. Roberts. It sheds new and promising light on this problem.
Recall that a superselection sector is a subspace of the Hilbert space of all states of finite energy on which the local observables of the theory act irreducibly; hence all superselected charges have sharp values and the superposition principle holds unrestrictedly in each sector. The presence of long range forces leads to an abundance of different sectors due to the multifarious formation of clouds of low energy massless particles; in fact their comprehensive analysis and classification is unfeasible. In the treatment of models this problem is frequently circumvented by some *ad hoc* selection of sectors, *e.g.* by choosing a specific physical gauge, and by an inclusive treatment of undetected low energy massless particles. This strategy is a meaningful workaround but it is clearly not a satisfactory conceptual solution of the problem.
In contrast, the sector structure is fully understood in theories describing only massive particles [@DoHaRo; @BuFr; @DoRo]. In these theories the sectors are in one-to-one correspondence to the dual of some compact group which is interpreted as global gauge group. Each sector has definite (para–Bose or para–Fermi) statistics and there always exist (cone) localized Bose and Fermi fields, respectively, which transform as tensors under the action of the gauge group and create the sectors from the vacuum state. Moreover, in spite of the possible non–locality of these fields, the spin–statistics theorem and the existence of collision states have been established in these theories. The arguments underlying these results fail, however, in the presence of long range forces [@Bu1].
Our resolution of this problem is based on the insight that the arrow of time enters in a fundamental way in the interpretation of the microscopic theory: since it is impossible to perform measurements in the past, the notion of superselection sector becomes physically meaningless in the presence of massless particles. As will be explained, it has to be replaced by the notion of charge class which is based on a natural equivalence relation between sectors [@Bu1]. We will focus attention here on the family of simple charge classes which covers the electric charge. It can be shown that there is a physically meaningful way to assign to each member of this family definite (Bose or Fermi) statistics, there always exists a corresponding conjugate charge class with the same statistics and the family of all simple charge classes determines a compact abelian gauge group. Moreover, there is a natural action of the Poincaré group on each charge class which is implemented by a unitary representation satisfying the relativistic spectrum condition. The generators of the time translations, however, do not have the familiar interpretation as global energy. In fact, they resemble the Liouvillians in Quantum Statistical Mechanics since they subsume in a gross manner energetic fluctuations of the infrared background.
Input
=====
The present approach applies to theories of local observables fitting into the general algebraic framework of quantum field theory [@Ha]. Any such theory provides an assignment (net) ${{\cal R}}\mapsto {{{\cal A}}}({{\cal R}})$ mapping spacetime regions ${{\cal R}}\subset {\mathbb R}^4$ to unital C\*–algebras ${{{\cal A}}}({{\cal R}})$ generated by the observables localized in the respective regions. The C\*–inductive limit of these local algebras is denoted by ${{\cal A}}$ and assumed to act on the defining vacuum Hilbert space ${{\cal H}}$ of the theory. The net satisfies the condition of locality (spacelike commutativity) $$[{{{\cal A}}}({{{\cal R}}}_1), \, {{{\cal A}}}({{{\cal R}}}_2)] = 0
\ \ \mbox{if} \ \ {{{\cal R}}}_1 \mbox{\Large $\times$} {{{\cal R}}}_2$$ and of covariant automorphic action $\alpha :
{\cal P}_+^\uparrow \rightarrow \mbox{Aut} \, {{\cal A}}$ of the Poincaré group ${\cal P}_+^\uparrow =
{\mathbb R}^4 \rtimes {\cal L}^\uparrow_+$, $$\alpha_{\lambda} \, {{{\cal A}}}({{{\cal R}}})
= {{{\cal A}}}({\lambda {{\cal R}}}) \, , \quad \lambda \in {\cal P}_+^\uparrow \, .$$ There is an, up to a phase unique, vector state $\Omega \in {{\cal H}}$ describing the vacuum and fixing a continuous unitary representation $U : {\cal P}_+^\uparrow \longrightarrow \ {{\cal U}}({{\cal H}})$ through the relation $$U(\lambda) \, A \, \Omega = \alpha_{\lambda}(A) \,
\Omega, \quad \lambda \in {\cal P}_+^\uparrow, \ A \in {{\cal A}}\, .$$ The subgroup of spacetime translations satisfies the spectrum condition, $\mbox{sp}\,U \upharpoonright
{\mathbb R}^4 \subset \overline{V}_+$. Thinking primarily of theories describing interactions of electromagnetic type, we assume that there exist massless single particle states in ${{\cal H}}$ (photons) and there is some mass threshold above which there appear pairs of massive particles carrying opposite charges (electron–positron pairs [*etc*]{}), cf. Fig. 1. The scattering states of photons are assumed to be asymptotically complete below this threshold [@Bu1].
Besides the states in the vacuum sector there exist other elementary states of physical interest, describing charged particles, atoms, ions, molecules, *etc*. We adopt here the convenient point of view that these states are described by suitable representations $\pi: {{\cal A}}\rightarrow {{\cal B}}({{\cal H}})$ acting all on the same (separable) Hilbert space ${{\cal H}}$. The (identical) vacuum representation is denoted by $\iota$.
**Selection criterion for states of interest:** The states of elementary systems are described by irreducible representations $(\pi, {{\cal H}})$ of ${{\cal A}}$ for which there is a continuous unitary representation $U_\pi: {\mathbb R}^4 \rightarrow {\cal U(H)}$ such that $\mbox{Ad} \, U_\pi(x) \circ \pi = \pi \circ \alpha_{x}$ (covariance) and $\mbox{sp}\,U_\pi \subset \overline{V}_+$ (stability).
Note that it is not required in this criterion that the Lorentz transformations are also implemented. Because this would exclude from the outset states carrying an electric charge [@Bu2]. On the other hand there is an abundance of disjoint representations satisfying this criterion which, however, differ only by unobservable infrared properties as will be explained next.
Charge classes
==============
Realistic experiments are performed in finite spacetime regions. Beginning at some appropriate spacetime point one performs preparations of states and measurements until sufficient data are taken. In principle, subsequent generations of experimentalists could continue the experiment into the distant future. Thus the maximal regions where data can be taken are future directed lightcones $V$ with arbitrary apex $(t_0, \! x_0)$, cf. Fig. 2. On the other hand it is impossible to make up for missed operations in the past of the initial point $(t_0, \! x_0)$. Hence, as a consequence of the “arrow of time”, it suffices for the comparison of theory and experiment to consider the restrictions of global states to the algebra ${{\cal A}}(V)$ of observables localized in any given future directed lightcone $V$. These restrictions are called partial states.
In massive theories the algebras ${{\cal A}}(V)$ are irreducible [@SaWo] and complete information about the underlying global states can be obtained in any lightcone $V$. The situation is markedly different, however, in the presence of massless particles [@Bu1]. This is so because outgoing radiation created in the past of $(t_0, \! x_0)$ has no observational effects in $V$ in accordance with Huygens’ principle. As a consequence, infrared clouds cannot sharply be discriminated by measurements in any given lightcone $V$ and the algebras ${{\cal A}}(V)$ are highly reducible; in fact, their weak closures ${{\cal A}}(V)^-$ are factors of type III${}_1$. Whereas the infrared sectors cannot be distinguished in any lightcone $V$, their total charge can be determined there. This follows from the fact that the charge is tied to massive particles which eventually enter $V$, unless they are annihilated in pairs carrying opposite charges. These heuristic considerations suggest to introduce the following equivalence relation [@Bu1].\
**Definition of charge classes:** Let $ (\pi_1, {{\cal H}})$, $(\pi_2, {{\cal H}})$ be representations satisfying the above selection criterion and let $V$ be any lightcone. The representations belong to the same charge class if their restrictions to ${{\cal A}}(V)$ are unitarily equivalent, $$\pi_1 \upharpoonright {{\cal A}}(V) \simeq \pi_2 \upharpoonright {{\cal A}}(V)
\, .$$
It can be shown that the charge classes do not depend on the choice of $V$; moreover, the restricted representations are primary, *i.e.* all charges which can be determined in $V$ have sharp values within a given charge class. We also note that the restricted representations can be reconstructed from the partial states. Thus only data which can be taken in $V$ are needed in order to fix the charge classes. We therefore propose to replace the notion of superselection sector by the (in the presence of massless particles more realistic) concept of charge class.
Charged morphisms
=================
In order to clarify the structure of the family of charge classes one has to understand their mutual relation. Given $V$, one can proceed from the partial states in the charge class of the vacuum to the partial states in a given charge class by limits of local operations in $V$. Heuristically, these operations may be thought of as creation of pairs of opposite charges on some given time shell, where the unwanted compensating charge is shifted to lightlike infinity; it thereby disappears in the spacelike complement of any relatively compact region in $V$. In order to control the energy required for these operations one has to localize them in broadening hypercones ${{\cal L}}$, cf. Fig. 3. (A hypercone is the causal completion of an open pointed convex cone formed by geodesics on some time shell in $V$.) These heuristic considerations are put into mathematically precise form as follows.
[**Assumption:**]{} Given a charge class, there exists for any hypercone ${{\cal L}}\subset V$ a sequence of inner automorphisms $\{ \sigma_n \in \text{\rm In} \, {{{\cal A}}}({{\cal L}}) \}_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$, induced by unitaries in ${{{\cal A}}}({{\cal L}})$, such that $$\rho_{{\cal L}}\doteq \mbox{w}-\lim_{n} \sigma_n \quad
\mbox{exists pointwise on}
\ \ {{\cal A}}(V)$$ and the adjoint of $\rho_{{\cal L}}$ maps the partial states in the charge class of the vacuum onto the partial states in the target charge class.
The properties of the limit maps are summarized in the following proposition.
For fixed charge class and any ${{\cal L}}\subset V$, let $\rho_{{\cal L}}: {{\cal A}}(V) \rightarrow {{\cal A}}(V)^-$ be the map defined above.
1. $\rho_{{\cal L}}$ is linear, symmetric and multiplicative
2. $\rho_{{\cal L}}\upharpoonright {{{\cal A}}}({{\cal R}}) = \iota$ if ${{\cal R}}\mbox{\Large $\times$} {{\cal L}}$
3. $ \rho_{{\cal L}}\, ({{{\cal A}}}({{\cal R}}))^- \subseteq
{{{\cal A}}}({{\cal R}})^{-}$ if ${{\cal R}}\supseteq {\cal L}$.
4. $\rho_{{{\cal L}}_1} \simeq \rho_{{{\cal L}}_2}$ for any pair of hypercones ${{\cal L}}_1, {{\cal L}}_2 \subset V$.
According to point (a) these maps define representations of the algebra ${{\cal A}}(V)$ for the given lightcone $V$. Points (b) and (c) encode the information that they arise from local operations in ${{\cal L}}$ and point (d) expresses the fact that infrared clouds, which are inevitably produced by the charge creating operations, cannot sharply be discriminated in $V$. In analogy to the terminology used in sector analysis, these maps are called (hypercone) localized morphisms.
We restrict attention here to the simplest, but physically important family of charge classes where in part (c) of the proposition equality holds for the corresponding morphisms. Then $\rho_{{\cal L}}({{\cal A}}(V))^- = {{\cal A}}(V)^-$ is a factor of type III${}_1$. Taking the fact into account that the space of normal states on such factors is homogeneous [@CoSt], *i.e.* the (adjoint) inner automorphisms of ${{\cal A}}(V)^-$ act almost transitively on normal states, it is meaningful to assume that there exist morphisms as in point (d) of the proposition which are related by unitary intertwiners in ${{\cal A}}(V)^-$. We summarize these features in the following definition.\
[**Definition of simple charge classes:**]{} A charge class is said to be simple if for any hypercone ${{\cal L}}\subset V$ there exist corresponding localized morphisms $\rho_{{\cal L}}$ such that
1. $ \rho_{{\cal L}}\, ({{{\cal A}}}({{\cal R}}))^- = {{{\cal A}}}({{\cal R}})^{-}$ if ${{\cal R}}\supseteq {\cal L}$
2. $\rho_{{{\cal L}}_1} \simeq \rho_{{{\cal L}}_2}$ for any pair of hypercones ${{\cal L}}_1, {{\cal L}}_2 \subset V$ and there exist corresponding unitary intertwiners in ${{\cal A}}(V)^-$.
Localized morphisms attached to a simple charge class are said to be simple.
Statistics and symmetries
=========================
Similarly to the case of superselection sectors, one has to rely in the analysis of charge classes on a maximality condition for the hypercone algebras, akin to Haag duality: for any hypercone ${{\cal L}}\subset V$ one has $${{\cal A}}({{\cal L}})^\prime \cap {{\cal A}}(V)^- = {{\cal A}}({{\cal L}}^c)^- \, , \quad
{{\cal A}}({{\cal L}}^c)^\prime \cap {{\cal A}}(V)^- = {{\cal A}}({{\cal L}})^- \, ,$$ where ${{\cal L}}^c$ denotes the spacelike complement of ${{\cal L}}$ in $V$. Substantial results supporting this form of hypercone duality have been established in [@Ca] for the free Maxwell field.
It is an important consequence of hypercone duality that equivalent morphisms which are localized in neighboring hypercones ${{\cal L}}_1, {{\cal L}}_2$ have intertwiners which are contained in ${{\cal A}}({{\cal L}})^-$, where ${{\cal L}}$ is any larger hypercone containing ${{\cal L}}_1$ and ${{\cal L}}_2$. Making use of this fact one can extend the morphisms from their domain ${{\cal A}}(V)$ to larger algebras containing the weak closures of certain hypercone algebras. Based on these extensions, the following result for the family of simple localized morphisms has been established.
\[5.1\] Let $\rho_1$, $\rho_2$ be simple morphisms which are localized in hypercones ${{\cal L}}_1, {{\cal L}}_2$, respectively.
1. The (suitably extended) morphisms can be composed and there is for any given hypercone ${{\cal L}}$ some simple morphism $\rho$ localized in ${{\cal L}}$ such that $\rho_1 \circ \rho_2 \simeq \rho$.
2. $\rho_1 \circ \rho_2 \simeq \rho_2 \circ \rho_1$. If $\rho_1$, $\rho_2$ belong to the same charge class there is some canonical intertwiner $\varepsilon(\rho_1,\rho_2) \in {{\cal A}}(V)^-$ depending only on the given morphisms.
3. For each charge class there exists a statistics parameter $\varepsilon \in \{ \pm 1 \}$ such that for any pair of morphisms $\rho_1$, $\rho_2$ in this class which are localized in spacelike separated hypercones ${{\cal L}}_1, {{\cal L}}_2$, cf. Fig. 4, one has $\varepsilon({\rho_1, \rho_2}) = \varepsilon \, 1$.
4. For each simple charge class there exists a simple conjugate charge class such that for any morphism $\rho$ in the given class there is a corresponding morphism $\overline{\rho}$ in the conjugate class satisfying $\rho \circ \overline{\rho} = \overline{\rho} \circ \rho =
\iota$. Moreover, the conjugate class has the same statistics parameter as the given class.
These results do not depend on the choice of lightcone $V$. According to item (c) any simple charge class has definite (Bose respectively Fermi) statistics and item (d) says that to each simple charge class there is a simple conjugate class of states carrying opposite (neutralizing) charges. Moreover, items (a), (b) and (d) imply that the equivalence classes of simple morphisms determine an abelian group with the product given by composition. Its dual can be interpreted as global gauge group generated by the simple charges which can be sharply determined in lightcones. Thus the simple charge classes have a structure similar to that of the simple sectors in massive theories. The elusive theoretical effects of the infrared clouds completely disappear from the discussion by taking into proper account the spacetime limitations of real experiments.
Covariance and spectrum
=======================
In the discussion of the covariance properties of simple charge classes and of their energetic features, one has to take into account that one has merely an endomorphic action of the semigroup ${\cal S}^\uparrow_+ \doteq \overline{V}_+
\rtimes {\cal L}^\uparrow_+ \subset {\cal P}^\uparrow_+$ on any lightcone $V$. The following characterization of covariant simple morphisms is appropriate in this case.\
[**Definition of covariant morphisms:**]{} Let $\rho : {\mathfrak A}(V) \rightarrow
{\mathfrak A}(V)^-$ be a simple morphism which is localized in ${{\cal L}}$. The morphism is said to be covariant if it is the initial member of a family of morphisms $\{ {}^\lambda \! \rho \}_{\lambda \in {\cal
S}^\uparrow_+} $ which, for given $\lambda \in {\cal
S}^\uparrow_+$, are localized in any hypercone $ {}^\lambda {{\cal L}}\supset \lambda {{\cal L}}$, satisfy the relation $${}^{\lambda \mu} \! \rho \circ \alpha_\lambda =
\alpha_\lambda \circ {}^{\mu} \! \rho \, , \quad
\lambda, \mu \in {\cal S}^\uparrow_+$$ and are affiliated with the same charge class as $\rho \equiv {}^1 \! \rho$. More precisely, there exists a weakly continuous section of intertwiners $\lambda \mapsto \Gamma_\lambda \in {{\cal A}}(V)^-$ between ${}^\lambda \! \rho$ and $\rho$.\
It can be shown that the family of morphisms affiliated in this manner with a given morphism is unique. The properties of covariant morphisms are described in the following proposition.
Consider the family of covariant simple morphisms which are localized in hypercones contained in a given lightcone $V$.
- The family is stable under composition and conjugation and all results of Proposition \[5.1\] apply to it.
- Each morphism $\rho$ determines a unique unitary representation $U_\rho$ of (the covering of) the full Poincaré group $\widetilde{\cal P}^\uparrow_+ = {\mathbb R}^4 \rtimes \widetilde{\cal
L}^\uparrow_+$ such that $$\mbox{Ad} \, U_\rho(\tilde{\lambda}) \circ \rho
= \rho \circ \alpha_\lambda \, , \quad
\widetilde{\lambda} \in \widetilde{\cal S}^\uparrow_+$$
- $\mbox{sp} \, U_\rho \upharpoonright {\mathbb R}^4 \subset \overline{V}_+$
- In presence of massless particles $U_\rho({\mathbb R}^4) \, \mbox{\boldmath $\notin$} \, {{\cal A}}(V)^-$.
This result shows that the covariant morphisms describe the expected physical properties of elementary systems in a meaningful way. In particular, it is possible to assign with the help of the unitary groups established in (b) an energy content to the partial states on ${{\cal A}}(V)$ within a given charge class. This energy is bounded from below according to (c), expressing the stability of the states. But in view of point (d) the generators of the time translations should not be interpreted as genuine observables. This can be understood if one bears in mind that part of the energy content of a global state may be lost by outgoing radiation created in the past of $V$. Phrased differently, the energy content of the partial states on ${{\cal A}}(V)$ is fluctuating. Thus the generators of the time translations in (b) require an interpretation similar to that of the Liouvillians in quantum statistical mechanics.
Concluding remarks
==================
In this work the origin of the infrared difficulties in the interpretation of theories with long range forces has been traced back to the unreasonable idealization of observations covering all of Minkowski space. Observations are at best performed in future directed lightcones, hence the arrow of time enters already in the interpretation of the microscopic theory.
As was explained, the restriction of states to the observables in any given lightcone $V$ amounts to a geometric, Lorentz invariant infrared regularization. It allows to form charge classes of states carrying the same global charges but differing in their infrared features. The pertinent observable algebras ${{{\cal A}}}({V})$ are highly reducible due to the loss of information about outgoing radiation created in the past of $V$. Yet the data which can be obtained in $V$ are sufficient to determine sharply the global charges, their statistics and the underlying gauge group. These results have been established so far only for simple charge classes; but work in progress indicates that they hold more generally.
The data obtainable in lightcones $V$ are also sufficient to fix for each charge class a representation $U_V$ of the Poincaré group, respectively of its covering. Yet the generators of this representation cannot be interpreted as genuine observables since they incorporate in a gross manner fluctuations of the background radiation. In this respect the situation resembles the treatment of ensembles in quantum statistical mechanics.
Since infrared sectors cannot be discriminated in any lightcone $V$ it seems likely that also the infraparticle problem (failure of the Wigner concept of particle for electrically charged states [@FrMoSt; @Bu2]) disappears if one resorts to the representations $U_V$ of the Poinaré group. In fact, the radiation observed in $V$ can be described by Fock states with a finite particle number; so there may well exist partial states on ${{\cal A}}(V)$, describing a single electrically charged particle where the (globally inevitable) accompanying radiation field has no observable effects in $V$. Such states could well contribute to an atomic part in the mass spectrum of $U_V$.
[99]{}
J. Fröhlich, G. Morchio and F. Strocchi, “Charged sectors and scattering states in quantum electrodynamics”, Annals Phys. [**119**]{} (1979) 241
D. Buchholz, “The physical state space of quantum electrodynamics”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**85**]{} (1982) 49
O. Steinmann, *Perturbative Quantum Electrodynamics and Axiomatic Field Theory*, Berlin, Springer (2000)
R. Haag, *Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras*, Berlin, Springer (1992)
S. Doplicher, R. Haag and J. E. Roberts,\
“Local observables and particle statistics 1”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**23**]{} (1971) 199.\
“Local observables and particle statistics 2”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**35**]{} (1974) 49.
D. Buchholz and K. Fredenhagen, “Locality and the structure of particle states”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**84**]{} (1982) 1
S. Doplicher and J. E. Roberts, “Why there is a field algebra with a compact gauge group describing the superselection structure in particle physics”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**131**]{} (1990) 51
D. Buchholz, “Gauss’ law and the infraparticle problem”, Phys. Lett. B [**174**]{} (1986) 331
P. Sadowski and S. L. Woronowicz, “Total sets in quantum field theory”, Rept. Math. Phys. [**2**]{} (1971) 113
A. Connes and E. St[ø]{}rmer, “Homogeneity of the state spaces of factors of type III${}_1$”, J. Funct. Anal. [**28**]{} (1978) 187
P. Camassa, “Relative Haag duality for the free field in Fock representation”, Annales Henri Poincare [**8**]{} (2007) 1433
[^1]: Talk given at XVIIth International Congress on Mathematical Physics, Aalborg, 6-11 August 2012
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Interactions of dispersive shock (DSWs) and rarefaction waves (RWs) associated with the Korteweg-de Vries equation are shown to exhibit multiphase dynamics and isolated solitons. There are six canonical cases: one is the interaction of two DSWs which exhibit a transient two-phase solution, but evolve to a single phase DSW for large time; two tend to a DSW with either a small amplitude wave train or a finite number of solitons, which can be determined analytically; two tend to a RW with either a small wave train or a finite number of solitons; finally, one tends to a pure RW.'
author:
- 'M. J. Ablowitz'
- 'D. E. Baldwin'
- 'M. A. Hoefer'
title: Soliton Generation and Multiple Phases in Dispersive Shock and Rarefaction Wave Interaction
---
Shock waves in processes dominated by weak dispersion and nonlinearity have been experimentally observed in plasmas [@Taylor1970], water waves [@Smyth1988], and more recently in Bose-Einstein condensates [@Hoefer2006; @Chang2008] and nonlinear optics [@Wan2007]; these dispersive shock waves (DSWs) have yielded novel dynamics and interesting interaction behavior which has only recently begun to be studied theoretically (cf. [@El2002; @Hoefer2007]). Here we consider DSWs which are described by the Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) equation, $$\label{eq:KdV}
u_t + uu_x + {\varepsilon}^2 u_{xxx} = 0,
\qquad 0 < {\varepsilon}\ll 1.$$ Individual DSWs are characterized by a soliton train front with an expanding oscillatory wave at its trailing edge; these waves have been well-studied (cf. [@Gurevich1974; @avgTheory]) using wave averaging techniques, often referred to as Whitham theory [@Whitham1965; @Whitham1974].
When illustrative, we contrast DSW interaction with classical or viscous shock waves (VSWs), which are dominated by weak *dissipation* and nonlinearity, using Burgers’ equation $$\label{eq:Burgers}
u_t + uu_x - \nu u_{xx} = 0, \qquad 0 < \nu \ll 1.$$ The interaction of VSWs is an entire field and has been extensively studied (cf. [@vswTheory]), while little is known about DSW interactions.
In this letter, we use analytic, asymptotic and numeric methods to investigate (\[eq:KdV\]) (and (\[eq:Burgers\])) using the “step-like” initial data $$\label{eq:uIC}
u(x,0) = u_0(x) =
\begin{cases}
h_0, & x < 0, \\
h_1, & 0 < x < L, \\
h_2, & x > L,
\end{cases}$$ where $h_0$, $h_1$ and $h_2$ are distinct, real and non-negative. This gives six canonical cases, which we denote: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{I ({ \vrule height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt \vrule height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt \vrule height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt \vrule height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt \vrule height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt }):} \hspace{1ex} & h_0 > h_1 > h_2,
\quad& \text{II ({ \vrule height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt \vrule height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt \vrule height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt \vrule height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt \vrule height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt }):} \hspace{1ex} & h_0 > h_2 > h_1, \\
\text{III ({ \vrule height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt \vrule height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt \vrule height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt \vrule height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt \vrule height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt }):} \hspace{1ex} & h_1 > h_0 > h_2,
\quad& \text{IV ({ \vrule height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt \vrule height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt \vrule height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt \vrule height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt \vrule height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt }):} \hspace{1ex} & h_2 > h_0 > h_1, \\
\text{V ({ \vrule height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt \vrule height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt \vrule height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt \vrule height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt \vrule height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt }):} \hspace{1ex} & h_1 > h_2 > h_0,
\quad& \text{VI ({ \vrule height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt \vrule height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt \vrule height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt \vrule height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt \vrule height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt }):} \hspace{1ex}& h_2 > h_1 > h_0,
\end{aligned}$$ where an icon of the initial step data is shown in parentheses. When convenient, and without loss of generality, we take $h_i$ to be $0$, $1$ and $0 < h_* < 1$ (by using a scaling symmetry and Galilean invariance). The case of an initial depression (e.g. Case II, $h_0 = h_2 = 0 > h_1$) and an initial box (e.g., Case III, $h_0 = h_2 = 0 < h_1$) has been studied in [@El2002], where the asymptotic solution was constructed analytically.
This letter is organized as follows. We first discuss Case I ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt ]{}), where two DSWs interact and exhibit a two-phase region which evolves into effectively a one-phase solution for large time. Single phase Whitham theory is then introduced to describe the DSW with a small amplitude wave train which develops in Case II ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}). We then briefly discuss multiphase Whitham theory to describe the two-phase region in Case I ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt ]{}). In Case III ([ height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt ]{}), the interaction produces a DSW with a finite number of solitons, which remarkably can be determined analytically using Inverse Scattering Transform (IST) theory (cf. [@Ablowitz1991]). There is no analogue for emerging solitons in VSWs. We then use Whitham and IST theory to describe the interactions in Case IV ([ height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt ]{}), V ([ height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}) and VI ([ height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt ]{}). Finally, we comment on the numerical scheme we used to solve (\[eq:KdV\]) and (\[eq:Burgers\]).
In Case I ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt ]{}), two one-phase DSWs form and propagate to the right (see Fig. \[fig:C1DN\]a). When the shock front of the left DSW reaches the expanding oscillatory tail of the right DSW, they interact and form a quasi-periodic two-phase solution (see Fig. \[fig:C1DN\]b). The shock front of the left DSW subsequently overtakes the shock front of the right DSW and forms a one-phase solution to the right of the two-phase region (see Fig. \[fig:C1DN\]c). To the left of the two-phase solution, an essentially one-phase DSW tail emerges (see Fig. \[fig:C1DN\]c); although the tail is weakly modulated by a quasi-periodic wave, its behavior is essentially one-phase. For large time, the two-phase region closes and a one-phase DSW remains (see Fig. \[fig:C1DN\]d–e); Whitham theory indicates that the amplitude of the two-phase modulations decrease with time and result in an effectively one-phase DSW. This closing of the two phase region is suggested by the rigorous (Whitham theory) results in [@Grava2002], though the authors studied smooth initial data. The computation of the boundaries of the one- and two-phase regions using multiphase Whitham theory are discussed later in this letter.
Although the (initial) shock front speed is different for DSWs and VSWs ($2h_0/3$ and $h_0/2$, respectively), the averaged DSWs are similar in behavior to VSWs (see Fig. \[fig:C1DN\]a–d); in both, two shock waves merge to form a single shock wave.
For Case II ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}), a large DSW forms on the left and a small RW forms on the right (see Fig. \[fig:C2DN\]a). The front of the DSW then interacts with the trailing edge of the RW; the interaction decreases the DSW’s speed and height (see Fig. \[fig:C2DN\]b). The front of the DSW is faster than the front of the RW and overtakes it (see Fig. \[fig:C2DN\]c). The size of the interaction region continues to expand with a DSW emerging in front with a small amplitude wave train behind, whose amplitude is proportional to $t^{-1/2}$ (see Fig. \[fig:C2DN\]d). As in Case I ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt ]{}), the averaged DSW and the VSW (see Fig. \[fig:C2DN\]) both tend to a single DSW (VSW) once the front of the DSW (VSW) passes the front of the RW.
![\[fig:c2wr\] The initial data regularization of Case II ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}) for $h_0 > 1$, $h_1 = 0$ and $h_2 = 1$; the dashed line is the initial condition, $u_0(x)$, and the solid lines are $r_1$, $r_2$, and $r_3$. The figure also gives the speed of the front and back of the DSW and RW at $t=0$. ](whitham.mps){width="3.2in"}
We can use the one-phase Whitham equations to characterize the interaction of the DSW and RW in Case II ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}). In this context, Whitham theory consists of looking for a fully nonlinear single- or multi-phase solution whose parameters (amplitude, wave number and frequency) are slowing varying with respect to the phase(s) and then deriving new equations for the evolution of the slowly varying wave properties. The one-phase Whitham equations for (\[eq:KdV\]) are
\[eq:1W\] $$\frac{\partial r_i}{\partial t}
+ v_i(r_1,r_2,r_3) \frac{\partial r_i}{\partial x} = 0,
\qquad i = 1,2,3,$$ where $$\label{eq:vi}
\begin{aligned}
v_1 & = V
- \frac{2}{3}(r_2 - r_1) \frac{K(m)}{K(m) - E(m)}, \\
v_2 & = V
- \frac{2}{3}(r_2 - r_1) \frac{(1-m) K(m)}{E(m)
- (1-m)K(m)}, \\
v_3 & = V
+ \frac{2}{3}(r_3 - r_1) \frac{(1-m)K(m)}{E(m)},
\end{aligned}$$
$V = (r_1 + r_2 + r_3)/3$, $m = (r_2 - r_1)/(r_3 - r_1),$ $K(m)$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind, and $E(m)$ is the complete elliptic integral of the second kind [@Gurevich1974]. Then, the asymptotic solution is $$u_a(x,t) \approx r_1 + r_2 - r_3 + 2(r_3 - r_1)
\operatorname{dn}^2 \left( \theta; m \right),$$ where $\theta_x = \kappa$, $\theta_t = -\omega = -\kappa V$, $\kappa = \sqrt{(r_3 - r_1)/(6{\varepsilon}^2)}$, and $r_i$ are slowly varying functions of $x$ and $t$. We can make a global dispersive regularization for the initial value problem (\[eq:KdV\]) and (\[eq:uIC\]) by choosing appropriate initial data for the $r_i$ [@Hoefer2006; @regTheory] which result in a global solution. A global dispersive regularization of Case II ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}) is shown in Fig. \[fig:c2wr\]; the $r_i$ are taken to be nondecreasing, $r_i(x,0) < r_{i+1}(x,0)$ and $\bar{u}_a(x,0) = u(x,0)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$.
In order to study the interaction we evolve the $r_i$ numerically. A simple and effective method for evolving the $r_i$ is to discretize the initial data regularization along the dependent variable, $r_i$, and then compute the shift in $x$ of each data point using (\[eq:1W\]). Fig. \[fig:c2dnw\] compares a numerically evolved Whitham approximation with direct numerics for Case II ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}); the first order Whitham approximation does not capture the small quasi-periodic modulations in the tail because they are higher order effects. Both direct numerics and the Whitham approximation agree and show that for large enough time, the amplitude of the tail in Cases II ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}) is proportional to $t^{-1/2}$; this is typical of a uniform linear wave train when the total energy remains constant (cf. [@Whitham1965]) and was observed in the context of a depression initial condition in [@El2002].
Multiphase Whitham theory is more complicated than one-phase Whitham theory and dates back to 1970 [@Ablowitz1970]; multiphase Whitham equations were developed for the KdV equation in [@Flaschka1980]. The interaction of two DSWs from certain step-like data was recently analyzed in [@Hoefer2007] for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation. The one- and two-phase regions and the averaged solution in Case I ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt ]{}) are found by numerically evolving the two-phase Whitham equations for the KdV (see [@Levermore1988]), $$\frac{\partial r_i}{\partial t} + v_i(r_1,\dotsc,r_5)
\frac{\partial r_i}{\partial x} = 0, \qquad
i = 1,2,\dotsc,5,$$ where $v_i = (2r_i^3 - \chi r_i^2 - \beta_1r_i - \beta_2)/(
r_i^2 - \alpha_1r_i - \alpha_2),$ $\chi = \sum_{j=1}^{5} r_j$, and $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ are solutions of $$\begin{bmatrix}
I_1^1 & I_1^0 \\ I_2^1 & I_2^0
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} \alpha_1 \\ \alpha_2 \end{bmatrix} =
\begin{bmatrix} I_1^2 \\ I_2^2 \end{bmatrix}, \quad
\begin{bmatrix}
I_1^1 & I_1^0 \\ I_2^1 & I_2^0
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix} \beta_1 \\ \beta_2 \end{bmatrix} =
\begin{bmatrix}
2I_1^3 - \chi I_1^2 \\ 2 I_2^3 - \chi I_2^2
\end{bmatrix},$$ with $$\label{eq:hyperelliptic}
I_j^k = \int_{r_{2j-1}}^{r_{2j}} \frac{\xi^k} {\sqrt{\prod_{i=1}^5 (\xi - r_i)}}\,d\xi.$$
In Case III ([ height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt ]{}), a small RW forms on the left and a large DSW forms on the right. The front of the RW then interacts with the tail of the DSW and reduces the amplitude of the waves—essentially cutting off the top of the box. Since the front speed of the RW is less than the front speed of the initial DSW, a finite number of solitons can escape the interaction (see Fig. \[fig:c45\]). These solitons have no analogue in the VSW solution of Case III ([ height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt ]{}). We can compute the number of solitons which escape using IST theory.
From IST theory, the number of solitons correspond to the time-independent number of zeroes of $a(k)$ (which is the number of poles of the reflection coefficient $R \equiv b(k)/a(k)$) in the upper half $k$-plane. Associated with (\[eq:KdV\]), the data $a(k)$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(x;k) & \equiv a(k) \bar{\psi}(x;k) + b(k) \psi(x;k), \\
\bar{\phi}(x;k) & \equiv \bar{a}(k) \psi(x;k)
+ \bar{b}(k) \bar{\psi}(x;k),\end{aligned}$$ corresponding to the eigenfunctions, $$\begin{gathered}
\phi(x;k) \sim e^{-i k_0 x}, \qquad
\bar{\phi}(x;k) \sim e^{i k_0 x}, \qquad
\text{as } x \to -\infty, \\
\psi(x;k) \sim e^{i k_2 x}, \qquad
\bar{\psi}(x;k) \sim e^{-i k_2 x}, \qquad
\text{as } x \to +\infty, \end{gathered}$$ which satisfy the Schrödinger scattering problem, $$\label{eq:scatter}
w_{xx} + w\{ u/6 + k^2 \}/{\varepsilon}^2 = 0.$$ The solution of (\[eq:scatter\]), at $t=0$, is $$w(x) =
\begin{cases}
A e^{ik_0x} + B e^{-ik_0x}, & x < 0, \\
C e^{ik_1x} + D e^{-ik_1x}, & 0 < x < L, \\
E e^{ik_2x} + F e^{-ik_2x}, & x > L,
\end{cases}$$ where $k_0 = \sqrt{h_0/6 + k^2}/{\varepsilon}$, $k_1 = \sqrt{h_1/6 + k^2}/{\varepsilon}$, and $k_2 = \sqrt{h_2/6 + k^2}/{\varepsilon}$. The eigenfunctions, $\phi$, $\bar{\phi}$, $\psi$ and $\bar{\psi}$ are determined by requiring that $w$ and $w'$ are continuous across $x = 0$ and $x = L$. Indeed, $\phi$ is found by taking $A = 0$ and $B = 1$ and then solving for $C$, $D$, $E \equiv b(k)$, $F \equiv a(k)$, so that $$a(k) = e^{ik_2L}\frac{k_0 + k_2}{2k_2} \bigg\{ \cos(k_1 L) - i\frac{k_1^2 + k_0 k_2}{k_1(k_0 + k_2)} \sin(k_1 L) \bigg\}.$$ Since $e^{ik_2L}(k_0 + k_2)/(2k_2) \neq 0,$ the zeroes of $a(k)$ occur when $\tan(k_1 L) = ik_1(k_0 + k_2)/(k_1^2 + k_0 k_2)$.
It can be shown that the zeroes of $a(k)$ are purely imaginary; thus, we let $k = i\kappa$ (where $\kappa \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\kappa > 0$). For Case III ([ height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt ]{}), where $h_1 = 1 > h_0 = h_*$ and $h_2 = 0$, the zeroes of $a(i\kappa)$ occur when $$\label{eq:akzeroes}
\tan\left( \sqrt{1/6 - \kappa^2}L/{\varepsilon}\right) = \frac{\sqrt{1/6 - \kappa^2}\left(\sqrt{\kappa^2
- h_*/6} + \kappa\right)} {1/6 - \kappa^2 - \kappa\sqrt{\kappa^2-h_*/6}}.$$ The number of periods for $\sqrt{h_*/6} \le \kappa \le \sqrt{1/6}$ of the RHS of (\[eq:akzeroes\]), $L\sqrt{1 - h_*}/({\varepsilon}\pi \sqrt{6})$, is an estimate of the number of solitons. The number of zeroes determined using (\[eq:akzeroes\]) exactly corresponds to the number of solitons observed using direct numerics (for various values of $h_*$, $L$ and ${\varepsilon}$)!
In Case IV ([ height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt ]{}), a small DSW forms on the left and a large RW forms on the right (see Fig. \[fig:C3DN\]a). As in Case II ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}), the front of the DSW interacts with the trailing edge of the RW and decreases the DSW’s amplitude and speed. Unlike Case II ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}), the front of the DSW does not overtake the front of the RW. The DSW becomes a small amplitude tail on the left of the RW and decreases in amplitude proportional to $t^{-1/2}$ (see Fig. \[fig:C3DN\]b).
As in Case III ([ height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt ]{}), Case V ([ height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}) cannot be completely characterized using Whitham averaging. For Case V ([ height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}), a large RW forms on the left and a small DSW forms on the right; the front of the RW interacts with the tail of the DSW and results in a RW and a finite number of solitons. The number of solitons corresponds to the number of zeroes of (\[eq:akzeroes\]) where where $h_0 = 0$ and $h_1 = 1 > h_2 = h_*$.
In Case VI ([ height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt ]{}), two rarefaction waves form; the small amplitude oscillatory tail (see for instance the RW in \[fig:C3DN\]a) of the right RW interacts with the front of left RW; the tail of the right and left RW then interact to form a small amplitude, modulated, quasi-periodic tail; this modulation decreases with time and Case VI ([ height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt ]{}) tends to a pure RW for large time.
We numerically solve (\[eq:KdV\]) and (\[eq:Burgers\]) using an adaptation of the modified exponential time-differencing fourth-order Runge-Kutta (ETDRK4) method (see [@ETDRK4]). We use this (sophisticated) numerical method because (\[eq:KdV\]) is very stiff and standard numerical methods require the time step to be $O({\varepsilon}^3)$, while for ETDRK4 the time step need only be $O({\varepsilon})$. When this numerical scheme was used to compute a known exact solution, it was accurate to more than six decimal digits.
For spectral accuracy when using the ETDRK4 method, the initial data must be both smooth and periodic. Therefore, we differentiate (\[eq:KdV\]) with respect to $x$ and define $v \equiv u_x$ to get $ v_t + (uv)_x + {\varepsilon}^2 v_{xxx} = 0. $ Transforming to Fourier space gives $ \hat{v}_t = i{\varepsilon}^2 k^3 \hat{v} - i k \widehat{uv}
\equiv {\mathbf{L}}\hat{v} + {\mathbf{N}}(\hat{v},t), $ where we define $({\mathbf{L}}\hat{v})(k) \equiv i{\varepsilon}^2 k^3 \hat{v}$ and ${\mathbf{N}}(\hat{v},t) = {\mathbf{N}}(\hat{v}) \equiv -i k {\mathcal{F}}\{[h_0
+ \int_{-\infty}^x {\mathcal{F}}^{-1}(\hat{v}) dx']{\mathcal{F}}^{-1}(\hat{v})\}$. It is important that the integral in ${\mathbf{N}}$ is computed using a spectrally accurate method. Moreover, we approximate the initial step data with the analytic function $ 2w v(x,0) = (h_2 - h_1)\operatorname{sech}^2[(x-L)/w]
+ (h_1 - h_0)\operatorname{sech}^2(x/w)$, where $w$ is small. See [@ETDRK4] for details about how this ${\mathbf{L}}$ and ${\mathbf{N}}$ are used to numerically compute the solution of (\[eq:KdV\]).
For large time Case I ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt ]{}) and II ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}) go to a single DSW, while Case IV ([ height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt ]{}) and VI ([ height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt ]{}) go to a single RW; this is consistent with VSW theory. However, unlike VSW theory, Case III ([ height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt ]{}) and V ([ height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}) form a finite number of solitons in addition to the DSW or RW, respectively. Moreover, unlike VSW theory, Case I ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt ]{}) exhibits a transient two-phase region and Case II ([ height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt ]{}) and IV ([ height2.5pt width7pt depth-2.1pt height2.5pt width0.4pt depth1pt height-0.6pt width7pt depth1pt height6pt width0.4pt depth1pt height6pt width7pt depth-5.6pt ]{}) have a small amplitude tail which decays at a rate proportional to $t^{-1/2}$.
This work was partially supported by NSF DMS-0604151, DMS-0803074, Air Force Office of Scientific Research FA-9550-06-1-0237, and NDSEG fellowship.
[22]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ); , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, ** (, , ); , ** (, , ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, (); , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ** (, ).
, ****, (); , ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A Helson matrix (also known as a multiplicative Hankel matrix) is an infinite matrix with entries $\{a(jk)\}$ for $j,k\geq1$. Here the $(j,k)$’th term depends on the product $jk$. We study a self-adjoint Helson matrix for a particular sequence $a(j)=(\sqrt{j}\log j(\log\log j)^\alpha))^{-1}$, $j\geq 3$, where $\alpha>0$, and prove that it is compact and that its eigenvalues obey the asymptotics $\lambda_n\sim\varkappa(\alpha)/n^\alpha$ as $n\to\infty$, with an explicit constant $\varkappa(\alpha)$. We also establish some intermediate results (of an independent interest) which give a connection between the spectral properties of a Helson matrix and those of its continuous analogue, which we call the integral Helson operator.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, King’s College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom'
author:
- Nazar Miheisi
- Alexander Pushnitski
title: A Helson matrix with explicit eigenvalue asymptotics
---
Introduction {#sec.a}
============
Background: Hankel matrices
---------------------------
We start our discussion by recalling relevant facts from the theory of Hankel matrices. Let $\{b(j)\}_{j=0}^\infty$ be a sequence of complex numbers. A *Hankel matrix* is an infinite matrix of the form $$H(b)=\{b(j+k)\}_{j,k=0}^\infty,$$ considered as a linear operator in $\ell^2({{\mathbb Z}}_+)$, ${{\mathbb Z}}_+=\{0,1,2,\dots\}$. One of the key examples of Hankel matrices is the *Hilbert matrix*, which corresponds to the choice $b(j)=1/(j+1)$. It is well known that the Hilbert matrix is bounded (but not compact). From the boundedness of the Hilbert matrix by a simple argument one obtains $$b(j)=o(1/j), \quad j\to\infty \quad \Rightarrow \quad H(b) \text{ is compact.}$$ A natural family of compact self-adjoint Hankel operators of this class was considered in [@PY1]. To state this result, we need some notation. For a compact self-adjoint operator $A$, let us denote by $\{\lambda_n^+(A)\}_{n=1}^\infty$ the non-increasing sequence of positive eigenvalues (enumerated with multiplicities taken into account), and let $\lambda_n^-(A)=\lambda_n^+(-A)$.
[@PY1] Let $b(j)$ be a sequence of real numbers defined by $$b(j)=1/(j(\log j)^\alpha),\quad j\geq2;$$ the choice of $b(0)$ and $b(1)$ (or of any finite number of $b(j)$) is not important. Then the eigenvalues of the Hankel matrix $H(b)$ have the asymptotic behaviour $$\lambda_n^+(H(b))=\frac{\varkappa(\alpha)}{n^\alpha}+o(n^{-\alpha}), \quad
\lambda_n^-(H(b))=O(n^{-\alpha-1}),
\quad n\to\infty,
\label{a0}$$ where $\varkappa(\alpha)$ is an explicit coefficient: $$\varkappa(\alpha)=2^{-\alpha}\pi^{1-2\alpha}B(\tfrac1{2\alpha},\tfrac12)^\alpha,
\label{a1}$$ and $B(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the standard Beta function.
For negative eigenvalues, this result is stated in a slightly weaker form in [@PY1]: $\lambda_n^-(H(b))=o(n^{-\alpha})$. However, following the logic of the proof of our main result below, it is easy to see that in fact the estimate $O(n^{-\alpha-1})$ is valid in Theorem A.
Helson matrices
---------------
In this paper, we consider an analogous question in the class of Helson matrices (also known as multiplicative Hankel matrices). These are infinite matrices of the form $$M(a)=\{a(jk)\}_{j,k=1}^\infty,$$ considered as linear operators in $\ell^2({{\mathbb N}})$. Here the $(j,k)$’th entry depends on the product of indices $jk$ rather than on the sum $j+k$. Helson matrices are a natural object in the theory of Hardy spaces of Dirichlet series, in the same way as Hankel matrices are naturally related to the theory of classical Hardy spaces. The study of Helson matrices was initiated in the pioneering paper [@Helson]; see also the book [@QQ] and a recent survey [@PerPu].
The *multiplicative Hilbert matrix* is a Helson matrix corresponding to the sequence $$a(j)=1/(\sqrt{j}\log j), \quad j\geq2$$ (there are variants of this definition, see [@PerPu2]; this notion has not become standardised yet). It is bounded and not compact, and its spectral properties are fully analogous to the classical Hilbert matrix, see [@BPSSV; @PerPu2]. Similarly to the Hankel case, it is not difficult to see that $$a(j)=o(1/(\sqrt{j}\log j)), \quad j\to\infty \quad \Rightarrow \quad M(a) \text{ is compact.}$$ In this paper, we consider a family of compact modifications of the multiplicative Hilbert matrix. Our main result is
\[thm.a1\] Let $\alpha>0$, and let $a(j)$ be the sequence of real numbers given by $$a(j)=1/(\sqrt{j}\log j(\log\log j)^\alpha)$$ for all sufficiently large $j$ (the choice of finitely many values $a(j)$ is not important). Then the Helson matrix $M(a)$ is compact and its sequence of eigenvalues obeys the asymptotics $$\lambda_n^+(M(a))=\frac{\varkappa(\alpha)}{n^\alpha}+o(n^{-\alpha}),
\quad
\lambda_n^-(M(a))=O(n^{-\alpha-1}),
\quad n\to\infty,
\label{a2}$$ where $\varkappa(\alpha)$ is given by .
Thus, we have a natural family of Helson matrices $M(a^{(\alpha)})$, parameterised by $\alpha$, such that $M(a^{(\alpha)})\in{\mathbf{S}}_p$ if and only if $p>1/\alpha$. Here ${\mathbf{S}}_p$ is the standard Schatten class, see Section \[sec.a6\] below.
Below we describe the key ideas of the proof of Theorem \[thm.a1\]; some of them may be of an independent interest. In order to do this, we need some definitions.
Integral Hankel and Helson operators
------------------------------------
First we recall the definition of a classical object: integral Hankel operators. For a complex valued *kernel function*, or more generally a distribution, ${{\mathbf b}}$ on ${{\mathbb R}}_+$, we denote by ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})$ the integral Hankel operator in $L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+)$, formally defined by $${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}): f\mapsto \int_0^\infty {{\mathbf b}}(x+y)f(y)dy.$$ Clearly, integral Hankel operators are continuous analogues of Hankel matrices. Below we only consider bounded and compact Hankel operators. We use boldface font to denote integral operators (and their kernels).
Next, for a complex valued function or distribution ${{\mathbf a}}$ on $(1,\infty)$, let us consider an integral operator in $L^2(1,\infty)$, defined by $${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}): f\mapsto \int_1^\infty {{\mathbf a}}(ts)f(s)ds, \quad t\geq1.$$ It will be convenient to call ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})$ an *integral Helson operator* (this is not a standard term). We regard ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})$ as a continuous analogue of the Helson matrix $M(a)$.
Observe that by an exponential change of variables, ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})$ reduces to an integral Hankel operator. More precisely, let $V$ be the unitary operator $$V: L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+)\to L^2(1,\infty),
\quad
(Vf)(t)=\frac1{\sqrt{t}}f(\log t),
\quad t>1,
\label{d0}$$ then $$V^*{{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})V={{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}), \quad {{\mathbf b}}(x)={{\mathbf a}}(e^x)e^{x/2}, \quad x>0.
\label{aa9}$$ Spectral theory of integral Hankel operators is very well developed, and below we will use some available results for eigenvalue estimates and asymptotics of such operators to deduce the corresponding statements for integral Helson operators.
Note that although ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})$ can be reduced to an integral Hankel operator through the exponential change of variable $t=e^x$, no such “change of variable" exists on integers, and therefore in general there is no simple reduction of Helson matrices to Hankel matrices.
The strategy of the proof
-------------------------
Consider the integral Helson operator ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})$ with the kernel function ${{\mathbf a}}\in C^\infty([1,\infty))$ which satisfies $${{\mathbf a}}(t)=t^{-1/2}(\log t)^{-1}(\log \log t)^{-\alpha}, \quad t\geq t_0>e.
\label{a9}$$ Clearly, the sequence $a$ of Theorem \[thm.a1\] is the restriction of the function ${{\mathbf a}}$ onto ${{\mathbb N}}$ (up to finitely many terms). It will be convenient to have some notation for the operation of restriction onto integers. If ${{\mathbf a}}$ is a continuous function on $(1,\infty)$, let $r({{\mathbf a}})$ denote the sequence $$r({{\mathbf a}})(j)=
\begin{cases}
0,\quad j=1, \\
{{\mathbf a}}(j), \quad j\ge 2.
\end{cases}
\label{a12}$$
*We will prove that the operators ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})$ and $M(r({{\mathbf a}}))$ have the same leading order asymptotics of both positive and negative eigenvalues.* This reduces the question to the spectral analysis of ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})$. Further, as already discussed, relation reduces the spectral analysis of ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})$ to that of the integral Hankel operator ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})$ with $${{\mathbf b}}(x)=e^{x/2}{{\mathbf a}}(e^x)=x^{-1}(\log x)^{-\alpha}, \quad x\geq x_0>1.
\label{a8}$$ This two step reduction procedure can be illustrated by the diagram $$M(r({{\mathbf a}}))\quad\to\quad{{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\quad\to\quad{{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}).
\label{a7}$$ The integral operator ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})$ is a continuous analogue of the Hankel matrix in Theorem A. The eigenvalues of ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})$ satisfy the same asymptotic relation as , i.e. $$\lambda_n^+({{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}))=\frac{\varkappa(\alpha)}{n^\alpha}+o(n^{-\alpha}), \quad
\lambda_n^-({{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}))=O(n^{-\alpha-1}),
\quad n\to\infty,
\label{a11}$$ where $\varkappa(\alpha)$ is the same as in ; this is again a result of [@PY1]. Thus, reduction together with will yield a proof of Theorem \[thm.a1\].
Further details and the structure of the paper {#sec.a5}
----------------------------------------------
While the second reduction in is straightforward, the first reduction is technically a little more involved; we proceed to explain it. We split the sequence $a$ into two terms $$a(j)=a_0(j)+a_1(j).$$ Here $a_0$ is a sequence which has the same asymptotics as $a$, but is given by a convenient integral representation; $a_1$ is the error term. More precisely, let us describe the choice of $a_0$.
We use the fact that (see [@Erdelyi]) for any $0<c<1$, one has the Laplace transform asymptotics $$\int_0^c {\lvert\log \lambda\rvert}^{-\alpha}e^{-x\lambda}d\lambda=x^{-1}(\log x)^{-\alpha}
\bigl(1+O((\log x)^{-1})\bigr), \quad x\to\infty.$$ Substituting $x=\log t$ and multiplying by $t^{-1/2}$, we obtain $$\int_0^c {\lvert\log \lambda\rvert}^{-\alpha}t^{-\frac12-\lambda}d\lambda
=
t^{-1/2}(\log t)^{-1}(\log \log t)^{-\alpha}\bigl(1+O((\log\log t)^{-1})\bigr),
\quad t\to\infty.$$
Now let $w(\lambda)={\lvert\log\lambda\rvert}^{-\alpha}\chi(\lambda)$, where $\chi\in C^\infty({{\mathbb R}}_+)$ is a non-negative function such that $\chi(\lambda)=1$ for all sufficiently small $\lambda>0$ and $\chi(\lambda)=0$ for $\lambda\geq1$. We set $${{\mathbf a}}_0(t)=\int_0^\infty t^{-\frac12-\lambda}w(\lambda)d\lambda, \quad
{{\mathbf a}}_1(t)={{\mathbf a}}(t)-{{\mathbf a}}_0(t), \quad
t>1,
\label{aa8}$$ where the function ${{\mathbf a}}$ is given by . Then, by the above calculation, $${{\mathbf a}}_1(t)=O(t^{-1/2}(\log t)^{-1}(\log \log t)^{-\alpha-1}), \quad t\to\infty.$$ Further, with the notation , we set $a_0=r({{\mathbf a}}_0)$ and $a_1=r({{\mathbf a}}_1)$.
In Section \[sec.c\], we will prove that $M(a_0)$ is unitarily equivalent to ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}_0)$, up to a negligible term, and as a consequence, the spectral asymptotics of these two operators coincide to all orders. In fact, we will prove a more general statement (see Theorem \[thm.cc1\]): if ${{\mathbf a}}_0$ is given by the integral representation then, for a fairly general class of weights $w$, the Helson integral operator ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}_0)$ is unitarily equivalent to the Helson matrix $M(r({{\mathbf a}}_0))$, up to a negligible term.
In Section \[sec.d\], we will reduce the spectral estimates for $M(a_1)$ to those for ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}_1)$. More precisely, in Theorem \[thm.a2\] *we prove that the linear operator ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\mapsto M(r({{\mathbf a}}))$ is bounded in Schatten classes ${\mathbf{S}}_p$ for $0<p\leq1$, i.e. one has the estimate* $${\lVertM(r({{\mathbf a}}))\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}\leq C_p{\lVert{{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}, \quad 0<p\leq 1.$$ This statement might be of an independent interest. By using real interpolation, we obtain the implication $$s_n({{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}))=O(n^{-\alpha-1}), \quad n\to\infty
\quad\Rightarrow\quad
s_n(M(r({{\mathbf a}})))=O(n^{-\alpha-1}), \quad n\to\infty,$$ for any $\alpha>0$, where $s_n$ are singular values (see Section \[sec.a6\] below).
Thus, using somewhat different technical tools, we reduce the analysis of both Helson matrices $M(a_0)$ and $M(a_1)$ to the corresponding integral Helson operators ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}_0)$ and ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}_1)$. Next, we set, as in , $${{\mathbf b}}_i(x)=e^{x/2}{{\mathbf a}}_i(e^x), \quad i=0,1,
\label{aa10}$$ and use the available results from [@PY1; @PY2] which give $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_n^+({{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}_0))
&=
\varkappa(\alpha)n^{-\alpha}+o(n^{-\alpha}), \quad n\to\infty,
\\
s_n({{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}_1))
&=
O(n^{-\alpha-1}), \quad n\to\infty\end{aligned}$$ (we also have ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}_0)\geq0$ and so $\lambda_n^-({{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}_0))=0$ for all $n$). Finally, in Section \[sec.e\], we use standard spectral stability results to combine these two relations to complete the proof of Theorem \[thm.a1\].
We represent this refined explanation of our proof by the following diagram: $$\begin{gathered}
M(a)=M(a_0)+M(a_1);
\\
{\begin{split}
M(a_0)\to {{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}_0)\to {{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}_0)&\to \text{\cite{PY1}: asymptotics}
\\
M(a_1)\to {{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}_1)\to {{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}_1)&\to \text{\cite{PY2}: estimates}
\end{split}} \biggr\}\text{(stability)}
\Rightarrow \text{Theorem~\ref{thm.a1}.}\end{gathered}$$
Notation: Schatten classes {#sec.a6}
--------------------------
We denote by $\{s_n(A)\}_{n=1}^\infty$ the non-increasing sequence of the singular values of a compact operator $A$, i.e. $s_n(A)=\lambda_n^+(\sqrt{A^*A})$. Recall that for $0<p<\infty$, the Schatten class ${\mathbf{S}}_p$ consists of all compact operators $A$ such that $${\lVertA\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}:=\left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty s_n(A)^p\right)^\frac{1}{p}
<\infty.$$ We will write ${\mathbf{S}}_\infty$ to denote the class of compact operators. Observe that ${\lVertA\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}$ is a norm for $p\geq1$ and a quasi-norm for $0<p<1$. For $0<p<1$, the usual triangle inequality fails in ${\mathbf{S}}_p$ but the following “modified triangle inequality" holds: $${\lVertA+B\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}^p\leq {\lVertA\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}^p+{\lVertB\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}^p, \quad 0<p<1, \quad A,B\in {\mathbf{S}}_p.
\label{a10}$$
For $0<p<\infty$ and $0<q\le \infty$, the Schatten-Lorentz class ${\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}$ consists of all compact operators $A$ such that **** $${\lVertA\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}}:=
\begin{dcases}
\left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty s_n(A)^q(1+n)^{q/p -1}\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}
<\infty, \quad q<\infty, \\
\sup_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}} (1+n)^{1/p}s_n(A)<\infty, \quad q=\infty.
\end{dcases}$$ It is evident that ${\mathbf{S}}_{p,p} = {\mathbf{S}}_p$ for every $0<p<\infty$. The classes ${\mathbf{S}}_{p,\infty}$ are known as weak Schatten classes and have the property that $A\in {\mathbf{S}}_{p,\infty}$ if and only if $s_n(A)=O(n^{-1/p})$, $n\to\infty$.
We denote ${\mathbf{S}}_0=\cap_{p>0} {\mathbf{S}}_p$. This is the class of all operators $A$ such that $s_n(A)=O(n^{-c})$ as $n\to\infty$ for any $c>0$.
Notation: unitary equivalence modulo kernels
--------------------------------------------
If $A_j$ is a bounded operator in a Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H}}_j$ for $j=1,2$, we will say that $A_1$ and $A_2$ are unitarily equivalent modulo kernels and write $A_1\approx A_2$, if the operators $$A_1|_{(\operatorname{Ker}A_1)^\perp}
\quad\text{ and }\quad
A_2|_{(\operatorname{Ker}A_2)^\perp}$$ are unitarily equivalent. It is well known that for any bounded operator $A$ (acting from a Hilbert space to a possibly different Hilbert space), one has $$A^*A\approx AA^*.
\label{b8}$$ We will frequently use this relation in the following situation: if $A$ is compact, then implies that $s_n(A^*A)=s_n(AA^*)$ for all $n$.
Acknowledgements
----------------
We are grateful to K. Seip and H. Queffélec for stimulating discussions, and to J. Partington for help with the relevant literature.
${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\approx M(r({{\mathbf a}}))$ up to error term {#sec.c}
==========================================================================
Overview
--------
In this section, we prove
\[thm.cc1\] Let $w$ be a non-negative bounded function on ${{\mathbb R}}_+$ with bounded support. Let $${{\mathbf a}}(t)=\int_0^\infty t^{-\frac12-\lambda}w(\lambda)d\lambda, \quad t>1,
\label{cc1}$$ and let $a(j)={{\mathbf a}}(j)$, $j\in{{\mathbb N}}$. Then we have $M(a)\geq0$ and ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\geq0$. Further, there exist self-adjoint operators $A$ and $B$ in $L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+)$ such that $$M(a)\approx A, \quad {{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\approx B, \quad A-B\in {\mathbf{S}}_0.$$
In combination with standard results on the stability of spectral asymptotics, Theorem \[thm.cc1\] shows that if ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})$ and $M(a)$ are compact, then the eigenvalue asymptotics of these operators coincide to all orders. This is precisely what we need in our setting — see Section \[sec.e\].
Although our primary interest in this paper is to compact Helson matrices, Theorem \[thm.cc1\] can be used in the non-compact context as well. Indeed, in combination with the Weyl theorem on the invariance of the essential spectrum with respect to compact perturbations, this result shows that the non-zero parts of the essential spectra of ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})$ and $M(a)$ coincide. Similarly, in combination with the Kato-Rosenblum theorem, this result shows that the absolutely continuous parts of ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})$ and $M(a)$ are unitarily equivalent. Variants of this reasoning have been used in [@BPSSV; @PerPu2] in order to analyse the multiplicative Hilbert matrix.
Reduction to weighted integral Hankel operator
----------------------------------------------
We start by recalling a theorem from [@PerPu] which establishes a unitary equivalence modulo kernels between a Helson matrix $M(a)$, where $a$ has an integral representation of the type , and a weighted integral Hankel type operator $w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}(\cdot+1))w^{1/2}$ with the integral kernel $$w(x)^{1/2}{{\bm{\zeta}}}(x+y+1)w(y)^{1/2}, \quad x,y>0$$ in $L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+)$, where ${{\bm{\zeta}}}$ is the Riemann zeta function.
\[lma.c1\] Let $w\in L^\infty({{\mathbb R}})\cap L^1({{\mathbb R}})$ be a non-negative function, and let $$a(j)=\int_0^\infty j^{-\frac12-\lambda}w(\lambda)d\lambda, \quad j\geq1.$$ Then the Helson matrix $M(a)$ is a bounded non-negative operator on $\ell^2({{\mathbb N}})$. Let ${{\bm{\zeta}}}_1(x)={{\bm{\zeta}}}(x+1)$. Then $w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}_1)w^{1/2}$ is bounded on $L^2({{\mathbb R}})$ and $$M(a)\approx w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}_1)w^{1/2}.$$
This was proven in [@PerPu], but for completeness we repeat the proof.
First let us check that $w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}_1)w^{1/2}$ is bounded. Recall that the Carleman operator ${{\mathbf H}}(1/x)$, i.e. the integral Hankel operator with the kernel function ${{\mathbf b}}(x)=1/x$, is bounded on $L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+)$ and has norm $\pi$. Next, we have an elementary estimate $$0\leq {{\bm{\zeta}}}(x+1)-1=\sum_{j=2}^\infty j^{-x-1}\leq \int_1^\infty \frac{dt}{t^{x+1}}=\frac1x,$$ and so for ${{\mathbf b}}(x)={{\bm{\zeta}}}(x+1)-1$, we obtain the estimate ${\lVert{{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})\rVert}\leq \pi$. Further, we have $$w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}_1)w^{1/2}=w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})w^{1/2}+(\cdot,w^{1/2})w^{1/2},$$ where the second term denotes the rank one operator in $L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+)$ with the integral kernel $w(x)^{1/2}w(y)^{1/2}$. Since $w\in L^1({{\mathbb R}})\cap L^\infty({{\mathbb R}})$, both terms here are bounded: $${\lVertw^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})w^{1/2}\rVert}\leq \pi{\lVertw^{1/2}\rVert}_{L^\infty}^2=\pi{\lVertw\rVert}_{L^\infty},
\quad
{\lVert(\cdot,w^{1/2})w^{1/2}\rVert}={\lVertw^{1/2}\rVert}_{L^2}^2={\lVertw\rVert}_{L^1}.$$ We obtain that $w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}_1)w^{1/2}$ is bounded.
Next, consider the operator $${\mathcal{N}}: L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+)\to \ell^2({{\mathbb N}}),
\quad
f\mapsto\biggl\{\int_0^\infty j^{-x-\frac12}w(x)^{1/2}f(x)dx\biggr\}_{j=1}^\infty,$$ defined initially on the dense set of functions $f\in L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+)$ with support separated away from zero. We claim that ${\mathcal{N}}$ is bounded and $w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}_1)w^{1/2}={\mathcal{N}}^*{\mathcal{N}}$. This is a direct calculation: $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathcal{N}}f_1,{\mathcal{N}}f_2)_{\ell^2({{\mathbb N}})}
&=
\sum_{j=1}^\infty
\int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty j^{-1-x-y}w(x)^{1/2}w(y)^{1/2}f_1(x)\overline{f_2(y)}dx \, dy
\\
&=
\int_0^\infty {{\bm{\zeta}}}(x+y+1)w(x)^{1/2}w(y)^{1/2}f_1(x)\overline{f_2(y)}dx\, dy
\\
&=
(w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}_1)w^{1/2} f_1,f_2)_{L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+)},\end{aligned}$$ which proves our claim.
Further, let us compute the adjoint ${\mathcal{N}}^*$: $${\mathcal{N}}^*: \ell^2({{\mathbb N}})\to L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+), \quad
u=\{u_j\}_{j=1}^\infty \mapsto w(x)^{1/2}\sum_{j=1}^\infty u_j j^{-\frac12-x},
\quad
x>0.$$ Then for $u,v\in \ell^2({{\mathbb N}})$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
({\mathcal{N}}^* u,{\mathcal{N}}^*v)_{L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+)}
=
\int_0^\infty w(x) \biggl(\sum_{j,k=1}^\infty (jk)^{-\frac12-x}u_j\overline{v_k}\biggr)dx
\\
=
\sum_{j,k=1}^\infty a(jk) u_j\overline{v_k}
=
(M(a)u,v)_{\ell^2({{\mathbb N}})}.\end{gathered}$$ This calculation proves that $M(a)$ is bounded and $M(a)={\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{N}}^*$.
To summarise: for a bounded operator ${\mathcal{N}}$, we have proven the identities $$w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}_1)w^{1/2}={\mathcal{N}}^*{\mathcal{N}}, \quad M(a)={\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{N}}^*.$$ This shows that $w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}_1)w^{1/2}\approx M(a)$, as required.
Reduction to a weighted Carleman operator
-----------------------------------------
\[lma.cc4\] Let $w$ be as in Theorem \[thm.cc1\]. Then $$w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}_1)w^{1/2}
-
w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}(1/x)w^{1/2}\in{\mathbf{S}}_0.$$
We will need one well-known statement: if ${{\mathbf b}}$ is a restriction of a Schwartz class function onto ${{\mathbb R}}_+$, then the integral Hankel operator ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})$ is in ${\mathbf{S}}_0$. This fact follows easily from Theorem \[thm.b3\] below.
*Step 1:* First we would like to replace ${{\bm{\zeta}}}(1+x)$ in the integral kernel of $w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}_1)w^{1/2}$ by a simpler function ${{\mathbf{h}}}$ with the same singularity at $x=0$. Let $\beta >0$ be sufficiently large so that $\operatorname{supp}w\subset[0,\beta]$; we choose $${{\mathbf{h}}}(x)=e^{-\beta x}/x, \quad x>0.$$ Our aim at this step is to prove that the error term arising through this replacement is negligible, i.e. $$w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}_1)w^{1/2}-w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf{h}}})w^{1/2}\in {\mathbf{S}}_0.$$ Since the zeta function ${{\bm{\zeta}}}(z)$ has a simple pole at $z=1$ with residue one and converges to $1$ as $O(2^{-z})$ when $z\to+\infty$, we conclude that the function $${\widetilde}{{\mathbf{h}}}(x)={{\bm{\zeta}}}_1(x)-{{\mathbf{h}}}(x)-1, \quad x>0,$$ is a restriction of a Schwartz class function onto ${{\mathbb R}}_+$. It follows that ${{\mathbf H}}({\widetilde}{{\mathbf{h}}})\in{\mathbf{S}}_0$. Thus, $$w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}_1)w^{1/2}-w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf{h}}})w^{1/2}
=
w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({\widetilde}{{\mathbf{h}}})w^{1/2}+(\cdot,w^{1/2})w^{1/2}\in{\mathbf{S}}_0;$$ here the last term is the rank one operator with the integral kernel $w(x)^{1/2}w(y)^{1/2}$.
*Step 2:* Now it remains to prove that $$w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}(1/x) w^{1/2}
-
w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf{h}}}) w^{1/2}
\in{\mathbf{S}}_0.
\label{cc3}$$ Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be the Laplace transform in $L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+)$, $${\mathcal{L}}[f](x)=\int_0^\infty e^{-x\lambda}f(\lambda)d\lambda.$$ Observe that $1/x-{{\mathbf{h}}}(x)={\mathcal{L}}[{\mathbbm{1}}_{(0,\beta)}](x)$, where ${\mathbbm{1}}_{(0,\beta)}$ is the characteristic function of the interval $(0,\beta)$. Thus, the operator in can be written as $w^{1/2}{\mathcal{L}}{\mathbbm{1}}_{(0,\beta)}{\mathcal{L}}w^{1/2}$.
Since $w$ is bounded and $w^{1/2}=w^{1/2}{\mathbbm{1}}_{(0,\beta)}$, it suffices to prove that ${\mathbbm{1}}_{(0,\beta)}{\mathcal{L}}{\mathbbm{1}}_{(0,\beta)}\in{\mathbf{S}}_0$. Let $U$ be the unitary operator $$U: L^2(0,\beta)\to L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+), \quad
Uf(x)=\sqrt{\beta}e^{-x/2}f(\beta e^{-x}), \quad x>0.$$ A straightforward calculation shows that $$U{\mathbbm{1}}_{(0,\beta)}{\mathcal{L}}{\mathbbm{1}}_{(0,\beta)} U^*={{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf k}}),$$ where the kernel function ${{\mathbf k}}$ is given by $${{\mathbf k}}(x)=\beta e^{-x/2}\exp(-\beta^2e^{-x}), \quad x>0.$$ Clearly, ${{\mathbf k}}$ is a Schwartz class function (to be precise, a restriction of a Schwartz class function onto the positive half-axis). Thus, ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf k}})\in{\mathbf{S}}_0$ and so, by unitary equivalence, we obtain ${\mathbbm{1}}_{(0,\beta)}{\mathcal{L}}{\mathbbm{1}}_{(0,\beta)}\in{\mathbf{S}}_0$.
Reduction to ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})$ and completing the proof
--------------------------------------------------------------------
\[lma.cc5\] Let $w\in L^\infty\cap L^1$. Then $w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}(1/x)w^{1/2}\geq0$ and $$w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}(1/x)w^{1/2}\approx {{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}),$$ with ${{\mathbf a}}$ as in .
This argument is well known in the context of integral Hankel operators. We have $$w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}(1/x)w^{1/2}=w^{1/2}{\mathcal{L}}{\mathcal{L}}w^{1/2}=(w^{1/2}{\mathcal{L}})(w^{1/2}{\mathcal{L}})^*
\approx
(w^{1/2}{\mathcal{L}})^*(w^{1/2}{\mathcal{L}})
={{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}),$$ where ${{\mathbf b}}={\mathcal{L}}[w]$. Now it remains to observe that, with $V$ as in , we have, by , $$V{{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})V^*={{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}),$$ with $${{\mathbf a}}(t)=t^{-1/2}{{\mathbf b}}(\log t)
=
t^{-1/2}\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda\log t}w(\lambda) d\lambda
=
\int_0^\infty t^{-1/2-\lambda}w(\lambda)d\lambda,$$ as required.
Combining Lemmas \[lma.c1\], \[lma.cc4\] and \[lma.cc5\], we obtain the required statement with $A=w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}({{\bm{\zeta}}}_1)w^{1/2}$ and $B=w^{1/2}{{\mathbf H}}(1/x)w^{1/2}$.
The map ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\mapsto M(r({{\mathbf a}}))$ is bounded in ${\mathbf{S}}_p$ for $p\leq1$ {#sec.d}
=============================================================================================================
Overview
--------
Below for ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\in{\mathbf{S}}_p$, $0<p\leq1$, we will associate with ${{\mathbf a}}$ its restriction $r({{\mathbf a}})$. In order for this restriction to make sense, we need a preliminary statement, the proof of which is given in Section \[sec.d3\]:
\[lma.d0\] If ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\in{\mathbf{S}}_1$, then the kernel function ${{\mathbf a}}(t)$ is continuous in $t>1$.
Before continuing, let us fix some notation: throughout the remainder $C_p$ (or occasionaly $C'_p$) will denote a constant which only depends on $p$ but whose precise value may change from line to line.
Our main result in this section is:
\[thm.a2\]
1. Assume that ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})$ is bounded and belongs to the Schatten class ${\mathbf{S}}_p$ with $0<p\leq1$. Then $M(r({{\mathbf a}}))$ is also in ${\mathbf{S}}_p$, with the norm bound $${\lVertM(r({{\mathbf a}}))\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}{\le C}_p {\lVert{{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}.
\label{d00}$$
2. Assume that ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})$ is bounded and belongs to the Schatten-Lorentz class ${\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}$ with $0<p<1$ and $1\leq q\le\infty$. Then $M(r({{\mathbf a}}))$ is also in ${\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}$, with the norm bound $${\lVertM(r({{\mathbf a}}))\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}}{\le C}_p {\lVert{{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}}.$$
We will only need the case $q=\infty$ of part (ii) of the theorem.
In Sections \[SP estimate\]–\[sec.c4\] after some preliminaries, we prove part (i) of the theorem. The proof uses V. Peller’s description of Hankel operators of the class ${\mathbf{S}}_p$, $0<p\leq1$. In Sections \[sec.c5\]–\[sec.c6\] we use real interpolation to deduce part (ii) of the theorem.
Eigenvalue estimates for integral Hankel operators {#SP estimate}
--------------------------------------------------
For ${{\mathbf{f}}}\in L^1({{\mathbb R}})+L^2({{\mathbb R}})$, its Fourier transform is defined as usual by $${\widehat}{{\mathbf{f}}}(\xi):=\int_{-\infty}^\infty
{{\mathbf{f}}}(x)e^{-2\pi ix\xi}\,dx, \quad \xi\in{{\mathbb R}}.$$ Throughout this section, we let ${{\mathbf w}}\in C^\infty_0({{\mathbb R}})$ be a function with the properties ${{\mathbf w}}\geq0$, $\operatorname{supp}{{\mathbf w}}=[1/2,2]$ and $$\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty {{\mathbf w}}(x/2^n)=1, \quad \text{for all } x>0.$$ For $n\in{{\mathbb Z}}$, let ${{\mathbf w}}_n(x)={{\mathbf w}}(x/2^n)$ and for a function ${{\mathbf b}}\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}({{\mathbb R}}_+)$ set $${{\mathbf b}}_n(x):={{\mathbf b}}(x){{\mathbf w}}_n(x), \quad x\in{{\mathbb R}},
\label{d11}$$ so that $${\widehat}{{{\mathbf b}}}_n(\xi) = ({\widehat}{{\mathbf b}}\ast{\widehat}{{\mathbf w}}_n)(\xi), \quad \xi\in{{\mathbb R}},$$ where $*$ denotes convolution. Clearly, we have $${{\mathbf b}}(x)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty{{\mathbf b}}_n(x), \quad x>0,
\label{c3a}$$ where for every $x>0$, at most two terms of the series are non-zero.
Let us recall the necessary and sufficient conditions for the Schatten class inclusion ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})\in {\mathbf{S}}_p$.
[@Peller Theorem 6.7.4]\[thm.b3\] Let ${{\mathbf b}}\in L^1_{\rm loc} ({{\mathbb R}}_{+})$ and let $p>0$. The estimate $$C_p{\lVert{{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}^p
\le
\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty 2^n {\lVert{\widehat}{{\mathbf b}}_n\rVert}^p_{L^p({{\mathbb R}})}
\le C'_p
{\lVert{{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}^p
\label{cb8}$$ holds, so that ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})\in {\mathbf{S}}_p$ if and only if the series in converges.
The convergence of the series in means that ${\widehat}{{\mathbf b}}$ belongs to the homogenous Besov class $B^{1/p}_{p,p}({{\mathbb R}})$.
Preliminary statements {#sec.d3}
----------------------
Using the unitary equivalence reduces the question to the following one: if ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})\in{\mathbf{S}}_1$, then the kernel function ${{\mathbf b}}(x)$ is continuous in $x>0$. This statement is known, and the proof is evident: if ${{\mathbf b}}_n$ is as in , then by Theorem \[thm.b3\], we have ${\widehat}{{\mathbf b}}_n\in L^1({{\mathbb R}})$ for all $n$, and so in the series each function ${{\mathbf b}}_n$ is continuous.
A key ingredient of the proof of Theorem \[thm.a2\] is a (scaled) classical inequality of Plancherel and Polya [@Plan-Pol; @Eoff] which states that if ${{\mathbf{f}}}\in L^p({{\mathbb R}})$ for $p>0$ and $\operatorname{supp}{\widehat}{{\mathbf{f}}}\subset[0,N]$, $N>0$, then $$\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty{\lvert{{\mathbf{f}}}(m/N)\rvert}^p {\le C}_p N{\lVert{{\mathbf{f}}}\rVert}^p_{L^p({{\mathbb R}})}.$$
\[lma.d5\] Let $v\in L^1({{\mathbb R}})\cap L^p({{\mathbb R}})$, $0<p\leq1$, and assume that the function $${{\mathbf a}}(t)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty v(\xi)t^{-\frac12+2\pi i \xi}d\xi,\quad t>0,
\label{d3}$$ satisfies the condition $\operatorname{supp}{{\mathbf a}}\subset[1,e^N]$ for some $N\in{{\mathbb N}}$. Then for $a=r({{\mathbf a}})$, the Helson matrix $M(a)$ satisfies the estimate $${\lVertM(a)\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}^p\leq C_pN{\lVertv\rVert}_{L^p({{\mathbb R}})}^p.$$
Condition $\operatorname{supp}{{\mathbf a}}\subset[1,e^N]$ means that we may regard $M(a)$ as an $[e^N]\times [e^N]$ matrix ($[e^N]$ is the integer part of $e^N$); we will use this throughout the proof.
1\) Let $p=1$. Equation implies that $$a(jk)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty v(\xi) (jk)^{-\frac12+2\pi i \xi}d\xi.
\label{d5}$$ This can be interpreted as an integral representation for $M(a)$ in terms of rank one $[e^N]\times [e^N]$ matrices $\{(jk)^{-\frac12+2\pi i \xi}\}_{j,k=1}^{[e^N]}$. The trace norm of these rank one matrices is easy to compute: $${\left\lVert\{(jk)^{-\frac12+2\pi i \xi}\}_{j,k=1}^{[e^N]}\right\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_1}
=
\sum_{j=1}^{[e^N]}{\lvertj^{-\frac12+2\pi i \xi}\rvert}^2
=
\sum_{j=1}^{[e^N]}\frac1j\leq 1+N.$$ Substituting this estimate into , we get $${\lVertM(a)\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_1}
\leq
\int_{-\infty}^\infty {\lvertv(\xi)\rvert}{\left\lVert\{(jk)^{-\frac12+2\pi i \xi}\}_{j,k=1}^{[e^N]}\right\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_1}d\xi
\leq
(N+1){\lVertv\rVert}_{L^1({{\mathbb R}})}.$$
2\) Let $0<p<1$. Since the triangle inequality in ${\mathbf{S}}_p$ is no longer valid in this case, we have to use the modified triangle inequality . This forces us to use sums instead of integrals in estimates. In particular, we need a series representation substitute for . We claim that ${{\mathbf a}}$ can be represented as $${{\mathbf a}}(t)=\frac1N\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty v(m/N)t^{-\frac12+2\pi i\frac{m}N}, \quad t>1,
\label{d6}$$ where the series converges absolutely and satisfies $$\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty {\lvertv(m/N)\rvert}^p\leq C_pN{\lVertv\rVert}_{L^p({{\mathbb R}})}^p.
\label{d7}$$ In order to justify this, we set ${{\mathbf b}}(x)=e^{x/2}{{\mathbf a}}(e^{x})$; then means that ${\widehat}{{\mathbf b}}=v$. Since $\operatorname{supp}{{\mathbf b}}\subset[0,N]$, we can expand ${{\mathbf b}}$ in the orthonormal basis $$N^{-1/2}e^{2\pi ix \frac{m}N}, \quad m\in{{\mathbb Z}}$$ in $L^2(0,N)$. This yields $${{\mathbf b}}(x)=\frac1N\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty e^{2\pi ix \frac{m}N}\int_0^N {{\mathbf b}}(y)e^{-2\pi i y\frac{m}N}dy
=\frac1N\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty e^{2\pi i x\frac{m}N}v(m/N).$$ Changing the variable $x=\log t$ and coming back to ${{\mathbf a}}(t)$, we obtain . Since $\operatorname{supp}{{\mathbf b}}\subset[0,N]$, we can apply the Plancherel-Polya inequality, which gives . The same inequality with $p=1$ ensures the absolute convergence of the series in and justifies the above calculation.
3\) The representation yields $$a(jk)=\frac1N\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty v(m/N)(jk)^{-\frac12+2\pi i\frac{m}{N}}, \quad j,k\in{{\mathbb N}}.$$ This is an expansion of $M(a)$ in a series of rank one operators. As on step 1 of the proof, we have $${\left\lVert\{(jk)^{-\frac12+2\pi i\frac{m}{N}}\}_{j,k=1}^N\right\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}\leq(N+1).$$ Applying the modified triangle inequality for ${\mathbf{S}}_p$ and using , we get $${\lVertM(a)\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}^p
\leq
N^{-p}\sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty{\lvertv(m/N)\rvert}^p(N+1)^p\leq C_p N{\lVertv\rVert}_{L^p({{\mathbb R}})}^p,$$ as required.
Proof of Theorem \[thm.a2\](i) {#sec.c4}
------------------------------
Let ${{\mathbf b}}(x)=e^{x/2}{{\mathbf a}}(e^x)$, ${{\mathbf b}}_n(x)={{\mathbf b}}(x) {{\mathbf w}}_n(x)$ and ${{\mathbf a}}_n(t)=t^{-1/2}{{\mathbf b}}_n(\log t)$, $n\in{{\mathbb Z}}$, where ${{\mathbf w}}_n$ are the functions defined in Section \[SP estimate\]. Clearly, we have $${{\mathbf a}}(t)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty {{\mathbf a}}_n(t), \quad t>1.
\label{d9}$$ From the unitary equivalence , we see that ${\lVert{{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}={\lVert{{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}$. Hence by Theorem \[thm.b3\] we have $$\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty 2^n{\lVert{\widehat}{{\mathbf b}}_n\rVert}^p_{L^p({{\mathbb R}})}
{\le C}_p {\lVert{{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}^p.
\label{estimate1}$$
Fix $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$. We have $\operatorname{supp}{{\mathbf a}}_n\subset[\exp(2^{n-1}),\exp(2^{n+1})]\subset[1,\exp(2^{n+1})]$, and $${{\mathbf a}}_n(t)
=t^{-1/2}{{\mathbf b}}_n(\log t)
=t^{-1/2}\int_{-\infty}^\infty {\widehat}{{\mathbf b}}_n(\xi)e^{i2\pi \xi\log t}d\xi
=\int_{-\infty}^\infty {\widehat}{{\mathbf b}}_n(\xi)t^{-\frac12+i2\pi \xi}d\xi.$$ Also, by with $p=1$, we have ${\widehat}{{\mathbf b}}_n\in L^1({{\mathbb R}})$. Thus, we can apply Lemma \[lma.d5\] with $N=2^{n+1}$, which yields $${\lVertM(r({{\mathbf a}}_n))\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}^p {\le C}_p
2^n{\lVert{\widehat}{{\mathbf b}}_n\rVert}^p_{L^p({{\mathbb R}})}.$$ Now from we have $$M(r({{\mathbf a}}))=\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty M(r({{\mathbf a}}_n));$$ applying the modified triangle inequality for ${\mathbf{S}}_p$, we obtain $${\lVertM(r({{\mathbf a}}))\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}^p
\leq
\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty
{\lVertM(r({{\mathbf a}}_n))\rVert}_{{\mathbf{S}}_p}^p
\leq
C_p
\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty
2^n
{\lVert{\widehat}{{\mathbf b}}_n\rVert}^p_{L^p({{\mathbb R}})}.$$ Combining this with , we obtain the required estimate .
Real interpolation {#sec.c5}
------------------
We now wish to show that the restriction map ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\mapsto M(r({{\mathbf a}}))$ is bounded between the Schatten-Lorentz classes ${\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}$, when $p<1$ and $1\leq q\le\infty$. To arrive at this we will use the real interpolation method (the “$K$-method”). We will quickly review this, but refer the reader to [@Ber-Lof §3.1] for the details.
A pair of quasi-Banach spaces $(X_0,X_1)$ are called compatible if they are both continuously included into the same Hausdorff topological vector space. Real interpolation between a compatible pair of quasi-Banach spaces $X_0$ and $X_1$ produces, for each $0<\theta<1$ and $1\le q\le\infty$, an intermediate quasi-Banach space which is denoted $(X_0,X_1)_{\theta,q}$ and which satisfies $X_0\cap X_1\subseteq (X_0,X_1)_{\theta,q} \subseteq X_0 + X_1$, with continuous inclusions. In addition, if $(X_0,X_1)$ and $(Y_0,Y_1)$ are two pairs of compatible quasi-Banach spaces and $A$ is a bounded linear map from $X_0$ to $Y_0$ and from $X_1$ to $Y_1$ then $A$ will be bounded from $(X_0,X_1)_{\theta,q}$ to $(Y_0,Y_1)_{\theta,q}$ for each $0<\theta<1$ and $1\le q\le\infty$.
An important result that we will make use of is the *reiteration theorem*: if $(X_0, X_1)$ are a compatible pair of quasi-Banach spaces, then for $0\le\theta_0<\theta_1\le 1$ and $0<q_0,q_1<\infty$ $$\left( (X_0, X_1)_{\theta_0,q_0}, (X_0, X_1)_{\theta_1,q_1}
\right)_{\theta,q}
= (X_0, X_1)_{(1-\theta)\theta_0 + \theta\theta_1,q},
\label{reiteration}$$ where we interpret $(X_0,X_1)_{0,q}$ and $(X_0,X_1)_{1,q}$ to be $X_0$ and $X_1$ respectively.
Of particular relevance to us are the following interpolation spaces: for $0< p_0<p_1\le\infty$ and $0<q\le\infty$ $$({\mathbf{S}}_{p_0},{\mathbf{S}}_{p_1})_{\theta,q} = {\mathbf{S}}_{p,q},
\quad \frac{1}{p}=\frac{1-\theta}{p_0} + \frac{\theta}{p_1}.
\label{Sp interpolation}$$
Interpolation spaces of Hankel and Helson operators {#sec.c6}
---------------------------------------------------
Let ${{\mathbf H}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}$ denote the set of integral Hankel operators of class ${\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}$, and let us write ${{\mathbf H}}{\mathbf{S}}_p$ for ${{\mathbf H}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p,p}$. We claim that ${{\mathbf H}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}$ is a closed subspace of ${\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}$ for all $0<p,q\le\infty$. This is a straightforward consequence of the following characterisation of integral Hankel operators [@Nikolski Part B, Section 4.8, page 273]. For $\lambda>0$, let $S_\lambda$ denote the right shift by $\lambda$ on $L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+)$ — that is, $$S_\lambda:L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+)\to L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+), \quad
S_\lambda f(x) =
\begin{cases}
f(x-\lambda), \quad x\ge\lambda, \\
0, \quad x<\lambda.
\end{cases}$$ Then, for a bounded operator $A$ on $L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+)$, one has $A={{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})$ for some distribution ${{\mathbf b}}$ on $(0,\infty)$ if and only if $$AS_\lambda = S_\lambda^*A \quad \text{for all}\quad \lambda>0.$$ One has a description for the interpolation spaces $({{\mathbf H}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p_0},{{\mathbf H}}{\mathbf{S}}_\infty)_{\theta,q}$, see [@Peller Theorem 6.4.1]: $$({{\mathbf H}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p_0},{{\mathbf H}}{\mathbf{S}}_\infty)_{\theta,q} = {{\mathbf H}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p,q},
\quad p=\frac{p_0}{1-\theta}.
\label{HSp interpolation}$$ It is worth noting that although [@Peller Theorem 6.4.1] is stated for Hankel matrices, the same argument also works for integral Hankel operators.
Similarly, let us write ${{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}$ and ${{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_p$ to denote the set of integral Helson operators of class ${\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}$ and ${\mathbf{S}}_p$ respectively. Since the unitary equivalence provides an isomorphism between ${{\mathbf H}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}$ and ${{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}$ it immediately follows from that $$({{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p_0},{{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_\infty)_{\theta,q} = {{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p,q},
\quad p=\frac{p_0}{1-\theta}.
\label{MSp interpolation}$$
We are now in a position to conclude the proof of Theorem \[thm.a2\].
Fix $0<p_0<1$. Then by , for any $p_1>p_0$, we can write ${{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p_1} = ({{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p_0},{{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_\infty)_{\theta_1,p_1}$ for some $0<\theta_1<1$. It then follows from the reiteration theorem that $$({{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p_0},{{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p_1})_{\theta,q}
= ({{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p_0},{{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_\infty)_{\theta\theta_1,q}
= {{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p,q},
\label{MSp interpolation 2}$$ where $p$ is given by .
By , the linear map ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}})\mapsto M(r({{\mathbf a}}))$ is bounded from ${{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p_0}$ to ${\mathbf{S}}_{p_0}$ and from ${{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_1$ to ${\mathbf{S}}_1$. It then follows from and that it is also bounded from ${{\mathbf M}}{\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}$ to ${\mathbf{S}}_{p,q}$ for every $p_0<p<1$ and $1\leq q\le\infty$. This completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem \[thm.a1\] {#sec.e}
===========================
Preliminaries
-------------
Here we collect three results from other sources that will be needed below for the proof. The first one is the stability of the eigenvalue asymptotic coefficient, which is is standard in spectral perturbation theory.
\[lma.b1\][@BSbook §11.6] Let $A$ and $B$ be compact self-adjoint operators and let $\gamma>0$. Suppose that $s_n(A-B)=o(n^{-\gamma})$ as $n\to\infty$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}n^\gamma\lambda_n^+(A)
&=
\limsup_{n\to\infty}n^\gamma\lambda_n^+(B),
\\
\liminf_{n\to\infty}n^\gamma\lambda_n^+(A)
&=
\liminf_{n\to\infty}n^\gamma\lambda_n^+(B).\end{aligned}$$
Of course, similar relations hold true for negative eigenvalues $\lambda_n^-$.
Next, we need a result from [@PY1] on the spectral asymptotics of integral Hankel operators. Roughly speaking, we need the eigenvalue asymptotics for integral Hankel operators ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}})$ with the kernel as in — this is one of the main results of [@PY1]. However, at the technical level, we need this result not for the kernel function ${{\mathbf b}}$ of , but for the kernel function ${{\mathbf b}}_0$ of , which has the same asymptotics as ${{\mathbf b}}$ but is given by the suitable integral representation. This happens to be one of the intermediate results of [@PY1], which fits our purpose.
[@PY1 Lemma 3.2]\[lma.bb4\] Let $w(\lambda)={\lvert\log\lambda\rvert}^{-\alpha}\chi(\lambda)$, where $\chi\in C^\infty({{\mathbb R}}_+)$ is a non-negative function such that $\chi(\lambda)=1$ near $\lambda=0$ and $\chi(\lambda)=0$ for $\lambda\geq1$. Consider the kernel function $${{\mathbf b}}_0(x)=\int_0^\infty w(\lambda)e^{-x\lambda}d\lambda,\quad x>0.$$ Then the corresponding integral Hankel operator ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}_0)$ is non-negative, compact and has the spectral asymptotics $$\lambda_n^+({{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}_0))=\varkappa(\alpha)n^{-\alpha}+o(n^{-\alpha}), \quad n\to\infty.$$
Finally, we will need a result from [@PY2] (which ultimately relies on Theorem \[thm.b3\]), which gives estimates on singular values for integral Hankel operators with kernels that behave, roughly speaking, as $O(x^{-1}(\log x)^{-\gamma})$. For $\gamma>0$, denote $$m(\gamma)=
\begin{cases}
[\gamma]+1& \text{ if } \gamma\geq1/2,
\\
0, & \text{ if } \gamma<1/2.
\end{cases}
\label{b7}$$
\[thm.b4\][@PY2 Theorem 2.7] Let $\gamma>0$ and let $m=m(\gamma)$ be the integer given by . Let ${{\mathbf b}}$ be a complex valued function, ${{\mathbf b}}\in L^\infty_{\mathrm{loc}}({{\mathbb R}}_+)$; if $\gamma\geq1/2$, suppose also that ${{\mathbf b}}\in C^m({{\mathbb R}}_+)$. Assume that ${{\mathbf b}}$ satisfies $${{\mathbf b}}^{(\ell)}(x)=O(x^{-1-\ell}{\lvert\log x\rvert}^{-\gamma})
\quad
\text{ as $x\to0$ and as $x\to\infty$,}
\label{b9}$$ for all $\ell=0,\dots,m(\gamma)$. Then $$s_n({{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}))=O(n^{-\gamma}), \quad n\to\infty.$$
Proof of Theorem \[thm.a1\] {#proof-of-theoremthm.a1}
---------------------------
We use the notation of Section \[sec.a5\]. More precisely, ${{\mathbf a}}(t)$ is a smooth function that satisfies for large $t$ and ${{\mathbf b}}(x)$ is the corresponding Hankel kernel function . Further, $\chi\in C^\infty({{\mathbb R}}_+)$ is a non-negative function such that $\chi(\lambda)=1$ for all sufficiently small $\lambda>0$ and $\chi(\lambda)=0$ for $\lambda\geq1$, and $w(\lambda)={\lvert\log\lambda\rvert}^{-\alpha}\chi(\lambda)$. The kernel functions ${{\mathbf a}}_0$ and ${{\mathbf a}}_1$ are given by and the corresponding Hankel kernels ${{\mathbf b}}_0$, ${{\mathbf b}}_1$ are given by ; finally, $a_0=r({{\mathbf a}}_0)$ and $a_1=r({{\mathbf a}}_1)$. Recall that we have $$M(a)=M(a_0)+M(a_1).$$
1\) Let us prove that the Helson matrix $M(a_0)$ is compact, non-negative and has the spectral asymptotics $$\lambda_n^+(M(a_0))=\varkappa(\alpha)n^{-\alpha}+o(n^{-\alpha}), \quad n\to\infty.
\label{dd0}$$ Lemma \[lma.bb4\] provides the asymptotics of the required type for ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}_0)$. By the unitary equivalence between ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}_0)$ and ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}_0)$, we have $$\lambda_n^+({{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}_0))=\lambda_n^+({{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}_0))$$ for all $n$, and so ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}_0)$ obeys the same spectral asymptotics. Finally, we use Theorem \[thm.cc1\] with $a=a_0$ and ${{\mathbf a}}={{\mathbf a}}_0$. By the unitary equivalence modulo kernels, we have $$\lambda_n^+(M(a_0))=\lambda_n^+(A),
\quad
\lambda_n^+({{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}_0))=\lambda_n^+(B),$$ for all $n$, where $A$ and $B$ are the operators in the statement of Theorem \[thm.cc1\]. Now since $A-B\in{\mathbf{S}}_0$, by Lemma \[lma.b1\], we have $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}n^\alpha\lambda_n^+(A)
=
\limsup_{n\to\infty}n^\alpha\lambda_n^+(B)$$ for all $\alpha>0$, and similarly for $\liminf$. This gives the required asymptotics for $\lambda_n^+(A)$ and so for $\lambda_n^+(M(a_0))$. The non-negativity $M(a_0)\geq0$ is given again by Theorem \[thm.cc1\].
2\) Let us prove that the Helson matrix $M(a_1)$ is compact and satisfies the spectral estimates $$s_n(M(a_1))=O(n^{-\alpha-1}), \quad n\to\infty.
\label{dd1}$$ By the choice of ${{\mathbf a}}_1$, we have that ${{\mathbf b}}_1$ is smooth on $[0,\infty)$ and $${{\mathbf b}}_1(x)=x^{-1}(\log x)^{-\alpha}-\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda x}w(\lambda)d\lambda
\label{d1}$$ for all sufficiently large $x$. Let us check that ${{\mathbf b}}_1$ satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm.b4\] with $\gamma=\alpha+1$. Since ${{\mathbf b}}_1$ is smooth near $x=0$, we only need to check for $x\to\infty$.
We use the following well known fact [@Erdelyi]. Let $0<c<1$, $\ell\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+$, and $$I_\ell(x)= \int_{0}^c {\lvert\log \lambda\rvert}^{-\gamma}\lambda^{\ell} e^{-\lambda x}d\lambda, \quad x>0.$$ Then $$I_\ell(x)=\ell!\, x^{-1-\ell} (\log x)^{-\alpha} \bigl(1+O((\log x)^{-1})\bigr),
\quad x\to\infty.$$ Now differentiating $\ell$ times, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
{{\mathbf b}}_1^{(\ell)}(x)
=
(-1)^\ell
\ell!\, x^{-1-\ell} (\log x)^{-\alpha}
+O(x^{-1-\ell}(\log x)^{-\alpha-1})
\\
-
(-1)^\ell
\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda x}\lambda^{\ell}w(\lambda)d\lambda
=
O(x^{-1-\ell}(\log x)^{-\alpha-1}),
\quad
x\to\infty,\end{gathered}$$ for all $\ell\geq0$, which gives the required estimate with $\gamma=\alpha+1$.
Thus, Theorem \[thm.b4\] yields the inclusion ${{\mathbf H}}({{\mathbf b}}_1)\in{\mathbf{S}}_{p,\infty}$ with $p=1/(\alpha+1)$. By the unitary equivalence , it follows that ${{\mathbf M}}({{\mathbf a}}_1)\in{\mathbf{S}}_{p,\infty}$. Applying Theorem \[thm.a2\](ii), we obtain $M(a_1)\in{\mathbf{S}}_{p,\infty}$, which is equivalent to the required estimate .
3\) Now we can conclude the proof of the theorem. Let us apply the asymptotic stability result Lemma \[lma.b1\] with $A=M(a_0)$ and $B=M(a_1)$. By , this gives the asymptotics for positive eigenvalues.
Let us discuss the estimate for negative eigenvalues. By , we have $$\lambda_n^-(M(a_1))=O(n^{-\alpha-1}),\quad n\to\infty.
\label{e1}$$ Since $M(a_0)\geq0$, by the variational principle (see e.g. [@BSbook Theorem 9.3.7]), we obtain $$\#\{n: \lambda_n^-(M(a))>\lambda\}
\leq
\#\{n: \lambda_n^-(M(a_1))>\lambda\}$$ for any $\lambda>0$, which implies $$\lambda_n^-(M(a))\leq \lambda_n^-(M(a_1))$$ for any $n$. From here and we obtain the estimate for negative eigenvalues.
[14]{}
*Interpolation spaces: an introduction,* Springer-Verlag, 1976.
*Spectral theory of selfadjoint operators in Hilbert space,* D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1987.
*The multiplicative Hilbert matrix,* Adv. Math. **302** (2016), 410–432.
*The discrete nature of Paley-Wiener spaces,* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **123** no. 2 (1995), 505–512.
*General asymptotic expansions of Laplace integrals,* Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. **7** no. 1 (1961), 1–20.
*Hankel forms,* Studia Math. **198** (2010), 79–83.
*Operators, Functions and Systems: An Easy Reading. Volume 1.* AMS, 2002.
*Hankel operators and their applications,* Springer, 2003.
*On Helson matrices: moment problems, non-negativity, boundedness, and finite rank,* to appear in Proc. London Math. Soc.; DOI: 10.1112/plms.12068
*On the spectrum of the multiplicative Hilbert matrix,* to appear in Arkiv för Mathematik; arXiv:1705.01959.
*Fonctions entiéres et intégrales de Fourier multiples,* Comment. Math. Helv. **10** (1937), 110–163.
*Asymptotic behavior of eigenvalues of Hankel operators,* Int. Math. Res. Notices **2015**, no. 22 (2015), 11861–11886.
*Sharp estimates for singular values of Hankel operators,* Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory, **83** no. 3 (2015), 393–411.
*Diophantine approximation and Dirichlet series.* Hindustan Book Agency, New Delhi, 2013.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'ref\_Cuts2d.bib'
---
HU-EP-13/17\
Lorenzo Bianchi, Valentina Forini, Ben Hoare\
**Abstract**
Using unitarity methods, we compute, for several massive two-dimensional models, the cut-constructible part of the one-loop $2\to 2$ scattering S-matrices from the tree-level amplitudes. We apply our method to various integrable theories, finding evidence that for supersymmetric models the one-loop S-matrix is cut-constructible, while for models without supersymmetry (but with integrability) the missing rational terms are proportional to the tree-level S-matrix and therefore can be interpreted as a shift in the coupling. Finally, applying our procedure to the world-sheet theory for the light-cone gauge-fixed AdS$_5\times S^5$ superstring we reproduce, at one-loop in the near-BMN expansion, the S-matrix known from integrability techniques.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The remarkable efficiency of unitarity-based methods for the calculation of space-time scattering amplitudes in non-abelian gauge theories (see e.g. [@Roib_Review]) motivates the application of similar techniques to perturbative regimes of other interesting models. This is certainly the case for the AdS$_5\times S^5$ superstring world-sheet theory. The S-matrix for the scattering of its excitations is known exactly, fixed by symmetry and integrability up to a phase [@Beisert:2005tm], with the latter determined from a non-relativistic generalization of crossing symmetry as well as perturbative data both from the string and gauge theory sides – see the review articles [@Arutyunov:2009ga; @Beisert:2010jr] and references therein. However, the perturbative study of scattering amplitudes computed from the path integral defined by the classical action is still of interest. This is true not only because such calculations serve as a test of the proposed exact quantum S-matrix, but also because they provide insights into the structure of the amplitudes and the manifestation of symmetries, and confirm the integrable setup [@Klose:2006dd; @Roiban:2006yc; @Klose:2006zd; @Klose:2007wq; @Klose:2007rz]. The same is true for other integrable theories, including certain 2-d sigma-models [@Zamolodchikov:1978xm; @Ogievetsky:1987vv] and similar massive theories (see e.g. [@Dorey:1996gd]), for which exact quantum S-matrices are known. It is important to note that in the example of the light-cone gauge-fixed sigma-model for the AdS$_5\times S^5$ superstring standard perturbation theory has thus far not been a viable way – due to regularization issues [^1] – to evaluate the S-matrix beyond the leading order.
The aim of this work is to initiate the use of unitarity-based methods in the perturbative study of the S-matrix for *massive two-dimensional* field theories [^2]. Confining ourselves to the use of *standard* unitarity (where only two internal lines are placed on shell, subdividing a loop amplitude into two pieces [^3]) and working in a *fixed* number of dimensions $d=2$, we propose a formula for constructing the one-loop $2\to 2$ scattering amplitude directly from the corresponding on-shell tree-level amplitudes.
As might be expected, the two-dimensional case is much simpler than its four-dimensional counterpart. Our proposals, equations and below, take a remarkably compact form. This is a consequence of the massive 2-d kinematics, which imply that the cut loop momenta are frozen to specific values. Therefore, the integral degenerates to a sum over discrete solutions of the on-shell conditions. This is reminiscent of the framework of generalized unitarity in the four-dimensional case when quadruple cuts (maximal cuts [@Britto:2004nc]) are used. There, the quadruple-cut integral is completely localized by the four delta-functions of the cut propagators, and it reduces to a product of four tree-level amplitudes.
It is important to note that our procedure is inherently finite. All the theories we consider are either UV-finite or renormalizable. In the latter case, our procedure implicitly chooses a particular regularization scheme. Hence the result we will compare to is the renormalized four-point amplitude, up to scheme ambiguities. A related point is that the expressions and , obtained via the implementation of unitary cuts in fixed dimension, are not necessarily expected to give the full answer, possibly missing rational terms (terms with only a rational dependence on momentum invariants) that can arise from the $\epsilon$-expansion in $d=2-2\epsilon$ dimensions [@vanNeerven:1985xr]. A thorough discussion of these issues is contained in Section \[sec:general\].
The main part of this paper focusses on testing the validity of our procedure for several models of interest, and therefore exploring the *cut-constructibility* (via standard unitarity methods) of S-matrices in two dimensions. For bosonic theories with *integrability*, the result obtained is rather intriguing – we find close agreement with perturbation theory, the only price to pay being a finite shift in the coupling. Incidentally, a hint of a connection between unitarity and integrability can be seen, for example, in the sine-Gordon model – the only non-vanishing contribution to the connected part of the $3 \to 3$ tree-level amplitude is obtained by setting the intermediate particles on-shell [@Dorey:1996gd]. These results seem to suggest a relationship between quantization preserving integrability and unitarity techniques which would be interesting to investigate further.
Possibly more expected is that one-loop amplitudes in *integrable, supersymmetric* theories appear to be cut-constructible via standard unitarity. This is analogous to the cut-constructibility of one-loop amplitudes in massless, supersymmetric theories in four dimensions [@Bern:1994zx; @Bern:1994cg]. We also apply our procedure to the AdS$_5 \times S^5$ light-cone gauge-fixed world-sheet superstring finding agreement, at one-loop in the near-BMN expansion, with the S-matrix known from integrability techniques.
The paper proceeds as follows. In Section \[sec:general\] we set out the general formalism, and obtain the expressions for the cut-constructible part of the one-loop $2\to 2$ S-matrix. We then apply this result to various relativistic integrable models in Section \[sec:relativistic\] and to string theory on AdS$_5\times S^5$ in Section \[sec:strings\]. Concluding remarks are given in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Two-particle one-loop S-matrix from unitarity cuts {#sec:general}
==================================================
In this section we derive a candidate expression for the one-loop two-particle S-matrix in terms of the tree-level one, as follows from the standard application of cutting techniques (see for example [@Dixon:1996wi]) to the two-dimensional case. While due to the expected absence of rational terms this formula can never be completely general, we investigate its validity in later sections on various examples.\
The two-body scattering process of a field theory invariant under space and time translations \[eqn:4ptampl\] \^[P]{}(p\_3)\^[Q]{}(p\_4)||\_[M]{}(p\_1)\_[N]{}(p\_2)=\_[[M]{}[N]{}]{}\^[[P]{}[Q]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2,p\_3,p\_4) is described via the four-point amplitude \[eqn:ampcons\] \_[[M]{}[N]{}]{}\^[[P]{}[Q]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2,p\_3,p\_4)=(2)\^2 \^[(d)]{}(p\_1+p\_2-p\_3-p\_4) \_[[M]{}[N]{}]{}\^[[P]{}[Q]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2,p\_3,p\_4) . In (\[eqn:4ptampl\]) $\mathbb{S}$ is the scattering operator, the fields $\Phi$ carry flavor indices to account for different kinds of particles in the model and $p_i$ are their on-shell momenta. In this paper we will restrict to the case where all the particles have equal non-vanishing mass, which we set to unity. In the two-dimensional case the set of initial momenta is preserved under collision. This translates into the following identity for the energy-momentum conservation $\delta$-function of (\[eqn:ampcons\]) \[delta2d\] \^[(2)]{}(p\_1+p\_2-p\_3-p\_4)=J(p\_1,p\_2)((\_1 - \_3)(\_2 - \_4) +(\_1 - \_4)(\_2 - \_3) ) . Above, $\rmp$ is the spatial momentum and the Jacobian $J(p_1,p_2)=1/(\partial \e_{\rmp_1}/\partial \rmp_1-\partial\e_{\rmp_2}/\partial \rmp_2)$ depends on the dispersion relation $\e_\rmp$ (the on-shell energy associated to $\rmp$) for the theory at hand. Spatial momenta are assumed to be ordered $\rmp_1>\rmp_2$. Substituting (\[delta2d\]) in we can consider the amplitudes associated to the first product of $\delta$-functions $\delta(\text{p}_1 - \text{p}_3)\delta(\text{p}_2 - \text{p}_4)$ without loss of generality. The S-matrix elements relevant for the description of the $2\to2$ scattering in the two-dimensional case are then defined as [@Eden:1966] \[AandS\] S\_[[M]{}[N]{}]{}\^[[P]{}[Q]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2) \_[[M]{}[N]{}]{}\^[[P]{}[Q]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2,p\_1,p\_2) , where the denominator is required to make contact with the standard definition of the S-matrix in two dimensions. In applying the unitarity method to the one-loop four point amplitude (\[eqn:ampcons\]) one follows the standard route of considering two-particle cuts, obtained by putting two intermediate lines on-shell.
In general there will be contributions from tadpole and bubble graphs to the one-loop four point amplitude. The former have no physical two-particle cuts and do not contribute an imaginary part to the amplitude. For this reason they should not be considered in our procedure, which is based on standard unitarity rules (derived from the optical theorem) [@Bern:1994zx; @Bern:1997nh]. Therefore the one-loop result following from unitarity techniques will receive contributions from the $s$- $t$- and $u$- channel cuts illustrated in Fig. \[stu\]. Explicitly, the imaginary part of the amplitude is given by the sum of the following three contributions \^[(1)]{}\^[[P]{}[Q]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[N]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2,p\_3,p\_4)|\_[s-cut]{}=12 i\^+([l\_1]{}\^2-[1]{}) i\^+(l\_2\^2-[1]{})\
\[eqn:sch1\]\^[(0)]{}\_[[M]{}[N]{}]{}\^[[R]{}[S]{}]{}([p\_1,p\_2,l\_1,l\_2]{})\^[(0)]{}\_[[S]{}[R]{}]{}\^[[P]{}[Q]{}]{} ([l\_2,l\_1,p\_3,p\_4]{})\
\^[(1)]{}\^[[P]{}[Q]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[N]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2,p\_3,p\_4)|\_[t-cut]{}=12 i\^+([l\_1]{}\^2-[1]{}) i\^+([l\_2]{}\^2-[1]{})\
\[eqn:tch1\]\^[(0)]{}\_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}\^[[S]{}[P]{}]{}([p\_1,l\_1,l\_2,p\_3]{})\^[(0)]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}\^[[R]{}[Q]{}]{}([l\_2,p\_2,l\_1,p\_4]{})\
\^[(1)]{}\^[[P]{}[Q]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[N]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2,p\_3,p\_4)|\_[u-cut]{}=12 i\^+([l\_1]{}\^2-[1]{}) i\^+([l\_2]{}\^2-[1]{})\
\[eqn:uch1\]\^[(0)]{}\_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}\^[[S]{}[Q]{}]{}([p\_1,l\_1,l\_2,p\_4]{})\^[(0)]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}\^[[R]{}[P]{}]{}([l\_2,p\_2,l\_1,p\_3]{}) where $\mathcal{A}^{(0)}$ are tree-level amplitudes and a sum over the complete set of intermediate states ${R},{S}$ (all allowed particles for the cut lines) is understood. The on-shell propagator is given in terms of $\delta^+(k^2 - 1) = \theta(k^0) \delta(k^2-1)$ and we have included a symmetry factor of $\tfrac12$.
(-5,-3) – (-4,-4); (-5,-5) – (-4,-4); (-2,-4) – (-1,-3); (-2,-4) – (-1,-5); (-3,-4) circle (1cm); (-3,-2.5) – (-3,-5.5); (-4.7,-3.0) – (-4.3,-3.4); at (-4.7,-2.8) [$p_1$]{}; (-4.7,-5.0) – (-4.3,-4.6); at (-4.7,-5.2) [$p_2$]{}; (-1.3,-3.0) – (-1.7,-3.4); at (-1.3,-2.8) [$p_4$]{}; (-1.3,-5.0) – (-1.7,-4.6); at (-1.3,-5.2) [$p_3$]{}; (-3.1,-3.2) – (-3.5,-3.35); at (-3.2,-3.5) [$l_1$]{}; (-2.9,-4.8) – (-2.5,-4.65); at (-2.8,-4.5) [$l_2$]{}; at (-3.4,-2.85) [${R}$]{}; at (-2.6,-5.15) [${S}$]{}; at (-5.2,-3) [${M}$]{}; at (-5.2,-5) [${N}$]{}; at (-0.8,-5) [${P}$]{}; at (-0.8,-3) [${Q}$]{}; at (-4,-4) [$\mathcal{A}^{(0)}$]{}; at (-2,-4) [$\mathcal{A}^{(0)}$]{};
\
(-5,-3) – (-4,-4); (-5,-5) – (-4,-4); (-2,-4) – (-1,-3); (-2,-4) – (-1,-5); (-3,-4) circle (1cm); (-3,-2.5) – (-3,-5.5); (-4.7,-3.0) – (-4.3,-3.4); at (-4.7,-2.8) [$p_2$]{}; (-4.7,-5.0) – (-4.3,-4.6); at (-4.7,-5.2) [$p_4$]{}; (-1.3,-3.0) – (-1.7,-3.4); at (-1.3,-2.8) [$p_1$]{}; (-1.3,-5.0) – (-1.7,-4.6); at (-1.3,-5.2) [$p_3$]{}; (-3.1,-3.2) – (-3.5,-3.35); at (-3.2,-3.5) [$l_1$]{}; (-2.9,-4.8) – (-2.5,-4.65); at (-2.8,-4.5) [$l_2$]{}; at (-3.4,-2.85) [${R}$]{}; at (-2.6,-5.15) [${S}$]{}; at (-5.2,-3) [${N}$]{}; at (-5.2,-5) [${Q}$]{}; at (-0.8,-5) [${P}$]{}; at (-0.8,-3) [${M}$]{}; at (-4,-4) [$\mathcal{A}^{(0)}$]{}; at (-2,-4) [$\mathcal{A}^{(0)}$]{};
(-5,-3) – (-4,-4); (-5,-5) – (-4,-4); (-2,-4) – (-1,-3); (-2,-4) – (-1,-5); (-3,-4) circle (1cm); (-3,-2.5) – (-3,-5.5); (-4.7,-3.0) – (-4.3,-3.4); at (-4.7,-2.8) [$p_2$]{}; (-4.7,-5.0) – (-4.3,-4.6); at (-4.7,-5.2) [$p_3$]{}; (-1.3,-3.0) – (-1.7,-3.4); at (-1.3,-2.8) [$p_1$]{}; (-1.3,-5.0) – (-1.7,-4.6); at (-1.3,-5.2) [$p_4$]{}; (-3.1,-3.2) – (-3.5,-3.35); at (-3.2,-3.5) [$l_1$]{}; (-2.9,-4.8) – (-2.5,-4.65); at (-2.8,-4.5) [$l_2$]{}; at (-3.4,-2.85) [${R}$]{}; at (-2.6,-5.15) [${S}$]{}; at (-5.2,-3) [${N}$]{}; at (-5.2,-5) [${P}$]{}; at (-0.8,-5) [${Q}$]{}; at (-0.8,-3) [${M}$]{}; at (-4,-4) [$\mathcal{A}^{(0)}$]{}; at (-2,-4) [$\mathcal{A}^{(0)}$]{};
To proceed, in each case we use (\[eqn:ampcons\]) and the two-momentum conservation at the vertex involving the momentum $p_1$ to integrate over $l_2$ && \^[(1)]{}\^[[P]{}[Q]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[N]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2,p\_3,p\_4)|\_[s-cut]{}=12i\^+([l\_1]{}\^2-[1]{}) i\^+(([l\_1]{}-[p\_1]{}-[p\_2]{})\^2-[1]{})\
&&\^[(0)]{}\_[[M]{}[N]{}]{}\^[[R]{}[S]{}]{}([p\_1,p\_2,l\_1,-l\_1+p\_1+p\_2]{}) \^[(0)]{}\_[[S]{}[R]{}]{}\^[[P]{}[Q]{}]{}([-l\_1+p\_1+p\_2,l\_1,p\_3,p\_4]{}),\[2\_8\]\
&& \^[(1)]{}\^[[P]{}[Q]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[N]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2,p\_3,p\_4)|\_[t-cut]{}=12i\^+([l\_1]{}\^2-[1]{})i\^+(([l\_1]{}+[p\_1]{}-[p\_3]{})\^2-[1]{})\
&& \^[(0)]{}\_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}\^[[S]{}[P]{}]{}([p\_1,l\_1,l\_1+p\_1-p\_3,p\_3]{}) \^[(0)]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}\^[[R]{}[Q]{}]{}([l\_1+p\_1-p\_3,p\_2,l\_1,p\_4]{}) , \[2\_9\]\
&& \^[(1)]{}\^[[P]{}[Q]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[N]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2,p\_3,p\_4)|\_[u-cut]{}= 12i\^+([l\_1]{}\^2-[1]{}) i\^+(([l\_1]{}+[p\_1]{}-[p\_4]{})\^2-[1]{})\
&& \^[(0)]{}\_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}\^[[S]{}[Q]{}]{}([p\_1,l\_1,l\_1+p\_1-p\_4,p\_4]{})\^[(0)]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}\^[[R]{}[P]{}]{}([l\_1+p\_1-p\_4,p\_2,l\_1,p\_3]{}).\[2\_10\] In each of these integrals the set of zeroes of the $\delta$-functions are discrete. This allows us to pull out the tree-level amplitudes with the loop-momenta evaluated at those zeroes, leaving scalar bubbles [^4]. Following standard unitarity computations [@Bern:1994zx], we apply the following replacement in the imaginary part of the amplitude – to the internal on-shell propagators: $i\pi \delta^+(l^2-1) \longrightarrow \tfrac{1}{l^2-1}$. This allows us to rebuild, from its imaginary part, the cut-constructible piece of the amplitude \^[(1)]{}\^[[P]{}[Q]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[N]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2,p\_3,p\_4)&=&\
& +& \^[(0)]{}\_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}\^[[S]{}[P]{}]{}([p\_1,p\_3,p\_1,p\_3]{}) \^[(0)]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}\^[[R]{}[Q]{}]{}([p\_1,p\_2,p\_3,p\_4]{})\
& + & \^[(0)]{}\_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}\^[[S]{}[Q]{}]{}([p\_1,p\_4,p\_1,p\_4]{}) \^[(0)]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}\^[[R]{}[P]{}]{}([p\_1,p\_2,p\_4,p\_3]{})\[2\_11\]where we have introduced the bubble integral I(p)= The structure of shows the difference between the $s$-channel, for which there are two solutions of the $\delta$-function constraints in (for positive energies), and the $t$- and $u$-channels, for which there is only one.
Choosing $p_3=p_1$, $p_4=p_2$, which corresponds to considering the amplitudes associated to the first product of $\delta$-functions $\delta(\text{p}_1 - \text{p}_3)\delta(\text{p}_2 - \text{p}_4)$ (see comment above ), it then follows that a candidate expression for the one-loop S-matrix elements is given by the following simple sum of products of two tree-level amplitudes weighted by scalar bubble integrals. $$\begin{aligned}
{S^{(1)}}{}_{{M}{N}}^{{P}{Q}}(p_1,p_2)=\frac{1}{8 (\e_2\,\rmp_1-\e_1\,\rmp_2)}\,\Big[&{\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{M}{N}}^{{R}{S}}(p_1,p_2){\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{R}{S}}^{{P}{Q}}(p_1,p_2)I(p_1+p_2)\nonumber\\ \vphantom{\frac{1}{4 (\e_2\,\rmp_1-\e_1\,\rmp_2)}} +& {\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{M}{R}}^{{S}{P}}(p_1,p_1){\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{S}{N}}^{{R}{Q}}(p_1,p_2)I(0) \nonumber\\
\vphantom{\frac{1}{4 (\e_2\,\rmp_1-\e_1\,\rmp_2)}}
+&{\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{M}{R}}^{{S}{Q}}(p_1,p_2){\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{S}{N}}^{{P}{R}}(p_1,p_2)I(p_1-p_2)\,\Big]
\label{eqn:final}~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde S^{(0)}(p_1,p_2)=4 (\e_2\,\rmp_1-\e_1\,\rmp_2) S^{(0)}(p_1,p_2)$. The denominator on the right-hand side comes from the Jacobian $J(p_1,p_2)$ assuming a standard relativistic dispersion relation (for the theories we consider, at one-loop this is indeed the case), and the one-loop integrals read explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
I(p_1+p_2)&=\frac{i\pi-{\operatorname{arsinh}}(\e_2\,\rmp_1-\e_1\,\rmp_2)}{4\pi i\,(\e_2\,\rmp_1-\e_1\,\rmp_2)}\,,\label{bubblep}\\
I(0)&=\frac{1}{4\pi i}\,,\\
I(p_1-p_2)&=\frac{{\operatorname{arsinh}}(\e_2\,\rmp_1-\e_1\,\rmp_2)}{4\pi i\,(\e_2\,\rmp_1-\e_1\,\rmp_2)}~.\label{bubblem}\end{aligned}$$ For theories including fermionic fields, the above derivation holds up to signs. To be precise the sign prescription is given as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\no
{S^{(1)}}{}_{{M}{N}}^{{P}{Q}}(p_1,p_2)=&\frac{1}{8 (\e_2\,\rmp_1-\e_1\,\rmp_2)}\,\Big[{\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{M}{N}}^{{R}{S}}(p_1,p_2){\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{R}{S}}^{{P}{Q}}(p_1,p_2)I(p_1+p_2)\nonumber\\\label{eqn:final_ferm} \vphantom{\frac{1}{4 (\e_2\,\rmp_1-\e_1\,\rmp_2)}}
+& (-1)^{[{P}][{S}]+[{R}][{S}]}\,{\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{M}{R}}^{{S}{P}}(p_1,p_1){\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{S}{N}}^{{R}{Q}}(p_1,p_2)I(0) \\ \no
\vphantom{\frac{1}{4 (\e_2\,\rmp_1-\e_1\,\rmp_2)}}
+&(-1)^{[{P}][{R}]+[{Q}][{S}]+[{R}][{S}]+[{P}][{Q}]}{\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{M}{R}}^{{S}{Q}}(p_1,p_2){\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{S}{N}}^{{P}{R}}(p_1,p_2)I(p_1-p_2)\,\Big]~,\end{aligned}$$ where $[{M}] = 0$ for a boson and $1$ for a fermion.
The expressions and above, as is clear from the second term, are not invariant under the interchange of $p_1$ and $p_2$ along with the corresponding flavor indices. Furthermore, if we choose the alternative solution of the conservation $\delta$-function in (\[eqn:tch1\]), namely $\ell_2=\ell_1+p_4-p_2$, the coefficient of $I(0)$ in (\[eqn:final\]) would read \_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}\^[[P]{}[S]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2)[S\^[(0)]{}]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}\^[[Q]{}[R]{}]{}(p\_2,p\_2) , where, as before, for theories including fermionic fields there is an additional sign given by $(-1)^{[{Q}][{R}]+[{R}][{S}]}$. Therefore, consistency between the two expressions requires the following condition on the tree-level S-matrix \[consistency\] [S\^[(0)]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}\^[[S]{}[P]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_1)[S\^[(0)]{}]{}\^[[R]{}[Q]{}]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2)=[S\^[(0)]{}]{}\^[[P]{}[S]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2)[S\^[(0)]{}]{}\^[[Q]{}[R]{}]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}(p\_2,p\_2) . In the case where there are also fermionic fields the consistency condition is generalized to \[consistency\_ferm\] (-1)\^[\[[P]{}\]\[[S]{}\]+\[[R]{}\]\[[S]{}\]]{}[S\^[(0)]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}\^[[S]{}[P]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_1)[S\^[(0)]{}]{}\^[[R]{}[Q]{}]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2)= (-1)\^[\[[Q]{}\]\[[R]{}\]+\[[R]{}\]\[[S]{}\]]{} [S\^[(0)]{}]{}\^[[P]{}[S]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}(p\_1,p\_2)[S\^[(0)]{}]{}\^[[Q]{}[R]{}]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}(p\_2,p\_2) . If / is satisfied, then the formula (\[eqn:final\])/ is free from ambiguities. We have checked this for the tree-level S-matrices of all the field theory models treated below.
Finally, let us comment on the issue of renormalization. It is clear that the results, and , following from our procedure are finite quantities as they only involve the scalar bubble integral in two dimensions. This follows from the discreteness of the set of zeroes of the arguments of the $\delta$-functions in -, which allows one to pull out the tree-level amplitudes from the loop integral and was used to derive . Consequently, no additional regularization is required and the result can be compared directly with the $2 \to 2$ particle S-matrix (following from the finite or renormalized four-point amplitude) found using standard perturbation theory.
Of course, this need not be the case for the original bubble integrals before cutting – due to factors of loop-momentum in the numerators. These divergences, along with those coming from tadpole graphs, which we did not consider, should be taken into account for the renormalization of the theory. In this paper we do not investigate this issue, however all the theories we consider in Section \[sec:relativistic\] and \[sec:strings\] are either UV-finite or renormalizable. Furthermore, whether the cut-constructible contribution / to the S-matrix gives the full result is a priori unclear as rational terms following from non-trivial cancellations in the regularization procedure may be missing.
In the following sections we will make use of (\[eqn:final\]) and to construct the one-loop S-matrix from its tree-level form for some relativistic models (Section \[sec:relativistic\]) and for the non-relativistic string world-sheet field theory on AdS$_5\times S^5$ (Section \[sec:strings\]). For all these theories we will compare with known results (either from perturbation theory or integrability techniques) and analyze the effectiveness of the method of unitarity cuts in two dimensions.
Relativistic models {#sec:relativistic}
===================
To explore the validity of the formula we will initially focus on some relativistic models. In relativistic theories it is natural to write the on-shell momenta in terms of rapidities $${\text p}_i = \sinh \vartheta_i \ , \qquad \epsilon_{{\text p}_i} = \cosh \vartheta_i \ ,$$ where the mass has been set to unity. Lorentz invariance then implies that the $2\to 2$ scattering S-matrix should depend solely on the difference of the two rapidities associated to asymptotic states $$\theta = \vartheta_1 - \vartheta_2 \ .$$
The candidate expression for the one-loop S-matrix given in equation is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
{S^{(1)}}{}_{{M}{N}}^{{P}{Q}}(\theta)=\frac{1}{8 \sinh\theta}\,\Big[{\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{M}{N}}^{{R}{S}}(\theta){\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{R}{S}}^{{P}{Q}}(\theta)I(i\pi-\theta)\nonumber &+ {\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{M}{R}}^{{S}{P}}(0){\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{S}{N}}^{{R}{Q}}(\theta)I(0) \\ &
+{\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{M}{R}}^{{S}{Q}}(\theta){\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{S}{N}}^{{P}{R}}(\theta)I(\theta)\,\Big]
\label{eqn:final_rel}~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde S{}^{(0)} (\theta)= 4 \sinh \theta \ S^{(0)}(\theta)$ and the one-loop integrals are given by $$\label{olrel}
I(\theta) = \frac{\theta\,{\operatorname{csch}}\theta}{4\pi i } \ .$$ The consistency condition now reads \[s2const\] [S\^[(0)]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}\^[[S]{}[P]{}]{}(0)[S\^[(0)]{}]{}\^[[R]{}[Q]{}]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}()=[S\^[(0)]{}]{}\^[[P]{}[S]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}()[S\^[(0)]{}]{}\^[[Q]{}[R]{}]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}(0) .
As a starting point let us consider a general $\text{SO}(n)$-invariant theory with quartic interactions up to second order in derivatives for a single $\text{SO}(n)$ vector of unit mass $X$ (the light-cone derivatives $\partial_\pm$ are defined as $\partial_\tau \pm \partial_\sigma$) $$\label{s2laggen}
\mathcal{L} = \frac12 \partial_+ X \cdot \partial_- X -\frac12 X\cdot X + h \, \text{c}_1 (X\cdot X)^2 + h \, \text{c}_2 (X\cdot X)(\partial_+ X \cdot \partial_- X) + \ldots \ ,$$ where we have eliminated the other allowed term $(X \cdot \partial_+ X)(X \cdot \partial_- X)$ using field redefinitions. $\text{c}_{1,2}$ are arbitrary constants, while $h$ is the small parameter that we use to do perturbation theory. We assume that the theory is renormalizable and the ellipses denote any higher-order interaction terms required therefor.
The requirements of $\text{SO}(n)$ invariance and crossing symmetry imply that the S-matrix can be parametrized in terms of two functions, $T(\theta)$ and $R(\theta)$, as follows $$\begin{aligned}
& S_{ij}^{kl} (\theta) = \delta_{ij}\delta^{kl} \, R (i\pi - \theta) + \delta_i^k \delta_j^l \ T(\theta) + \delta_i^l \delta_j^k \ R(\theta) \ .\label{s2son}\end{aligned}$$ where $i,j,\ldots=1,...,n$ are $\text{SO}(n)$ vector indices. Using standard perturbation theory with dimensional regularization [^5] to one loop we find the following parametrizing functions $$\begin{aligned}
T(\theta) &= 1 + 2 i h (\text{c}_1 + \text{c}_2) {\operatorname{csch}}\theta \no \vphantom{\frac{2i h^2}{\pi}}
\\ & \quad \ \ \, + \frac{2ih^2}{\pi} \big(2 \text{c}_1 \text{c}_2 (i\pi - 2 \theta ) \coth \theta{\operatorname{csch}}\theta + i \pi (2 \text{c}_1^2+2 \text{c}_1 \text{c}_2+\text{c}_2^2 (1+\cosh^2 \theta)) {\operatorname{csch}}^2\theta \no
\\ & \qquad \qquad \quad +((\text{c}_1 + \text{c}_2) (4 \text{c}_1+n (\text{c}_1+\text{c}_2))-2 \text{c}_2^2) {\operatorname{csch}}\theta \big)\ , \vphantom{\frac{2i h^2}{\pi}}\no
\\
R(\theta) &= 2 i h (\text{c}_1 + \text{c}_2 \cosh\theta) {\operatorname{csch}}\theta \vphantom{\frac{2i h^2}{\pi}}\label{s2com1}
\\ & \quad \ \ \, + \frac{2i h^2}{\pi}\big(\theta \, (\text{c}_1+\text{c}_2 \cosh \theta ) (\text{c}_1 (n+2)+\text{c}_2 (n-2) \cosh \theta ) {\operatorname{csch}}^2\theta \no
\\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad + 2\pi i (\text{c}_1+\text{c}_2) (\text{c}_1+\text{c}_2 \cosh \theta ) {\operatorname{csch}}^2 \theta+ (2 \text{c}_1^2-\text{c}_2^2 \cosh \theta +\text{c}_2^2) {\operatorname{csch}}\theta\big)\ . \no \vphantom{\frac{2i h^2}{\pi}} \end{aligned}$$ Having checked that the tree-level S-matrix satisfies the consistency condition , we can use the method of unitarity cuts described in Section \[sec:general\] with ${M},{N},\ldots = i,j,\ldots$ to find the following result $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\text{u.c.}}(\theta) &= 1 + 2 i h (\text{c}_1 + \text{c}_2) {\operatorname{csch}}\theta \no \vphantom{\frac{2i h^2}{\pi}}
\\ & \quad \ \ \, + \frac{2ih^2}{\pi} \big(2 \text{c}_1 \text{c}_2 (i\pi - 2 \theta ) \coth \theta{\operatorname{csch}}\theta + i \pi (2 \text{c}_1^2+2 \text{c}_1 \text{c}_2+\text{c}_2^2 (1+\cosh^2 \theta)) {\operatorname{csch}}^2\theta \no
\\ & \qquad \qquad \quad + (\text{c}_1+\text{c}_2) (4 \text{c}_1 + n (\text{c}_1+\text{c}_2)) {\operatorname{csch}}\theta \big) \ , \vphantom{\frac{2i h^2}{\pi}} \no
\\
R_{\text{u.c.}}(\theta) &= 2 i h (\text{c}_1 + \text{c}_2 \cosh\theta) {\operatorname{csch}}\theta \vphantom{\frac{2i h^2}{\pi}} \label{s2com2}
\\ & \quad \ \ \, + \frac{2i h^2}{\pi}\big(\theta \, (\text{c}_1+\text{c}_2 \cosh \theta ) (\text{c}_1 (n+2)+\text{c}_2 (n-2) \cosh \theta ) {\operatorname{csch}}^2\theta \no
\\ & \qquad \qquad \qquad + 2\pi i (\text{c}_1+\text{c}_2) (\text{c}_1+\text{c}_2 \cosh \theta ) {\operatorname{csch}}^2 \theta+ 2 (\text{c}_1^2+\text{c}_2^2 \cosh \theta) {\operatorname{csch}}\theta\big) \ .\vphantom{\frac{2i h^2}{\pi}}\no\end{aligned}$$ Clearly and differ. Furthermore, they only agree for $\text{c}_2 = 0$. Examining the Lagrangian we see that this is precisely the situation in which there are no derivatives in the vertices, hence the one-loop bubble integrals in standard perturbation theory are finite. In fact, as one might expect, it can be seen that the difference between the two results comes precisely from rational terms that appear as a result of regularization. Notice that the form of these terms is such that they are proportional to tree-level graphs. Therefore, introducing separate couplings $h_1=h c_1$ and $h_2=h c_2$ and shifting them in as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2shift}
h_1 &\to h_1 + \frac{{h_2}^2}{\pi}& h_2&\to h_2 -\frac{3 {h_2}^2}{\pi}\end{aligned}$$ we can recover the perturbative result. In this sense, the difference can be understood as a regularization-scheme ambiguity. On the other hand one may ask if performing unitarity cuts in $d = 2-2\epsilon$ dimensions [@vanNeerven:1985xr; @Bern:1995db] could give rise to these rational terms and resolve this discrepancy. We leave the study of this formalism for future investigation.
In this work we would like to explore an alternative avenue, which is to focus on integrable theories. Integrable theories possess hidden symmetries that heavily constrain the scattering theory – $(i)$ there can be no particle production, $(ii)$ the set of ingoing momenta should equal the set of outgoing momenta, and $(iii)$ the $n\to n$ scattering amplitude should factorize into a product of $2\to 2$ scattering amplitude [@Zamolodchikov:1978xm]. This final requirement implies the Yang-Baxter equation, a consistency condition for equivalent orderings of scattering of three-particle states, which can be represented diagrammatically as follows: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[line width = 2pt,scale=0.6,rotate=90,baseline=5.5em,yscale=-1]
\draw[->] (0,{16*(-5+4*sqrt(3))/23}) -- (8,{24*(12-5*sqrt(3))/23});
\node at (-0.4,{16*(-5+4*sqrt(3))/23-0.2}) {{\large $\vartheta_2$}};
\draw[->] ({16*(-5+4*sqrt(3))/23},0) -- ({24*(12-5*sqrt(3))/23},8);
\node at ({16*(-5+4*sqrt(3))/23},-0.45) {{\large $\vartheta_1$}};
\draw[->] ({8*(29-14*sqrt(3))/23},{24*(2+3*sqrt(3))/23}) -- ({24*(2+3*sqrt(3))/23},{8*(29-14*sqrt(3))/23});
\node at ({8*(29-14*sqrt(3))/23-0.3},{24*(2+3*sqrt(3))/23+0.3}) {{\large $\vartheta_3$}};
\node[circle,draw=black,fill=black!02,line width = 2pt,opacity=.90] at ({8*(7-sqrt(3))/23},{8*(7-sqrt(3))/23}) {{\Large $\theta_{12}$}};
\node[circle,draw=black,fill=black!10,line width = 2pt,opacity=.90] at ({8*(19-6*sqrt(3))/23},{8*(16+sqrt(3))/23}) {{\Large $\theta_{13}$}};
\node[circle,draw=black,fill=black!18,line width = 2pt,opacity=.90] at ({8*(16+sqrt(3))/23},{8*(19-6*sqrt(3))/23}) {{\Large $\theta_{23}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\qquad
\boldsymbol{=}
\qquad
\begin{tikzpicture}[line width = 2pt,scale=0.6,rotate=90,baseline=21.5em,yscale=-1]
\draw[->] (11,{8-24*(12-5*sqrt(3))/23}) -- (11+8,{8-16*(-5+4*sqrt(3))/23});
\node at (11-0.4,{8-24*(12-5*sqrt(3))/23-0.2}) {{\large $\vartheta_2$}};
\draw[->] ({11+8-24*(12-5*sqrt(3))/23},0) -- ({11+8-16*(-5+4*sqrt(3))/23},8);
\node at ({11+8-24*(12-5*sqrt(3))/23},-0.45) {{\large $\vartheta_1$}};
\draw[->] ({11+8-24*(2+3*sqrt(3))/23},{8-8*(29-14*sqrt(3))/23}) -- ({11+8-8*(29-14*sqrt(3))/23},{8-24*(2+3*sqrt(3))/23});
\node at ({11+8-24*(2+3*sqrt(3))/23-0.3},{8-8*(29-14*sqrt(3))/23+0.3}) {{\large $\vartheta_3$}};
\node[circle,draw=black,fill=black!02,line width = 2pt,opacity=.90] at ({11+8-8*(7-sqrt(3))/23},{8-8*(7-sqrt(3))/23}) {{\Large $\theta_{12}$}};
\node[circle,draw=black,fill=black!10,line width = 2pt,opacity=.90] at ({11+8-8*(19-6*sqrt(3))/23},{8-8*(16+sqrt(3))/23}) {{\Large $\theta_{13}$}};
\node[circle,draw=black,fill=black!18,line width = 2pt,opacity=.90] at ({11+8-8*(16+sqrt(3))/23},{8-8*(19-6*sqrt(3))/23}) {{\Large $\theta_{23}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}\label{ybe}$$ As we will see in the following sections, for these models the unitarity techniques appear to work well giving the one-loop S-matrix associated to an “integrable quantization” up to finite shifts in the coupling. Furthermore, for theories that are also supersymmetric we find exact agreement.
Integrable bosonic theories {#s31ibt}
---------------------------
Let us first discuss on a class of generalized sine-Gordon models [@Hollowood:1994vx; @Bakas:1995bm]. These theories are defined by a gauged WZW model for a coset $G/H$ plus a potential and their classical integrability can be demonstrated through the existence of a Lax connection. Here we will consider the coset $G/H = \text{SO}(n+1)/\text{SO}(n)$, in which case the asymptotic excitations are a free $\text{SO}(n)$ vector with unit mass. Therefore, the S-matrix will again have the structure . This class includes the sine-Gordon and complex sine-Gordon models for $n=1$ and $2$ respectively, for which the exact S-matrices are known [@Zamolodchikov:1978xm; @Dorey:1994mg] and agree with perturbation theory.
Starting from the gauged WZW formulation of these models, the gauge symmetry can be fixed and at the classical level the unphysical modes integrated out [@Hoare:2010fb] giving a Lagrangian for just the physical excitations. To quartic order this is given by with $\text{c}_1 = 0$ and $\text{c}_2 h = \tfrac{\pi}{2k}$, where $k$ is the coupling. The functions parametrizing the tree-level S-matrix are therefore $$\begin{aligned}
T^{(0)}(\theta) = \frac{i\pi}{k}{\operatorname{csch}}\theta \ ,\qquad R^{(0)}(\theta) = \frac{i\pi}{k}\coth \theta\ .\label{s2tlbos} \end{aligned}$$ For general $n$ this Lagrangian is only valid for the computation of the tree-level S-matrix – the procedure of integrating out the unphysical fields picks up a one-loop correction [@Hoare:2010fb] $$\Delta \mathcal{L} = -\frac{\pi}{2k^2} (X\cdot \partial_+ X)(X\cdot \partial_-X) - \frac{\pi(n-2)}{2k^2} (X\cdot X)(\partial_+ X \cdot \partial_- X) \ .\label{s2lagcon}$$ Furthermore, the corresponding contributions to the one-loop S-matrix restore various properties of integrability. Indeed these counterterms were first studied from this perspective for the complex sine-Gordon model in [@deVega:1981ka].
Including these contributions the resulting functions parametrizing the one-loop S-matrix following from perturbation theory with dimensional regularization are given by [^6] $$\begin{aligned}
T^{(1)}(\theta) &= \frac{i\pi}{2k^2} \big(i\pi (1+\cosh^2\theta) {\operatorname{csch}}^2\theta - (n-2){\operatorname{csch}}\theta\big) \ ,\no
\\
R^{(1)}(\theta) &=
\frac{i\pi}{2k^2} \big(2\pi i\coth\theta {\operatorname{csch}}\theta-2 (n-2) \coth \theta + \theta (n-2) \coth^2 \theta \big)
\ . \label{s2olbos}\end{aligned}$$
Inputting the tree-level S-matrix into the candidate formula for the one-loop S-matrix following from the unitarity techniques described in Section \[sec:general\] we find the following expressions for the parametrizing functions $$\begin{aligned}
T^{(1)}_{\text{u.c.}}(\theta) &= \frac{i\pi}{2k^2} \big(i\pi (1+\cosh^2\theta) {\operatorname{csch}}^2\theta + n{\operatorname{csch}}\theta\big) \ ,\no
\\
R^{(1)}_{\text{u.c.}}(\theta) &=
\frac{i\pi}{2k^2} \big(2\pi i\coth\theta {\operatorname{csch}}\theta+2 \coth \theta + \theta (n-2) \coth^2 \theta \big)\ . \label{s2olbosuc}\end{aligned}$$ In this case these results agree with up to a contribution proportional to tree-level S-matrix , which can be understood as just a shift of the coupling $k \to k + n - 1$. This is analogous to the shift mentioned in , but it is not completely equivalent as here we are not comparing to standard perturbation theory, but rather to integrable S-matrix found from the gauged WZW model. It is important to observe that a consequence of this is that we do not need to introduce an additional coupling, and as such this can still be interpreted as a difference in the regularization scheme.
For the sine-Gordon model ($n=1$) the S-matrix we are considering describes the scattering of a single particle type (the Lagrangian-field excitation) and therefore for the $2\to 2$ scattering is given by $T(\theta) + R(i\pi- \theta) + R(\theta)$. In this case the two results agree exactly. This should be expected as using field redefinitions the interaction piece of the sine-Gordon Lagrangian can be written in a form without derivatives. For $n\geq 2$ the shift in the coupling is by the dual Coxeter number of the group $G=\text{SO}(n)$. This structure appears regularly in the quantization of WZW and gauged WZW models, where $k$ is the quantized level [@Witten:1983ar; @Knizhnik:1984nr; @Leutwyler:1991tv; @Tseytlin:1992ri; @Tseytlin:1993my; @deWit:1993qv].
In summary, for a certain class of generalized sine-Gordon models we have found that the expression for the one-loop S-matrix gotten from unitarity techniques agrees with that found from standard perturbation theory (including the one-loop correction coming from the procedure of integrating out the unphysical fields ) up to a scheme-dependent shift in the coupling.
Integrable theories with fermions
---------------------------------
The models discussed in the previous section have an interesting origin in string theory. They appear as the Pohlmeyer reduction of strings moving on an $n+1$-sphere [@Pohlmeyer:1975nb; @Eichenherr:1979yw]. In the string interpretation the reduction uses a non-local change of variables to solve the Virasoro constraints giving a classically equivalent theory [@Tseytlin:2003ii; @Barbashov:1980kz; @DeVega:1992xc]. The reduction can be extended to the Green-Schwarz action for the Type IIB superstring on AdS$_5 \times S^5$ [@Metsaev:1998it] giving a gauged WZW model for $\text{USp}(2,2)/\text{SU}(2)^2 \times \text{USp}(4)/\text{SU}(2)^2$ plus a potential and coupled to fermions [@Grigoriev:2007bu; @Mikhailov:2007xr]. There are two truncations of this model that we will also study corresponding to the reduction of the superstring on AdS$_3 \times S^3$ [@Grigoriev:2008jq] and AdS$_2 \times S^2$ [@Grigoriev:2007bu], by which we mean the formal supercoset truncations of the full 10-d superstring theories on AdS$_3 \times S^3 \times T^4$ and on AdS$_2 \times S^2 \times T^6$ – see, for example, [@Babichenko:2009dk] and [@Sorokin:2011rr] and references therein.
These reduced theories are all classically integrable, demonstrated by the existence of a Lax connection, and conjectured to be UV-finite [@Roiban:2009vh]. Indeed, in [@Roiban:2009vh] finiteness at one loop and at two loops in the dimensional reduction scheme was demonstrated. Furthermore, the reduced AdS$_2 \times S^2$ theory is in fact given by the $\mathcal{N} = 2$ supersymmetric sine-Gordon model and hence is supersymmetric. The reduced AdS$_3 \times S^3$ and AdS$_5 \times S^5$ theories have a non-local $\mathcal{N}=4$ and $\mathcal{N}=8$ supersymmetry respectively [@Schmidtt:2010bi; @Hollowood:2011fq; @Goykhman:2011mq; @Schmidtt:2011nr], which manifests as a $q$-deformation of the S-matrix symmetry algebra.
The tree-level and one-loop S-matrices for these theories were computed in [@Hoare:2009fs; @Hoare:2011fj], while the exact S-matrices have been conjectured using integrability techniques in [@Kobayashi:1991rh] for the reduced AdS$_2 \times S^2$ model, [@Hoare:2011fj] for the reduced AdS$_3 \times S^3$ model and [@Hoare:2013ysa] for the reduced AdS$_5 \times S^5$ model.
In each of the reduced superstring theories the asymptotic excitations (both bosonic and fermionic) can be packaged into a single field $$\label{superfield}
\Phi_{A\dot A} \,, \qquad A=(a|\alpha) \,, \qquad [a]=0 \,, \ [\alpha]=1 \ .$$ The particular configurations relevant for the individual theories are then as follows: $$\begin{array}{lll}
\textbf{Reduced AdS}\mathbf{_2 \times S^2:} \qquad a=1\,, \ \alpha=2 &
\\\textbf{Reduced AdS}\mathbf{_3 \times S^3:} \qquad a=1,2\,, \ \alpha=3,4 \quad & \text{and} \quad \Phi_{A\dot A\vphantom{\dot B}} = \Omega_{AB\vphantom{\dot B}}\Omega_{\dot A \dot B} \Phi_{B\dot B}
\\\textbf{Reduced AdS}\mathbf{_5 \times S^5:} \qquad a=1,2\,, \ \alpha=3,4 & \end{array}$$ where $\Omega_{ab} = \epsilon_{ab} \,, \ \Omega_{\alpha\beta} =\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$ and $\Omega_{a\beta} = \Omega_{\alpha b} = 0$. In the reduced AdS$_5 \times S^5$ model the indices $a,\alpha,\dot a,\dot \alpha$ are $\text{SU}(2)$ fundamental indices, while in the reduced AdS$_3 \times S^3$ model they are $\text{SO}(2)$ vector indices.
In each case the global symmetry [@Hoare:2011fj] is such that the S-matrix should factorize under its structure [^7] $$\label{s2smatfact}
S_{A\dot A,B\dot B}^{C \dot C, D \dot D}(\theta) = (-1)^{[\dot A][B]+[\dot C][D]} S_{AB\vphantom{\dot B}}^{CD \vphantom{\dot D}}(\theta) S_{\dot A \dot B}^{\dot C \dot D}(\theta)$$ and indeed the tree-level results have this structure. Let us now present the tree-level S-matrices (we write only the undotted factor – the dotted factor is given by the same expression) for each of the three reduced theories [^8] where $$\begin{aligned}
\no
& M^{(0)}_1 (\theta) = - M^{(0)}_2 (\theta) = \frac{i\pi}k {\operatorname{csch}}\theta
&& M^{(0)}_3 (\theta) = M^{(0)}_4 (\theta) = -\frac{i\pi}{2k} {\operatorname{sech}}\frac\theta 2
\\
& M^{(0)}_5 (\theta) = - M^{(0)}_6 (\theta) = 0
&& M^{(0)}_7 (\theta) = M^{(0)}_8 (\theta) = \frac{i\pi}{2k}{\operatorname{csch}}\frac \theta 2
\label{s222func}
\\\no
\\
\no
& L^{(0)}_1 (\theta) = - L^{(0)}_3 (\theta) = \frac{i\pi}k {\operatorname{csch}}\theta
&& L^{(0)}_2 (\theta) = - L^{(0)}_4 (\theta) = - \frac{i\pi}k \coth \theta
\\
\no
& L^{(0)}_5 (\theta) = - L^{(0)}_7 (\theta) = 0
&& L^{(0)}_6 (\theta) = - L^{(0)}_8 (\theta) = 0
\\
& L^{(0)}_9 (\theta) = L^{(0)}_{10} (\theta) = -\frac{i\pi}{2k} {\operatorname{sech}}\frac \theta 2
&& L^{(0)}_{11} (\theta) = L^{(0)}_{12} (\theta) = \frac{i\pi}{2k}{\operatorname{csch}}\frac \theta 2
\label{s233func}
\\\no
\\
\no
& K^{(0)}_1 (\theta) = K^{(0)}_3 (\theta) = -\frac{i\pi}{2k}\tanh\frac\theta 2
&& K^{(0)}_2 (\theta) = K^{(0)}_4 (\theta) = \frac{i\pi}k\coth\theta
\\
\no
& K^{(0)}_5 (\theta) = K^{(0)}_6 (\theta) = -\frac{i\pi}{2k}{\operatorname{sech}}\frac\theta 2
&& K^{(0)}_7 (\theta) = K^{(0)}_8 (\theta) = \frac{i\pi}{2k}{\operatorname{csch}}\frac\theta 2
\\
& K^{(0)}_9 (\theta) = K^{(0)}_{10} (\theta) = 0
&&
\label{s255func}\end{aligned}$$
Due to the presence of fermionic fields the consistency condition is generalized to \[s2const\_ferm\] (-1)\^[\[[P]{}\]\[[S]{}\]+\[[R]{}\]\[[S]{}\]]{}[S\^[(0)]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}\^[[S]{}[P]{}]{}(0)[S\^[(0)]{}]{}\^[[R]{}[Q]{}]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}()=(-1)\^[\[[Q]{}\]\[[R]{}\]+\[[R]{}\]\[[S]{}\]]{}[S\^[(0)]{}]{}\^[[P]{}[S]{}]{}\_[[M]{}[R]{}]{}()[S\^[(0)]{}]{}\^[[Q]{}[R]{}]{}\_[[S]{}[N]{}]{}(0) . and indeed the tree-level S-matrices –, both the full, $S_{A\dot A,B\dot B}^{C\dot C D \dot D}$ ($M,N,\ldots = (A,\dot A),\,(B,\dot B)\ldots$), and factor, $S_{AB}^{CD}$ ($M,N,\ldots = A,B,\ldots$), satisfy this relation. We can therefore input them into the candidate expression for the one-loop S-matrix derived from the procedure described in Section \[sec:general\] $$\begin{split}
{S^{(1)}}{}_{{M}{N}}^{{P}{Q}}(\theta)=\frac{1}{8 \sinh \theta}\,\Big[&{\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{M}{N}}^{{R}{S}}(\theta){\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{R}{S}}^{{P}{Q}}(\theta)I(i\pi-\theta)\\ \vphantom{\frac{1}{4 (\e_2\,\rmp_1-\e_1\,\rmp_2)}}
+& (-1)^{[{P}][{S}]+[{R}][{S}]}\,{\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{M}{R}}^{{S}{P}}(0){\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{S}{N}}^{{R}{Q}}(\theta)I(0) \\
\vphantom{\frac{1}{4 (\e_2\,\rmp_1-\e_1\,\rmp_2)}}
+&(-1)^{[{P}][{R}]+[{Q}][{S}]+[{R}][{S}]+[{P}][{Q}]}{\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{M}{R}}^{{S}{Q}}(\theta){\tilde S^{(0)}}{}_{{S}{N}}^{{P}{R}}(\theta)I(\theta)\,\Big]~,\label{eqn:final_ferm_rel}
\end{split}$$ where $\tilde S{}^{(0)} (\theta)= 4 \sinh \theta \ S^{(0)}(\theta)$ and the one-loop integrals are given in . Again this can be done with both the full ($M,N,\ldots = (A,\dot A),\,(B,\dot B)\ldots$) and factor ($M,N,\ldots = A,B,\ldots$) tree-level S-matrices. As expected they give the same one-loop S-matrix parametrized by the following functions $$\begin{aligned}
\no
& M^{(1)}_1 (\theta) = M^{(1)}_2 (\theta) = \frac{P(\theta)}2
&& M^{(1)}_3 (\theta) = M^{(1)}_4 (\theta) = 0
\\
& M^{(1)}_5 (\theta) = M^{(1)}_6 (\theta) = \frac{P(\theta)}2
&& M^{(1)}_7 (\theta) = M^{(1)}_8 (\theta) = 0
\label{s222funcol}
\\\no
\\
\no
& L^{(1)}_1 (\theta) = L^{(1)}_3 (\theta) = - \frac{\pi^2}{2k^2} + P(\theta)
&& L^{(1)}_2 (\theta) = L^{(1)}_4 (\theta) = \tilde P(\theta)
\\
\no
& L^{(1)}_5 (\theta) = L^{(1)}_7 (\theta) = P(\theta)
&& L^{(1)}_6 (\theta) = L^{(1)}_8 (\theta) = \tilde P(\theta)
\\
& L^{(1)}_9 (\theta) = L^{(1)}_{10} (\theta) = 0
&& L^{(1)}_{11} (\theta) = L^{(1)}_{12} (\theta) = 0
\label{s233funcol}
\\\no
\\\no
& K^{(1)}_1 (\theta) = - K^{(1)}_3 (\theta) = -\frac{5\pi^2}{8k^2} -\frac{i\pi \theta}{2k^2} + \frac{P(\theta)}2
&& K^{(1)}_2 (\theta) = - K^{(1)}_4 (\theta) = \frac{\pi^2}{2k^2} + \frac{i\pi\theta}{k^2}
\\
\no
& K^{(1)}_5 (\theta) = K^{(1)}_6 (\theta) = 0
&& K^{(1)}_7 (\theta) = K^{(1)}_8 (\theta) = 0
\\
& K^{(1)}_9 (\theta) = - K^{(1)}_{10} (\theta) = \frac{P(\theta)}2
&&
\label{s255funcol}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\no
& P(\theta) = \frac{i\pi}{k^2}{\operatorname{csch}}\theta + \frac{i\pi}{2k^2}(i\pi-2\theta)\coth\theta{\operatorname{csch}}\theta - \frac{\pi^2}{2k^2}{\operatorname{csch}}^2\theta
\\\no
& \tilde P(\theta) = - \frac{i\pi}{k^2} \coth \theta - \frac{i\pi}{2k^2}(i\pi-2\theta){\operatorname{csch}}^2\theta + \frac{\pi^2}{2k^2}\coth\theta{\operatorname{csch}}\theta\ .\end{aligned}$$ These functions are in exact agreement with those found by perturbation theory [@Hoare:2011fj]. In contrast to the bosonic theories discussed in Section \[s31ibt\] no additional shift of the coupling is required. The presence of the supersymmetry, albeit deformed, may provide an explanation for this, with shifts arising from bosonic loops cancelled by shifts from fermionic loops. Indeed, this is a feature of supersymmetric WZW and gauged WZW theories – see, for example, [@Tseytlin:1993my]. Furthermore, we have also checked that the unitarity-cutting procedure matches the perturbative result at one-loop in the $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric sine-Gordon model [@Shankar:1977cm].
Let us mention that in the reduced AdS$_3 \times S^3$ standard perturbative computation a contribution coming from a one-loop correction needs to be added so that the S-matrix satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation. It is this S-matrix that the unitarity technique matches. This is in direct analogy with the story for the bosonic models discussed in Section \[s31ibt\], except that currently no path integral origin for the correction in the AdS$_3 \times S^3$ case is known. Together with the complex sine-Gordon case this is another example of how unitarity methods applied to a classically integrable theory seem to provide a quantum integrable result. This seems to suggest a relationship between integrable quantization and unitarity techniques which would be interesting to investigate further.
String theory {#sec:strings}
=============
With the strong indication that in the presence of integrability and supersymmetry the method of unitarity cuts gives the correct result for the one-loop S-matrix we move onto the case of the light-cone gauge-fixed superstring on AdS$_5 \times S^5$ and the world-sheet S-matrix.
The integrability of the world-sheet sigma model is a well-established statement [@Bena:2003wd][@Kazakov:2004qf; @Berkovits:2004xu] at the classical level. Assuming the quantum integrability of the full world-sheet theory and using the global symmetries the *exact* world-sheet S-matrix has been uniquely determined [@Beisert:2005tm] up to an overall phase, or dressing factor [@Arutyunov:2004vx]. The determination of the latter exploited the non-relativistic generalization of the crossing symmetry [@Janik:2006dc; @Volin:2009uv] as well as perturbative data both from the string and gauge theory sides [@Beisert:2006ib; @Beisert:2006ez]. For a comprehensive reviews and further references see [@Arutyunov:2009ga; @Beisert:2010jr].
The perturbative study of the two-body S-matrix for the world-sheet sigma-model (for a review, see [@Arutyunov:2009ga; @McLoughlin:2010jw]) was initiated in [@Klose:2006zd] [^9] starting from the Green-Schwarz action in the so-called generalized uniform light-cone gauge [@Arutyunov:2006ak; @Arutyunov:2006gs; @Frolov:2006cc] and applying LSZ reduction to its quartic vertices. Due to gauge-fixing the theory does *not* possess world-sheet Lorentz invariance, however the off-shell symmetry algebra is $\mathfrak{psu}(2|2)^2 \ltimes \mathbb{R}^3$, which originates from the $\mathfrak{psu}(2,2|4)$ target-space symmetry of the Green-Schwarz action [@Metsaev:1998it]. The action of this symmetry is non-local and the central extensions encode the 2-d energy and momentum of the theory [@Arutyunov:2006ak]. It can therefore, in some sense, be understood as a non-relativistic non-local generalization of world-sheet supersymmetry. Furthermore, while the theory is not power-counting renormalizable, it is believed to be UV-finite – for an extensive discussion of related issues see, for example, [@Roiban:2007jf].
Relaxing the level-matching condition and taking the limit of infinite light-cone momentum (decompactification limit), the world-sheet theory becomes a massive field theory defined on a plane, with well-defined asymptotic states and S-matrix. The scattering of the world-sheet excitations has been studied at tree-level in [@Klose:2006zd], while one-loop [@Klose:2007wq] and two-loop [@Klose:2007rz] results have been carried out only in the simpler near-flat-space limit [@Maldacena:2006rv] where interactions are at most quartic in the fields. These studies have also explicitly shown some consequences of the integrability of the model, such as the factorization of the many-body S-matrix and the absence of particle production in the scattering processes [@Puletti:2007hq].
With relaxed level-matching, the symmetry group is a centrally extended PSU$(2|2)\times$ PSU$(2|2)$ [@Arutyunov:2006ak], the same appearing in the dual gauge theory [@Beisert:2005tm]. The charges of the fields under the bosonic subalgebra SU(2)$^4$ can again be indicated via the double-index notation , with $a,\alpha,\dot a,\dot \alpha$ being $\text{SU}(2)$ fundamental indices combined as $A=(a|\alpha),\dot A=(\dot a|\dot\alpha)$ into the fundamental indices of the two PSU$(2|2)$ factors. The global symmetry structure should lead to a non-relativistic generalization of the group-factorization [^10] $$\label{s2smatfact_string}
S_{A\dot A,B\dot B}^{C \dot C, D \dot D}(p_1,p_2) = (-1)^{[\dot A][B]+[\dot C][D]} S_{AB\vphantom{\dot B}}^{CD \vphantom{\dot D}}(p_1,p_2) S_{\dot A \dot B}^{\dot C \dot D}(p_1,p_2)~,$$ which has indeed been verified at the tree level [@Klose:2006zd].
Since only the SU$(2)^2$ of each PSU$(2|2)$ is manifest in the gauge-fixed world-sheet theory, the tree-level S-matrices are parametrized as follows in terms of the basic SU$(2)$-invariants $$\label{Sinvariants}
S_{AB}^{CD} = \left\{\begin{array}{l} A \delta_a^c \delta_b^d + B \delta_a^d \delta_b^c
\\ D \delta_\alpha^\gamma \delta_\beta^\delta + E \delta_\alpha^\delta \delta_\beta^\gamma
\\ C \epsilon_{ab}\epsilon^{\gamma \delta} \quad \ \, F \epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\epsilon^{cd}
\\ G \delta_a^c \delta_\beta^\delta \qquad H \delta_a^d \delta_\beta^\gamma
\\ L \delta_\alpha^\gamma \delta_b^d \qquad K \delta_\alpha^\delta \delta_b^c \end{array}\right. ~.$$ The functions above were obtained in the generalized uniform light-cone gauge and therefore they show an explicit dependence on the parameter $a$ labeling different light-cone gauge choices [@Arutyunov:2006gs]. In [@Klose:2006zd] those functions were evaluated at leading order in perturbation theory, where the small parameter ${\zeta}$ is the inverse of the string tension $${\zeta}^{-1} = g = \frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{2\pi} \ .$$ Here we present the free part (given by the identity operator) and the tree-level expressions for the functions above A\^[(free)]{} &=& D\^[(free)]{} = G\^[(free)]{} = L\^[(free)]{} = 1\
B\^[(free)]{}& =& C\^[(free)]{} = E\^[(free)]{} = F\^[(free)]{} = H\^[(free)]{} = K\^[(free)]{} = 0 ,\
A\^[(0)]{} & =& -2 (\_2 \_1 - \_1 \_2) (a-12) A\^[(free)]{} + 4 ,\
B\^[(0)]{} & =& -2 (\_2 \_1 - \_1 \_2) (a-12) B\^[(free)]{} + i ,\
D\^[(0)]{} & = &-2 (\_2 \_1 - \_1 \_2) (a-12) D\^[(free)]{} - 4 ,\
E\^[(0)]{} & = &-2 (\_2 \_1 - \_1 \_2) (a-12) E\^[(free)]{} - i ,\
C\^[(0)]{} & =& -2 (\_2 \_1 - \_1 \_2) (a-12) C\^[(free)]{} + 2 ,\
F\^[(0)]{} & = &-2 (\_2 \_1 - \_1 \_2) (a-12) F\^[(free)]{} + 2 ,\
H\^[(0)]{} & =& -2 (\_2 \_1 - \_1 \_2) (a-12) H\^[(free)]{} + 2 ,\
K\^[(0)]{} & =& -2 (\_2 \_1 - \_1 \_2) (a-12) K\^[(free)]{} + 2 ,\
G\^[(0)]{} & =& -2 (\_2 \_1 - \_1 \_2) (a-12) G\^[(free)]{} - 4 ,\
L\^[(0)]{} & =& -2 (\_2 \_1 - \_1 \_2) (a-12) L\^[(free)]{} + 4 . Above, $\e_i=\sqrt{1+\rmp_i^2}$ is the relativistic energy, which follows from the non-relativistic dispersion relation $\epsilon(\rmp)=\sqrt{1+\frac{\lambda}{\pi^2}\sin^2\frac{\rmp}{2}}$ [@Beisert:2004hm; @Beisert:2005tm] expanded in the near-BMN limit, $\rmp \to {\zeta}\rmp$, corresponding to the perturbative regime. After having explicitly verified that the matrix elements above verify the consistency relation , we can safely use them in the expression with - and get the one-loop S-matrix for the light-cone gauge-fixed sigma model. The result can be written as follows $$\begin{split}\label{Sstrings_cut}
S_{AB}^{CD}(\rmp_1,\rmp_2) & = \exp\big(i\varphi_a(\rmp_1,\rmp_2)\big) \ \tilde S_{AB}^{CD} \\ & = \exp\big(-\tfrac{i{\zeta}}2(e_2\rmp_1 - e_1\rmp_2)(a-\tfrac12) + i{\zeta}^2 \tilde\varphi (\rmp_1,\rmp_2)\big) \ \tilde S_{AB}^{CD} + \mathcal{O}({\zeta}^3) \ ,
\end{split}$$ where we have pulled out a factor that to the one-loop order can be resummed as an overall phase (this exponentiation is consistent with the requirement of integrability that all dynamical information and the gauge dependence on the parameter $a$ should be encoded in the scalar factor [@Arutyunov:2006iu]). The remaining part $\tilde S_{AB}^{CD}$ has the same structure as in with parametrizing functions to the one-loop order given by and $$\label{phase_strings_cuts}
\tilde \varphi(\rmp_1,\rmp_2) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{\rmp_1^2 \rmp_2^2 \big((\epsilon_2 \rmp_1 - \epsilon_1 \rmp_2) - (\epsilon_1 \epsilon_2 - \rmp_1 \rmp_2){\operatorname{arsinh}}[\epsilon_2 \rmp_1 - \epsilon_1 \rmp_2] \big)}{(\epsilon_2 \rmp_1 - \epsilon_1 \rmp_2)^2}\ .$$
As mentioned above, because of the complicated structure of interactions of the light-cone gauge-fixed sigma model, the perturbative S-matrix is known beyond the leading order [@Klose:2007wq; @Klose:2007rz] only in the kinematic truncation known as near-flat-space limit [@Maldacena:2006rv]. Therefore, to test the validity of the unitarity method, we need to compare our one-loop result to the corresponding limit of the exact world-sheet S-matrix. This is achieved by extending the analysis of [@Klose:2006zd] to next-to-leading order, where the comparison between the perturbative S-matrix and the exact one was performed at the tree level. One considers the matrix elements derived in [@Beisert:2005tm] for a single SU$(2|2)$ sector together with the dressing phase, here needed at next-to-leading order in the $1/\sqrt{\lambda}$ expansion. In the comparison with the world-sheet calculation all dimensional quantities (such as the spin-chain length and the momenta) should be rescaled via a factor of $\sqrt{\lambda}/(2\pi)$ [@Klose:2006zd], for us $\rmp\to {\zeta}\,\rmp$.
Here we take the form of the matrix elements of [@Beisert:2005tm] given in eq. (6.9) of [@Klose:2006zd]. To be explicit let us define $$\begin{split}
A_{\rm ex} = & \frac1{2\sqrt{A^\bes}}(A^\bes - B^\bes) \ , \qquad B_{\rm ex} = \frac1{2\sqrt{A^\bes}}(A^\bes + B^\bes) \ , \qquad C_{\rm ex} = \frac1{2\sqrt{A^\bes}}C^\bes \ ,
\\
D_{\rm ex} = & \frac1{2\sqrt{A^\bes}}(-D^\bes + E^\bes) \ , \quad \, E_{\rm ex} = \frac1{2\sqrt{A^\bes}}(-D^\bes - E^\bes) \ , \quad \,F_{\rm ex} = - \frac1{2\sqrt{A^\bes}}F^\bes \ ,
\\
H_{\rm ex} = & \frac1{\sqrt{A^\bes}}H^\bes \ , \qquad
K_{\rm ex} = \frac1{\sqrt{A^\bes}}K^\bes \ , \qquad
G_{\rm ex} = \frac1{\sqrt{A^\bes}}G^\bes \ , \qquad
L_{\rm ex} = \frac1{\sqrt{A^\bes}}L^\bes \ ,
\end{split}$$ where $A_{\rm ex},\ldots,L_{\rm ex}$ are comparable to the parametrizing functions $A,\ldots,L$ . The final piece of information required is the phase $e^{i\theta(\rmp_1,\rmp_2)}$ (defined as in eq. (6.12) of [@Klose:2006zd]). The leading order piece of $\theta(\rmp_1,\rmp_2)$ is given in eq. (6.13) of [@Klose:2006zd], while at next-to-leading order we found it useful to use the expression given in eqs. (15)-(19) of [@Arutyunov:2006iu]. Expanding the phase in the near-BMN limit gives $$\exp\big(i\theta(\rmp_1,\rmp_2)\big) = \exp \Big(i{\zeta}\, \frac{(\rmp_1-\rmp_2-\e_2\rmp_1+\e_1\rmp_2)^2}{2(\epsilon_2\rmp_1 - \epsilon_1\rmp_2)}
+ 2i{\zeta}^2\tilde \varphi(\rmp_1,\rmp_2)+\mathcal{O}({\zeta}^3) \Big)\ ,$$ where $\tilde \varphi(\rmp_1,\rmp_2)$ is defined in eq. .
The exact S-matrix then should be compared with the string calculation in the constant-$J$ gauge $a = 0$. Doing so we find $$\label{strings_compar_2}
({{S}}_{AB}^{CD})_{\rm ex}=
e^{\frac{i{\zeta}}4 \big(([A] + 2[B] -[C] - 2) \rmp_1 +([B] - 2[C] - [D]+2) \rmp_2\big)} \,e^{\varphi_{a=0}(\rmp_1,\rmp_2)} \, \tilde S_{AB}^{CD} + \mathcal{O}({\zeta}^3) \ .$$ From we see that we have agreement up to a phase whose argument is linear in momenta. This is not surprising, as it simply amounts to moving from the string frame to the spin-chain frame [@Arutyunov:2006yd; @Ahn:2010ka]. As argued already at the tree level [@Klose:2006zd] such terms should not affect the physical spectrum following from inputting the S-matrix into the asymptotic Bethe equations.
In summary, up to a phase whose argument is linear in momenta, the method of unitarity cuts reproduces the near-BMN expansion of the string world-sheet S-matrix [@Beisert:2005tm]. It is important to note that the result we are comparing to is that found using the techniques of integrability. Indeed, previous attempts have been made to compute the one-loop result using standard perturbation theory, however there are unresolved issues relating to regularization (see footnote \[foot1\]). As discussed in Section \[sec:general\], assuming there exists a suitable regularization scheme and there are no additional rational pieces (as is apparently the case for the string world-sheet S-matrix), our procedure naïvely circumvents these problems as and are manifestly finite.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this work we have applied the method of unitarity cuts to two-dimensional quantum field theories. The computation of the cut-constructible piece of the one-loop four-point scattering amplitude (from which follows the S-matrix describing the scattering of two particles) reduces to a sum of products of two tree-level amplitudes weighted by scalar bubble integrals.
As in four dimensions, it is not immediately clear in which theories the cut-constructible piece provides the full result – that is there are no rational terms. The examples studied in Section \[sec:relativistic\] do however allow us to postulate that this should be the case for supersymmetric, integrable theories. It is also natural to expect, by analogy with four dimensions, that this should also be true for theories that are just supersymmetric – however, we have not analyzed any models in this class. Furthermore, we found evidence that cut-constructibility also partially works for integrable field theories without supersymmetry. For these models the missing rational terms are proportional to the tree-level S-matrix and therefore can be understood as a finite shift in the coupling.
The cut-constructible piece of the one-loop world-sheet S-matrix for the light-cone gauge-fixed superstring on AdS$_5 \times S^5$, which we computed in Section \[sec:strings\], matches perfectly with the result following from integrability. It is therefore hopeful that this method would work for other integrable string backgrounds [@Zarembo:2010sg; @Cagnazzo:2012se], for example AdS$_2 \times S^2 \times T^6$, AdS$_3 \times S^3 \times T^4$, AdS$_3\times S^3 \times S^3 \times S^1$ and AdS$_4 \times \mathbb{C}\mathbf{P}^3$ – expressions for some tree-level and one-loop amplitudes for these theories are contained in [@Zarembo:2009au; @Kalousios:2009ey; @Rughoonauth:2012qd; @Sundin:2013ypa; @Hoare:2013pma]. It would also be interesting to apply analogous unitarity techniques to other physical world-sheet observables, for example, in the form factor program initiated in [@Klose:2012ju].
Finally, the natural extension of this work would be to generalize to both higher loops and higher points. The latter would be of particular interest in the case of non-integrable theories, and would necessarily involve a deeper understanding of rational terms.
**Note added:** We refer the reader to the related paper [@Engelund:2013fja]. In this work the authors independently proposed the idea of and developed (to two loops) generalized unitarity techniques applied to two-dimensional S-matrices. These techniques were used to compute the logarithmic terms of the one- and two-loop four-particle world-sheet S-matrix for the massive sectors of string theory on AdS$_3 \times S^3 \times T^4$, AdS$_3 \times S^3 \times S^3 \times S^1$, AdS$_4 \times \mathbb{C}\mathbf{P}^3$ and AdS$_5 \times S^5$ finding agreement with previous conjectures and results. At one-loop the two derivations are similar, however the contribution of the $t$-channel cut (amounting to rational terms) is fixed in a different way – in [@Engelund:2013fja] it is fixed by symmetries, whereas here we use a prescription following from the cutting procedure.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We are grateful to Valentina G. M. Puletti, Johannes Henn, Thomas Klose, Tristan McLoughlin, Marco Meineri, Jan Plefka, Radu Roiban, Domenico Seminara and Roberto Tateo for useful discussions. We particularly thank Radu Roiban and Arkady Tseytlin for valuable comments on the draft. This work is funded by DFG via the Emmy Noether Program “Gauge Fields from Strings”.
[^1]: We thank Tristan McLoughlin and Radu Roiban for important discussions on this point.\[foot1\]
[^2]: Earlier attempts using unitarity to identify special structures in the amplitudes for the sine-Gordon model appeared in [@Arefeva:1974bk]; we thank Radu Roiban for pointing this out.
[^3]: In the case of *generalized* unitarity [@Britto:2004nc] (see e.g. [@Bern:2011qt]) the loop amplitude is subdivided into more than two pieces, which corresponds to placing multiple internal lines on-shell.
[^4]: Note that if one first uses the $\delta$-function identity to fix, for example, $p_1 = p_3$ and $p_2 = p_4$ the $t$-cut integral is ill-defined. Furthermore, the procedure of fixing $l_1 = p_3$ no longer follows. Therefore, to avoid this ambiguity we follow the prescription that we should only impose the $\delta$-function identity at the end. In some sense this is natural as, in general dimensions, QFT amplitudes have the form , while the $\delta$-function identity is specific to two dimensions.
[^5]: To be clear, we use the $\overline{MS}$ scheme and drop the divergent pieces assuming they are either cancelled by the mass and wavefunction renormalization or absorbed into the renormalization of the coupling, which will not contribute here.
[^6]: For $n=1,2$ the S-matrix given by equations , and satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation to the appropriate order as expected. However, for $n\geq 3$ the situation is more subtle as the perturbative excitations appear as a limit of the kinks in the spectrum [@Hollowood:2010dt]. The S-matrix for the scattering of these kinks satisfies a dynamical Yang-Baxter equation [@Felder:1994be] whose semi-classical expansion gives a non-trivial modification of the usual classical Yang-Baxter equation [@Hoare:2013ysa].
[^7]: This group-factorization property is exhibited by generic integrable theories with a non-simple global symmetry $G_1 \times G_2$, and the fields transforming in the bi-fundamental representation of this group [@Ogievetsky:1987vv][@Arutyunov:2009ga]. The global symmetries of the reduced AdS$_2 \times S^2$, AdS$_3 \times S^3$ and AdS$_5 \times S^5$ models are discussed in [@Hoare:2011fj; @Goykhman:2011mq; @Hollowood:2011fq].
[^8]: Compared to [@Hoare:2011fj] the following conventions have been changed: $(i)$ the rôles of the indices $a$ and $\alpha$ have been interchanged, which amounts to sending $k \to -k$ in the factor S-matrix, and $(ii)$ here we define $\epsilon_{12} = \epsilon^{12} = \epsilon_{34} = \epsilon^{34} = 1$.
[^9]: Earlier work on related models with truncated field content appeared in [@Klose:2006dd; @Roiban:2006yc].
[^10]: This can also be interpreted as the requirement that the Faddeev-Zamolodchikov algebra, used in describing the Hilbert space of the asymptotic states, is a direct product [@Arutyunov:2006yd; @Klose:2006zd].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Cameron Carlin\
\
\
\
Long Van Ho\
\
\
\
Dr. Randall Wetzel\
\
\
\
- |
Cameron Carlin, Long Van Ho, David Ledbetter, Melissa Aczon, Randall Wetzel\
\
\
\
\
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: Predicting Individual Physiologically Acceptable States for Discharge from a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit
---
Acknowledgements
================
This work was funded by a grant from the Laura P. and Leland K. Whittier Foundation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Noa Garnett, Roy Uziel, Netalee Efrat, Dan Levi'
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
nocite:
- '[@miyato2018spectral]'
- '[@SalimansGZCRC16]'
title: 'Synthetic-to-real domain adaptation for lane detection'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Introduction
============
The existence or nonexistence of a gap between the energies of the ground state and the low lying excited states is the most important criterium for the criticality of a quantum spin system. Haldane’s conjecture [@Hald83; @Hald83a] states that one-dimensional (1D) quantum spin systems have no gap for half integer spin $s$, but do have a gap for integer spin $s$. The conjecture only holds for an appropriate choice of the couplings of the spins at nearest neighbor sites.[@Muet94]
The Lieb, Schultz, Mattis (LSM) construction[@LSM61; @AL86] allows rigorous statements on the degeneracy of the ground state. Starting from the unitary operator $${\bf U} \equiv\exp \left(-i\frac{2\pi}{N} \sum_{l=1}^{N} l S^{3}_{l}\right),
\label{eq:i1}$$ it is straightforward to prove that the application of the operator ${\bf
U}^k,\; k=1,2,... $ on the ground state $|0\rangle$ generates [*new*]{} states $$|k\rangle \equiv {\bf U}^k |0\rangle \quad k=1,2,\ldots;\; k \mbox{ finite},
\label{eq:i2}$$ with an energy expectation value $$\langle k|{\bf H}|k \rangle - \langle 0|{\bf H}|0\rangle = O(N^{-1})
\label{eq:i3}$$ approaching the ground state energy $E_0 \equiv \langle 0|{\bf H}|0\rangle$ in the thermodynamical limit $N \to \infty$.
Of course the crucial question is whether the [*new*]{} states $|k\rangle $ are different from the ground state $|0\rangle$ or not. This question can be answered by an analysis of the quantum numbers of the states $|k\rangle,\;
k=1,2,\ldots$. For example in the case of the Spin-1/2 Hamiltonian with nearest neighbor couplings: $${\bf H}(h_{3}) \equiv 2\sum_{l=1}^{N} {\bf S}_{l} \cdot {\bf S}_{l+1}
-2h_{3} {\bf S}_3(0),
\label{eq:i4}$$ and $${\bf S}_a(q) \equiv \sum_{l=1}^{N} e^{iql} S_l^{a},\quad a=1,2,3,
\label{eq:i5}$$ the ground state has momentum $p_{s}=0,\pi$ and the total Spin $S_{T}^{3}=S=N
M(h_{3})$, where $M$ is the magnetization. The new states $|k\rangle$ turn out to be eigenstates of the translation operator ${\bf T}$: $${\bf T} |k\rangle = {\bf T} {\bf U}^k |0\rangle = e^{i p_k} |k\rangle,
\label{eq:i6}$$ where [@OYA97] $$p_k = p_{s} + k q_3(M),
\label{eq:i7}$$ and $q_3(M)\!\equiv\!\pi (1-2M)$. For $M=0$ the ground state $|0\rangle$ and the new state $|1\rangle$ differ in their momenta by $\pi$ and are therefore orthogonal to each other.\
For $M=1/4$ one finds a fourfold degeneracy of the ground state with momenta $p_k=p_{s} + k \pi/2,\; k=0,1,2,3 $.
It should be noted that the LSM construction allows to identify the zero frequency excitations (soft modes) in the model with Hamiltonian (\[eq:i4\]). Some of these soft modes induce characteristic signatures, e.g. zeroes in the dispersion curve and singularities in the transverse and longitudinal structure factors at the soft mode momenta $q=q_1(M)\equiv\pi,\; q=q_3(M)$, which can be easily recognized even on rather small systems.[@KMS95] Following conformal field theory the corresponding critical $\eta$-exponents can be determined from the finite-size behavior of the dispersion curve at the soft mode momenta.[@FGM+96] It is known that the $\eta$-exponents of the soft mode – i.e. the $M$ dependence of $\eta_3(M),\eta_1(M)$ – changes, [@GFA+97] if we add further couplings to the Hamiltonian (\[eq:i4\]). In some cases (see the discussion below) the soft mode might disappear completely and a gap opens between the states, which were gapless before switching on the perturbation.
The following cases (A.-E.) have been studied so far.
A transverse staggered field {#sec:S1q}
----------------------------
A gap was found [@FKM98a; @FKM98b; @OA97] in a transverse staggered field of strength $h_{1} {\bf S}_1(\pi)$, $$\label{eq:Hh3h1}
{\bf H}(h_{3},h_{1}) \equiv {\bf H}(h_{3})+2h_{1} {\bf S}_1(\pi),$$ between the states which differ in their momenta by $\pi$. Indeed the operator ${\bf S}_1(\pi)$ is invariant only under translations ${\bf T}^2$ and the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are only eigenstates of ${\bf T}^2$.
In the free field case ($h_{3}=0$) the ${\bf T}^2$ quantum numbers of the ground state $|0\rangle$ and of the LSM state $|1\rangle={\bf U} |0\rangle$ are the same and the twofold degeneracy of the ground state is lifted by the explicit breaking of translation invariance.
The fourfold degeneracy with momenta $p\!=\!0,\pi,\pm\!\pi/2$ which occurs at $M=1/4$ and $h_{1}=0$ is lifted in the following manner. The states with $p=0$ and $p=\pi$ are even with respect to ${\bf T}^{2}$. The same holds for the ground state $|0\rangle$, which is a linear combination of $p=0$ and $p=\pi$ components. A gap opens to the second state, which is even under ${\bf T}^{2}$. The gap evolves with the strength $h_{1}$ of the perturbation as $h_{1}^{\epsilon}$. The exponent $\epsilon=\epsilon_{1}(h_{3})$ is given by the exponent $\eta_1(M)$ $$\epsilon_1(h_{3}) = 2[4-\eta_1(M(h_{3}))]^{-1},
\label{eq:i9}$$ associated with the divergence of the transverse structure factor at $q=\pi$.
The LSM construction with the operator (\[eq:i1\]) leads to a second state $|1\rangle = {\bf U} |0 \rangle$ which is degenerate with the ground state $|0\rangle$ and which is odd under ${\bf T}^2$. This state can be constructed as a linear combination of momentum eigenstates with $p=\pm\pi/2$.
A longitudinal periodic field {#sec:bS3q}
-----------------------------
A longitudinal periodic field ${\bf \bar S}_3(q)$ of strength $2h_{q}$ $$\label{eq:100}
{\bf H}(h_{3},h_{q}) \equiv {\bf H}(h_{3})+2h_{q} {\bf \bar S}_3(q),$$ with $${\bf \bar S}_3(q)\equiv[{\bf S}_3(q) + {\bf S}_3(-q)]/2,
\label{eq:i10}$$ induces a plateau in the magnetization curve $M=M(h_{3})$ at $M =(1-q/\pi)/2$, i.e. $q$ has to meet the soft mode momentum $q=q_3(M)$. The difference of the upper and lower critical field: $$\Delta({h_{q}},h_{3})\equiv
h^{u}_{3} - h^{l}_{3} \sim h_{q}^{\epsilon_3(h_{3})},$$ evolves with an exponent, which is again related via (\[eq:i9\]) to the corresponding $\eta_3$-exponent and which can be extracted from the finite-size behavior of the longitudinal structure factor [@FGM+96] at $q=q_3(M)$.
A next-to-nearest-neighbor coupling {#sec:Oalpha}
-----------------------------------
A next-to-nearest-neighbor coupling $${\bf H}_{2} \equiv 2\sum_{l=1}^{N} {\bf S}_{l} \cdot{\bf S}_{l+2},
\label{eq:i12}$$ added to Hamiltonian (\[eq:i4\]): $${\bf H}(h_{3},\alpha) \equiv {\bf H}(h_{3})+
\alpha {\bf H}_{2},
\label{eq:i13}$$ does not change the position of the soft modes $q_1=\pi$ and $q_3(M)$ but changes the associated $\eta_1(M,\alpha),\;\eta_3(M,\alpha)$ exponents.[@GFA+97] A singlet triplet gap opens in the free field case $(h_{3}=0)$ for $\alpha\!>\!\alpha_c\!=\!0.241\ldots$.[@ON92] Note, however, that (\[eq:i12\]) is translation invariant and therefore the ground state degeneracy with momenta $p=0,\pi$ – predicted by the LSM construction – still holds, i.e. the singlet ground state is still twofold degenerate in the singlet sector.
A staggered dimer field {#sec:OalphaDpi}
-----------------------
A plateau in the magnetization curve at $M=1/4$ has been found in the Hamiltonian (\[eq:i4\]) with an additional next-to-nearest-neighbor coupling and a staggered dimer field: [@TNK98; @Tots98] $${\bf H}(h_{3},\alpha,\delta) \equiv {\bf H}(h_{3})+
\alpha {\bf H}_{2} + \delta {\bf D}(\pi).
\label{eq:d1}$$ The dimer operator is defined as: $${\bf D}(q) \equiv 2\sum_{l=1}^{N} e^{iql} {\bf S}_{l} \cdot {\bf S}_{l+1}.
\label{eq:i14}$$ Such a Hamiltonian only commutes with ${\bf T}^2$ and therefore reduces the degeneracy of the ground state. At $M=0$ the twofold degeneracy of the ground state is lifted and a gap opens between the energies of the ground state and the excited states.[@FKM98a]
At $M=1/4$ a gap opens between the ground state $|0\rangle$ and one further state, which is even under ${\bf T}^2$. The LSM construction yields a second state $|1\rangle={\bf U}|0\rangle$ degenerate with the ground state $|0\rangle$, which is odd under ${\bf T}^2$.
A periodic dimer field {#sec:bDq}
----------------------
A plateau in the magnetization curve at $M=1/6$ has been found [@Hida94] for a Hamiltonian of the type (\[eq:i4\]) with a dimer field ${\bf \bar D}(q)$ of period $q=2\pi/3$: $${\bf \bar D}(q) \equiv [{\bf D}(q)+{\bf D}(-q)]/2.
\label{eq:i14b}$$
The Hamiltonian used in Ref. can be reformulated as a single spin-1/2 chain with ferromagnetic nearest neighbor coupling being strongly disturbed by an antiferromagnetic next-to-nearest neighbor coupling with a period of $q=2\pi/3$.
Note, that the periodicity $q=2\pi/3$ coincides with the soft mode momentum $q_{3}(M=1/6)$. Such a coincidence occurs in both examples \[sec:bS3q\] and \[sec:bDq\] and we conclude that the special type of the periodic perturbation (\[eq:i10\]) and (\[eq:i14b\]) is not relevant for the formation of a magnetization plateau.
The situation in example \[sec:OalphaDpi\] is different. Here the periodicity ($q=\pi$) of the staggered dimer field coincides with the [*second soft mode*]{} $2q_{3}(M=1/4)=\pi$ \[ (\[eq:i7\]) for $k=2$\], predicted by the LSM construction. Note, however, that the magnetization plateau at $M=1/4$ is only visible if the parameters $\alpha$ and $\delta$ in (\[eq:d1\]) are appropriately chosen. In particular the magnetization plateau at $M=1/4$ seems to be absent if the next-to-nearest-neighbor coupling $\alpha$ is switched off. Therefore, we conclude that the coincidence of the periodicity $q$ in the perturbation operator with the momentum of one LSM-soft mode is a necessary – but not sufficient – condition for the formation of a plateau.
It is the purpose of this paper to investigate in more detail the mechanism for the formation of gaps and magnetization plateaus by means of periodic dimer-perturbations (\[eq:i14b\]) of strength $2\delta_{q}$. The $\delta_{q}$-evolution of the energy eigenvalues and transition matrix elements of the perturbation operator is given by a closed set of differential equations, which we have discussed in Refs.. The initial values for these evolution equations are given by the energy eigenvalues and transition amplitudes for the unperturbed case ($\delta_{q}=0$).
The outline of the paper is as follows. In Sec. \[sec:LSM-construction\] we complete the discussion of the quantum numbers of the LSM state $|k\rangle$ by investigating their ${\bf S}_{T}^{2}$ content, where ${\bf S}_{T}$ is the total spin operator. We are in particular interested in the question, whether or not the LSM state $|1\rangle$ at $M=0$ with momentum $p_{1}=p_{0}+\pi$ contains a triplet ($S=1$) or higher spin component \[${\bf S}_{T}^{2}=S(S+1)$\]. Section \[sec:sm-dimer\] is devoted to an analysis of the LSM soft modes in the dimer-dimer structure factor. This analysis is used to fix the above mentioned initial conditions for the evolution equations. In Sec. \[sec:gaps-plateau\] we then present numerical results on the formation of gaps and plateaus by means of the periodic dimer perturbations.
The occurrence of magnetization plateaus in spin ladders is discussed in Sec. \[sec:spin-ladders\].
The Lieb, Schultz, Mattis (LSM) Construction and the quantum numbers of the degenerate ground states. {#sec:LSM-construction}
=====================================================================================================
It has been pointed out in the introduction that the quantum number analysis of the states $|k\rangle={\bf U}^k|0\rangle$ in the LSM construction is crucial to decide whether these states are new, i.e. orthogonal to the ground state $|0\rangle$, or not. The transformation behavior (\[eq:i6\]) under translations ${\bf T}$ yields the momenta $p_k$ (\[eq:i7\]) of these states.
The operator ${\bf U}$ (\[eq:i1\]) obviously commutes with the total spin in 3-direction $S^3_T$. Therefore all the states $|k\rangle = {\bf U}^k |0\rangle$ have the same total Spin $S^3_T$ in 3-direction. The Hamiltonian of type (\[eq:i13\]) with isotropic couplings commutes with ${\bf S}^2_T$. One might ask for the ${\bf S}_T^{2}$ content of the states $|k\rangle$. To answer this question we compute the expectation value $$\begin{aligned}
\langle k| {\bf S}^2_T |k \rangle - \langle 0|{\bf S}^2_T |0 \rangle &=&
\langle 0| {\bf U}^{\dagger k}{\bf S}^2_T {\bf U}^k |0\rangle -
\langle0|{\bf S}^2_T |0 \rangle \nonumber\\ && \hspace*{-2cm}
= 2 N [{S}_1(q=k2\pi/N,M)-{S}_1(0,M)],
\label{eq:lsm1}\end{aligned}$$ using the considerations developed by LSM to show the vanishing of the energy difference (\[eq:i3\]). The right-hand side of (\[eq:lsm1\]) is determined by the transverse structure factor, exposed to an external field $h_{3}$ with magnetization $M(h_{3})$: $${S}_1(q,M) \equiv \sum_{l=1}^{N} e^{iql}
\langle S,p_{s}|S^{1}_{1}S^{1}_{1+l}|S,p_{s} \rangle ,
\label{eq:lsm2}$$ which has been studied on finite systems in Ref. for the nearest neighbor model (\[eq:i4\]) and in Ref. for the model with next-to-nearest-neighbor couplings $\alpha$.
From these investigations we conclude for the thermodynamical limit of the difference appearing on the right-hand side of (\[eq:lsm1\]): $$2N[{S}_1(k2\pi/N,M)\!-\! {S}_1(0,M)]
\stackrel{N\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}
A(M)\left(\frac{2\pi}{N}\right)^{\beta_{k}}.
\label{eq:lsm3}$$ The exponent $\beta_{k}=\beta_{k}(M,\alpha)$ turns out to be zero for $M=0$ and $\alpha=0$ \[cf. Fig. 5(d) in Ref. \]. This means, that the right-hand side of (\[eq:lsm1\]) is non vanishing. For $M=0,\alpha=0$ the ground state is a singlet state \[${\bf S}^2_T = S(S+1)=0$\] and (\[eq:lsm1\]) tells us that the soft mode state $|k=1\rangle = {\bf U}|0\rangle$ with momentum $\pi$ contains triplet $[{\bf S}^2_T=S(S+1)=2]$ and higher spin components, i.e. the LSM construction together with (\[eq:lsm3\]) and $\beta_{k}(M=0,\alpha=0)=0$ forbids a singlet triplet gap.
The exponent $\beta_{k}(M,\alpha)$ is larger than zero for $M>0$ \[cf. Inset of Fig. 5(b) in Ref. \] In this case the right-hand side of (\[eq:lsm1\]) vanishes and the soft mode states $|k\rangle = {\bf U}^k
|0\rangle$ have the same total spin ${\bf S}^2_T = S(S+1)$ as the ground state.
Switching on the next-to-nearest-neighbor coupling $\alpha$ the free field exponent must be larger than zero $$\beta_{1}(0,\alpha) > 0 \quad \mbox{for} \quad \alpha > \alpha_c=0.241\ldots,
\label{eq:lsm6}$$ since the dimer phase $\alpha > \alpha_c$ is characterized by a singlet triplet gap.[@ON92] In other words, for $\alpha > \alpha_c$ the degenerate LSM state $|1\rangle = {\bf U}|0\rangle$ with momentum $p_{s}+\pi$ must be a pure singlet state as well. The exponent $\beta_{1}(0,1/2)$ can easily be calculated at the Majumdar-Ghosh [@MG69; @MG69b] point $\alpha=1/2$ . Here we find $\beta_{1}(0,1/2)=1$.
In Fig. \[fig:plot2a\] we have plotted the energy difference $\omega_{\pi}
= E_1 - E_0$ of the two singlet states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$
$$\omega_{\pi}(S=0,\alpha) = E(p_{s}+\pi,S=0,\alpha) - E(p_{s},S=0,\alpha),
\label{eq:lsm7}$$
versus the coupling $\alpha$. This is an oscillating function for $\alpha > 0.5$ with zeroes at: $$\alpha = \alpha_1(N) < \alpha_2(N) < ... < \alpha_Z(N),
\label{eq:lsm8}$$ where numerical data suggest that the total number of zeroes is given by $$Z = \frac{1}{4}
\begin{cases}
N &: N=8,12,16,\ldots \\
N-2 &: N=10,14,18,\ldots .
\end{cases}
\label{eq:lsm9}$$ In the thermodynamical limit we have a dense distribution of zeroes. The height of the maxima and minima in between converges to zero – a signal for the degeneracy of the two states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle = {\bf U} |0\rangle$ in the thermodynamical limit as predicted by the LSM construction.
As was pointed out in the introduction, a fourfold degeneracy of the states $|k\rangle = {\bf U}^k|0\rangle,\; (k=0,1,2,3) $ is predicted at $M=1/4$. All these states have the same total spin squared ($S=N/4$) and momenta $p=0,\pm
\pi/2,\pi$. On finite systems one again observes oscillations in the energy differences $$\omega_p(S,\alpha) \equiv E(p,S=N/4,\alpha) - E(0,S=N/4,\alpha),
\label{eq:lsm10}$$ for $p=\pi/2,\pi$, if we switch on the next-to-nearest-neighbor coupling $\alpha$ as is shown in Fig. \[fig:plot2b\]. For $\alpha$ values large enough these oscillations die out and the ground state momentum $p_{s}, S=N/4 $ is supposed to be $$p_{s}(1/4)=\frac{\pi}{2}
\begin{cases}
2 &: N=8,24,40,\ldots \\
1 &: N=12,28,44,\ldots \\
0 &: N=16,32,48,\ldots \\
1 &: N=20,36,52,\ldots.
\end{cases}
\label{eq:lsm11}$$
soft modes in the dimer dimer structure factor {#sec:sm-dimer}
==============================================
According to the LSM construction for the translation invariant models with nearest and next-to-nearest-neighbor couplings (\[eq:i13\]), ${\bf
H}(h_{3},\alpha)$, we expect the dispersion curve $$\omega_{q}(S,\alpha) \equiv E(p_{s}+q,S,\alpha) - E(p_{s},S,\alpha),
\label{eq:31}$$ to develop zeroes $$\omega^{(k)}(h_{3},\alpha)\equiv \omega_{q}(S,\alpha),
\label{eq:32}$$ at the soft mode momenta $q=q^{(k)}(M) \equiv k \pi (1-2M)$. If in the thermodynamical limit the scaled energy differences: $$\hat\Omega^{(k)}(M,\alpha) \equiv \lim_{N\to\infty} N\omega^{(k)}(h_{3},\alpha).
\label{eq:32b}$$ and $$v(M,\alpha) = \lim_{N \to \infty} N
[E(p_{s}\!+\!2\pi/N,S,\alpha) - E(p_{s},S,\alpha)],
\label{eq:34}$$ are finite and non vanishing, the ratios $$\eta^{(k)} (M,\alpha) \equiv \
\frac{\hat\Omega^{(k)} (M,\alpha)}{\pi v(M,\alpha)},
\label{eq:33}$$ yield the exponents $\eta^{(k)}(M,\alpha)$, which govern the critical behavior of the dimer dimer structure factor: $$S_{DD} (q,M) = \frac{1}{N}
\langle p_{s},S|{\bf D}_c(q) {\bf D}_c^\dag (q) |p_{s},S \rangle.
\label{eq:35}$$ Here $${\bf D}_c(q) \equiv {\bf D}(q) - \delta_{q0} {\bf D}(0)$$ is the connected part of the dimer operator (\[eq:i14\]). For $M=0$ a zero should occur at $q=\pi$ and for $M=1/4$ we should find two zeroes at $q=\pi/2$ and $q=\pi$. This is indeed the case as can be seen from Fig. \[fig:disp\] where we have plotted the dispersion curves for $M=1/4$, $\alpha=0,1/4$.
Note, that the dimer operator commutes with the total Spin ${\bf S}^2_T$ and the dispersion curve (\[eq:31\]) describes the lowest lying excitations contributing to $S_{DD}(q,M,\alpha)$.
The $q$-dependence of the dimer-dimer structure factor (\[eq:35\]) at $M=1/4$ and $\alpha=0,1/4$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:SDD\_q\]. A pronounced peak is found at the first soft mode $q=\pi(1-2M)=\pi/2$. The finite-size behavior of the structure factor at the first soft mode $$S_{DD} (q_{3}(M),M,\alpha) \sim N^{1-\eta_{3}(M,\alpha)}
\label{eq:37}$$ is shown for $\alpha=0,1/4$ and $M=1/4$ in the inset of Fig. \[fig:SDD\_q\]. It is well described by an exponent $$\label{eq:eta_a_M1d4}
\eta^{(1)}(1/4,\alpha) = \eta_{3}(1/4,\alpha) =
\begin{cases}
1.53 &: \alpha=0\\
0.72 &: \alpha=1/4.
\end{cases}$$ identical with the exponent $\eta_{3}(M,\alpha)$ in the longitudinal structure factor. The latter has been calculated exactly in the model with nearest neighbor couplings ($\alpha=0$) by means of Bethe ansatz solutions for the energy eigenvalues, which enter in the differences (\[eq:31\]) and (\[eq:34\]). The resulting curve $\eta_{3}(M,\alpha= 0)$ is shown in Fig. 2 of Ref.. The $\alpha$-dependence of $\eta_{3}(1/4,\alpha)$ has been calculated on small systems $(N\leq 28)$ and can be seen in Fig. 4(b) of Ref..
According to its definition (\[eq:35\]), the dimer dimer structure factor can be represented: $$S_{DD} (q,M,\alpha) \equiv \frac{1}{N}
\sum_{n} \left| \langle n | {\bf D}_{c}(q) | 0 \rangle \right|^{2}
\label{eq:35b}$$ in terms of transition amplitudes from the ground state $|0\rangle =|
p_{s},S\rangle$ to excited states $|n\rangle$ with momenta $p_{n}=p_{s}+q$ and total spin $S$. The peak in Fig.\[fig:SDD\_q\] tells us that the transition matrix elements at the first soft mode $q=\pi(1-2M)$ $$\label{eq:13}
\langle n|{\bf D}(\pi(1-2M))|0\rangle
\stackrel{N\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}
N^{\kappa_{3}},$$ with $\kappa_{3}=1-\eta_{3}(M(h_{3}),\alpha)/2$, diverge with the system size.
The fact, that there is no peak at the second soft mode, indicates that the corresponding transition matrix elements $\langle n | \bar {\bf D}(q=2\pi(1-2M))
| 0 \rangle$ are small – at least for next-to-nearest-neighbor couplings $\alpha\leq 1/4$. The magnitude of these transition matrix elements is crucial for the formation of gaps and magnetization plateaus with a periodic perturbation $\bar {\bf D}(q)$.
Periodic dimer perturbations and the formation of gaps and plateaus {#sec:gaps-plateau}
===================================================================
In this section we will study the impact of a periodic dimer perturbation ${\bf \bar D}(q)$ (\[eq:i14b\]): $${\bf H}(h_{3},\alpha,\delta_{q}) \equiv
{\bf H}(h_{3},\alpha)+ 2\delta_{q} {\bf \bar D}(q),
\label{eq:Hh3deltaq}$$ on the soft modes. We will restrict ourselves to the model with nearest neighbor and next-to-nearest-neighbor couplings and follow the procedure of Refs. . There it was shown that the $\delta_{q}$-evolution of the energy eigenvalues and transition matrix elements $\langle n | \bar{\bf D}(q)|0\rangle$ is described by a closed set of differential equations which possess finite size scaling solutions in the limit $N \to \infty$, $\delta_{q} \to 0$, $x=\delta_{q}^{\epsilon} N $ fixed.
This statement holds, if the periodicity $q$ of the dimer perturbation coincides with a soft mode momentum: $$q = q^{(k)}(M) = k \pi (1-2M).
\label{eq:42}$$ Then a gap in the energy difference (\[eq:31\]) between the ground state and lowest state which can be reached with the perturbation $\bar{\bf D}(q)$ at $q^{(k)}(M)$ is predicted: $$\omega^{(k)} (h_{3},\alpha,\delta_{q}) =
\delta_{q}^{\epsilon^{(k)}} \Omega^{(k)} (M,\alpha,x).
\label{eq:43}$$ The gap opens with an exponent $\epsilon^{(k)}=\epsilon^{(k)}(h_{3},\alpha)$, related to the corresponding $\eta$-exponent (\[eq:33\]) via $$\epsilon^{(k)}(h_{3},\alpha) = 2[4-\eta^{(k)}(M(h_{3}),\alpha)]^{-1}.
\label{eq:44}$$ A test of the prediction (\[eq:43\]) is given in Fig. \[fig:plot4a\], where we plotted the gap ratio $$\frac{\omega^{(1)}(h_{3},\alpha,\delta_{q})}{\omega^{(1)}(h_{3},\alpha,0)}
= 1 + e^{(1)}(h_{3},\alpha,x),
\label{eq:45}$$ for $M=1/4$, i.e. $q=\pi/2$ and $\alpha=0,1/4$ versus the scaling variable $x^{2/\epsilon}$ with the exponents $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon = \epsilon^{(1)} (1/4,\alpha) =
\begin{cases}
0.81(1)&: \alpha=0 \\
0.64(3)&: \alpha=1/4
\end{cases}
\label{eq:46}\end{aligned}$$
Note that the gap ratio (\[eq:45\]) is linear in $x^{2/\epsilon}$ for small values of $x$, as predicted by the evolution equations for the scaling functions.[@FKM98a; @FKM98b]
Let us next study the influence of the periodic perturbation (\[eq:i14b\]) on the magnetization curve $M=M(h_{3})$. A plateau in the magnetization curve with an upper and lower critical field $h_{3}^{u}$ and $h^{l}_{3}$ will emerge if $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta({\delta_{q}},h_{3})
\equiv h_{3}^{u}-h_{3}^{l} &=& \lim_{N \to \infty} \left[
E(p_{s\!+\!1},S+1,\alpha,\delta_{q})\right. \nonumber \\ && \hspace{-1.5cm}
\left. \hspace{-1cm} + E(p_{s\!-\!1},S-1,\alpha,\delta_{q}) - 2
E(p_{s},S,\alpha,\delta_{q})
\right],
\label{eq:47}\end{aligned}$$ does not vanish in the thermodynamical limit, i.e. if the ground state energies $E(p_{s'},S',\alpha,\delta_{q})$ for $S'=S-1,S,S+1$ evolve in a different manner under the perturbation $\delta_{q}$. This happens exactly if the periodicity $q$ of the dimer perturbation coincides with a soft mode momentum (\[eq:42\]). Then the ground state energy at the ’critical’ magnetization $M=S_{T}^{3}/N$ is lowered stronger than at the neighboring magnetizations $M=(S_{T}^{3}\pm1)/N$.
In Fig. \[fig:fig\_plateau\_a0.25\] we show the $\delta_{q}$-evolution of the magnetization curves for $q=\pi/2$ and $\alpha=1/4$. The emergence of the predicted plateau at $M=1/4$ is clearly visible.
The scaling behavior $\delta_{q}^{\epsilon}$ with $\epsilon=\epsilon^{(1)}(h_{3},\alpha)$ of the difference (\[eq:47\]) is governed by the critical exponent $\eta^{(1)}(h_{3},\alpha)$ at $h_{3}=h_{3}(M=1/4)$ of the unperturbed model at the first soft mode $q_{3}(M)$ as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:fig\_hu-hl\_m1d4\].
We also looked for the $\delta$-evolution of the magnetization curves for a dimer perturbation with periodicity $q=\pi$. There is a plateau for $M=0$ – corresponding to the gap above the ground state discussed in Ref. . However, no plateau is visible at $M=1/4$ for small perturbations $\delta {\bf D}(\pi)$. This corresponds to the observation that the second soft mode at $M=1/4$, $q=\pi$, does not produce any signature in the dimer dimer structure factor.
These statements only hold for small perturbations $\delta {\bf D}(\pi)$. It is indeed known from Refs. that a plateau at $M=1/4$ can be enforced with a large perturbation of order $1$.
We have computed magnetization curves for the Hamiltonian (\[eq:Hh3deltaq\]) with perturbations $\bar {\bf D}(q)$ of period $q=2\pi/3$ and $q=\pi/3$. We found clear evidence for the expected magnetization plateaus at $M=1/6$ and $M=1/3$. The magnetization curve for a Hamiltonian with a superposition of both perturbations $$\label{eq:11}
\bar{\bf D}(2\pi/3) + \bar{\bf D}(\pi/3),$$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:fig\_plateau\_2\]. Here, we find two plateaus in the magnetization curve at $M=1/6$ and $M=1/3$.
Magnetization plateaus in spin ladders {#sec:spin-ladders}
======================================
All the considerations we made so far for the 1D Hamiltonian (\[eq:Hh3deltaq\]) with nearest and next-to-nearest-neighbor couplings can be extended to the case $$\label{eq:H_h3_al}
{\bf H}(h_{3},\alpha_{l}) \equiv {\bf H}(h_{3}) + \alpha_{l} {\bf H}_{l},$$ where we substitute the next-to-nearest-neighbor coupling by couplings over $l$ lattice spacings $$\label{eq:Hl}
{\bf H}_{l} \equiv 2 \sum_{n=1}^{N} {\bf S}_{n} \cdot {\bf S}_{n+l}.$$ For $l$ finite the position $q_{3}(M)$ of the first soft mode – generated by the LSM construction – will not change, the corresponding $\eta$-exponent might change. According to our experience with the case $l=2$, we expect that a slightly frustrating coupling enhances the singularity in the dimer dimer structure factor at $q=q_{3}(M)$. Hamiltonians of the type (\[eq:H\_h3\_al\]) are interesting, since they can be viewed as a spin ladder system with $l$ legs, as is shown in Fig. \[fig:l\_ladder\].
They differ, however, from usual spin ladder systems with $l$ legs, owing to the diagonal (dashed) couplings \[($l\!\leftrightarrow\! l+1),(2l \!\leftrightarrow\!
2l+1),\ldots$\], which are inferred by the helical boundary conditions.
Indeed, these additional couplings change the physical properties. Spin ladder systems with helical boundary conditions are gapless – irrespective of the number of legs. This statement holds if the couplings $\alpha_{l}$ along the legs is chosen properly, e.g. the two leg system with $l=2$ is gapless for $\alpha\le\alpha_{c}=0.241\ldots.$ Conventional ladder systems are known to be gapless for an odd number of legs, but to be gapped for an even number of legs.
This fundamental difference becomes clear, when we add a special dimer field to (\[eq:H\_h3\_al\]) $$\label{eq:dimer_l}
{\bf D}^{(l)} \equiv \sum_{n=1}^{N}J_{n}^{(l)} {\bf S}_{n} \cdot {\bf S}_{n+1},$$ which only affects the diagonal couplings \[($l\leftrightarrow
l+1),(2l\leftrightarrow 2l+1),\ldots$\], in Fig. \[fig:l\_ladder\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2}
J_{n}^{(l)} &=&
\begin{cases}
0 &: n=1,\ldots,l-1 \\ \delta &: n=l,
\end{cases} \\
\label{eq:14}
J_{n+l}^{(l)} &=& J_{n}^{(l)}. \end{aligned}$$ The periodicity (\[eq:14\]) of the couplings $J_{n}^{(l)}$ is given by a Fourier series $$\label{eq:1}
J_{n}^{(l)} = \sum_{j=0}^{[l/2]} \cos(2\pi nj/l) \delta(q=2\pi j/l),$$ where $[l/2]$ is the largest integer smaller than $l/2$. The Fourier coefficients $\delta(q)$ follow from (\[eq:2\]), e.g. for $l=2$ we find: $$\label{eq:3}
\delta(q=0) = \delta(q=\pi) = \delta/2.$$ The dimer perturbation: $$\label{eq:4}
\delta{\bf D}^{(2)} = \frac{\delta}{2}[{\bf D}(0)+{\bf D}(\pi)]$$ generates a plateau at $M=(1-q/\pi)/2=0$. Therefore, the gap – typical for the two leg ladder – appears immediately if we switch on the dimer field (\[eq:dimer\_l\]), which breaks the translation invariance of the 1D system.
Let us next consider the three leg ladder ($l=3$). The Fourier coefficients turn out to be $$\label{eq:5}
\delta(q=0)=\frac{c_{3}}{1+c_{3}}\delta,\quad
\delta(q=2\pi/3)=\frac{1}{1+c_{3}}\delta,$$ with $c_{3}=\cos(\pi/3)$. The $q=2\pi/3$ component in the dimer field (\[eq:dimer\_l\]): $$\label{eq:6}
\delta{\bf D}^{(3)} = \delta(q=0){\bf D}(0)
+\delta(q=2\pi/3){\bf D}(2\pi/3),$$ generates a plateau at $M=1/6$. This is exactly the plateau found in Ref. .
Note, that the Fourier decomposition of $\delta {\bf D}^{(l)}$ contains in general a $q=\pi$ component for even $l$ and no $q=\pi$ component for odd $l$. We therefore find a gap at $M=0$ for ladders with an even number of legs but no gap for ladders with an odd number of legs.
In summary we can say, the Fourier decomposition of the dimer field (\[eq:dimer\_l\]) $$\label{eq:7}
\delta {\bf D}^{(l)} = \sum_{j=0}^{[l/2]} \delta(q=2\pi j/l)
{\bf D}(q=2\pi j/l),$$ tells us, where to expect plateaus in the magnetization curve of a spin ladder system with $l$ legs. The position of plateaus can be seen in Table \[tab:legs\].
The number of plateaus increases with the number of legs and one is tempted to suggest that in the two dimensional limit $l\to\infty$, the magnetization curve is again a continuous function. It should be noted, however, that the LSM-construction with the operator (\[eq:i1\]) breaks down in the combined limit $N\to\infty,\;k=\sqrt{N}$ in the sense that (\[eq:i3\]) does not hold.
The magnetic properties of the two dimensional Heisenberg model with helical boundary conditions at $T=0$ have been studied in Ref. . Concerning the isotropic model with nearest neighbour coupling, there is no indication for a plateau in the magnetization curve.
Finally, let us mention that there is a second way to map ladder systems with $l$ legs onto one-dimensional systems with far reaching couplings: $$\label{eq:8}
{\bf H}(h_{3},\tau_{l}) \equiv {\bf H}(h_{3}) + \tau_{l} {\bf H}_{N/l}.$$ The couplings for the $l$ leg system are shown in Fig. \[fig:tau\_ladder\],
and for the two leg system in Fig. \[fig:tau\_2\_ladder\],
The latter differs from the conventional two leg system (with periodic boundary-conditions) only by a twist at the boundary, which should not change the physical properties in the thermodynamical limit. Therefore, we expect a gap in this system. The appearance of a gap in the systems with an even number $l$ of legs originates from the second term in the Hamiltonian (\[eq:8\]). If we repeat the calculation of the expectation values (\[eq:i3\]) for the Hamiltonian (\[eq:8\]) we find: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:9}
\langle k | {\bf H} | k \rangle - \langle 0 | {\bf H} | 0 \rangle &=&
O(N^{-1}) \nonumber\\ && \hspace{-3cm} +
\sum_{n=1}^{N} \left(
\langle 0 | {\bf U}^{k} {\bf S}_{n}{\bf S}_{n+N/l} {\bf U}^{\dag^{k}}
- {\bf S}_{n}{\bf S}_{n+N/l} | 0 \rangle
\right) = \nonumber \\ && \hspace{-3cm}
\sum_{n=1}^{N} f_{l}^{k}\langle 0 | {\bf S}_{n}^{+}{\bf S}^{-}_{n+N/l} +
{\bf S}_{n}^{-}{\bf S}^{+}_{n+N/l} | 0 \rangle+O(N^{-1}). \end{aligned}$$ The coefficient $f_{l}^{k}=[\cos(2\pi k/l)-1]\tau_{l}$ does not vanish unless $$\label{eq:10}
k=l,2l,\ldots.$$ This means in particular that the LSM-operators ${\bf U}^{k}$, $k=1,\ldots,l-1$ do not create states, which are degenerate with the ground state in the thermodynamical limit.
Those situations, where the ground state degeneracy is lifted completely, are of special interest. They occur if the momenta of the states $|l\rangle={\bf
U}^{l}|0\rangle$ \[$p_{l}=l\pi(1-2M)+p_{s}$\] and of the ground state $|0\rangle$ ($p_{s}$) differ by a multiple of $2\pi$, i.e. for $$\label{eq:12}
\frac{l}{2}(1-2M)\in \Bbb{Z}.$$ The condition (\[eq:12\]) is satisfied exactly for the $l$ and $M$ values, listed in Table \[tab:legs\], i.e. for those values, where we expect a plateau in the magnetization curve.
Conclusion and Perspectives {#sec:conclusion}
===========================
In this paper we tried to elucidate the mechanism which generates gaps and plateaus in spin $1/2$ antiferromagnetic Heisenberg models with nearest and next to nearest neighbor couplings of strength $\alpha$. A priori these models have no gap in the presence of a homogeneous field $h_{3} > h_{3}^{c}(\alpha)$ above the critical field $ h_{3}^{c}(\alpha)$, which is needed to surmount the singlet triplet gap for $\alpha > \alpha_c = 0.241\ldots$. The LSM construction predicts the existence of soft modes (zero energy excitations) at wave vectors $q^{(k)}(M)=k\pi(1-2M),\; k=1,2,3,\ldots$.
It is shown in Sec. \[sec:LSM-construction\] that the total spin squared ${\bf
S}^2_T=S(S+1)$ of the lowest excited states at the soft mode momenta is the same as that of the ground state for $S=M N$. The soft modes are therefore expected to generate signatures in the dimer dimer structure factor, since the dimer operator does not change the total spin squared.
Indeed, for $M=1/4$ a pronounced peak is seen at the first soft mode $q=q^{(1)}(1/4)=\pi/2$ if $\alpha \le 1/4$, indicating a large transition matrix element $\langle 1|\bar {\bf D}(\pi/2)|0\rangle $ between the ground state – with momentum $p_{s}$ – and the first excited state with momentum $p_{s}+\pi/2$.
The second soft mode $q=q^{(2)}(1/4)=\pi$, however, does not produce any visible structure in the dimer dimer structure factor (for $\alpha \le 0.25$). Here the relevant transition matrix elements $\langle 1|{\bf D}(\pi)|0\rangle $ between the ground state $|0\rangle$ and the first excited state with momentum $p_{s}+\pi$ are small. The situation is different for large next-to-nearest-neighbor couplings $\alpha$.
The magnitude of the transition matrix elements $\langle 1|\bar {\bf
D}(q)|0\rangle$ is crucial for the efficiency of the mechanism to generate a plateau in the magnetization curve at a rational value of $M$ by means of a periodic perturbation $\delta_{q}{\bf \bar D}(q)$. According to the criterium of Oshikawa, Yamanaka and Affleck[@OYA97] a plateau at $M$ is possible if $q$ meets one of the soft modes $q=q^{(k)}(M),\; k=1,2,3,\ldots$.
Our numerical analysis shows that the width of the plateau – i.e. the difference of the upper and lower critical field (\[eq:47\]) – depends on the magnitude of the transition matrix element in the unperturbed model $(\delta_{q}=0)$. Indeed these matrix elements enter as initial conditions in the differential equations \[(2.4),(2.5)\] and \[(2.2),(2.3)\] in Refs. , which describe the evolution of gaps and plateaus under the influence of a periodic perturbation $\delta_{q}{\bf \bar
D}(q)$. We have also demonstrated that a superposition of two periodic perturbations \[$\bar {\bf D}(2\pi/3) +\bar {\bf D}(\pi/3) $\] generates two plateaus in the magnetization curve exactly at those magnetization values ($M=1/6,1/3$) where the period ($q=2\pi/3,\pi/3$) in the perturbation coincides with the first soft mode momentum $q=q_{3}(M)$.
Ladder systems with $l$ legs \[cf. Fig. \[fig:l\_ladder\]\] can be interpreted as one-dimensional systems with additional couplings over $l$ lattice spacings and a dimerized perturbation (\[eq:dimer\_l\]) and (\[eq:2\]). The latter breaks translation invariance of the 1D system and the Fourier analysis (\[eq:7\]) of the dimerized perturbation (\[eq:dimer\_l\]) reveals the occurrence of magnetization plateaus \[cf. Tab. \[tab:legs\]\] in spin ladder systems with $l$ legs.
In this paper we concentrated our investigations on different spin-1/2 systems that all had in common that they reduce in the unperturbed case to critical Heisenberg chains. It should be pointed out that there exist exact solutions on other (multichain spin-1/2 antiferromagnetic Heisenberg-like) models,[@PZ93] where the existence of magnetization plateaus is still unclear. We remark that the application of the method we presented here, is not limited to the cases we discussed. However, besides looking for the existence of soft modes it turns out to be needed to discuss the strength of the transition matrix elements. Here, we cannot offer general prescription and therefore the dynamics of each different model of interest has to be treated separately. We would like to thank A. Honecker and A. Klümper for discussions.
[10]{}
F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Lett. [**93A**]{}, 464 (1983).
F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**50**]{}, 1153 (1983).
K.-H. Mütter, Z. Phys. B [**96**]{}, 105 (1994).
E. Lieb, T. Schulz, and D. Mattis, Ann. Phys. [**16**]{}, 407 (1961).
I. Affleck and E. Lieb, Lett. Math. Phys. [**12**]{}, 57 (1986).
M. Oshikawa, M. Yamanaka, and I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1984 (1997).
M. Karbach, K.-H. Mütter, and M. Schmidt, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**7**]{}, 2829 (1995).
A. Fledderjohann [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 7168 (1996).
C. Gerhardt [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**9**]{}, 3435 (1997).
A. Fledderjohann, M. Karbach, and K.-H. Mütter, to be published in Euro. Phys. J. B, (1998).
A. Fledderjohann, M. Karbach, and K.-H. Mütter, submitted to Euro. Phys. J. B.
M. Oshikawa and I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 2883 (1997).
K. Okamoto and K. Nomura, Phys. Lett. A [**169**]{}, 433 (1992).
T. Tonegawa, T. Nishida, and M. Kaburagi, to be published in Physica B, (1998).
K. Totsuka, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 3454 (1998).
K. Hida, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**63**]{}, 2359 (1994).
M. Karbach, K.-H. Mütter, and M. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 9281 (1994).
M. Schmidt, C. Gerhardt, K.-H. Mütter, and M. Karbach, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**8**]{}, 553 (1996).
C. K. Majumdar and D. K. Ghosh, J. Math. Phys. [**10**]{}, 1388 (1969).
C. K. Majumdar and D. K. Ghosh, J. Math. Phys. [**10**]{}, 1399 (1969).
D. Cabra, A. Honecker, and P. Pujol, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 5126 (1997).
M.-S. Yang and K.-H. Mütter, Z. Phys. B [**104**]{}, 117 (1997).
V. Y. Popkov and A. A. Zvyagin, Phys. Lett. [**A 175**]{}, 295 (1993); A. A. Zvyagin, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 12579 (1995); A. A. Zvyagin, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 1035 (1998).
$l$ 2 3 4 5 6
----- --- ----- ------- ----------- ----------- --
$M$ 0 1/6 0;1/4 1/10;3/10 0;1/6;1/3
: The possible position of plateaus for spin ladders (\[eq:H\_h3\_al\]) with $l$ legs.[]{data-label="tab:legs"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the three-dimensional Georgi–Glashow model to demonstrate how magnetic monopoles can be studied fully non-perturbatively in lattice Monte Carlo simulations, without any assumptions about the smoothness of the field configurations. We examine the apparent contradiction between the conjectured analytic connection of the ‘broken’ and ‘symmetric’ phases, and the interpretation of the mass (, the free energy) of the fully quantised ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopole as an order parameter to distinguish the phases. We use Monte Carlo simulations to measure the monopole free energy and its first derivative with respect to the scalar mass. On small volumes we compare this to semi–classical predictions for the monopole. On large volumes we show that the free energy is screened to zero, signalling the formation of a confining monopole condensate. This screening does not allow the monopole mass to be interpreted as an order parameter, resolving the paradox.'
author:
- 'A.C.'
- 'A.'
- 'T.W.B.'
- 'A.'
title: 'The monopole mass in the three-dimensional Georgi–Glashow model'
---
Ø[[O]{}]{}
Introduction
============
On the level of classical field equations, the three–dimensional Georgi–Glashow model has two phases: When the mass parameter of the Higgs field is negative, the SU(2) gauge symmetry is broken into U(1), and when it is positive the symmetry is unbroken. The phase of the system can be determined by a local measurement of, say, the scalar field ${\rm Tr}\Phi^2$, which vanishes in the symmetric phase but is non-zero in the broken phase.
In the broken phase, the field equations have a topologically non-trivial solution, the ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopole [@'tHooft:1974qc; @Polyakov:1974ek], whose energy is concentrated around a point-like core. The mass, , the total energy carried by a monopole, decreases when the mass parameter approaches zero from below, and vanishes in the symmetric phase, in the sense that the solution is indistinguishable from the trivial vacuum solution.
In many cases, however, we are more interested in the behaviour of the model when fluctuations are taken into account. It is immaterial whether the fluctuations are thermal fluctuations in a classical field theory or quantum fluctuations in a Wick–rotated (2+1)–dimensional quantum field theory. Both of these systems are described by the same partition function, and we shall make no distinction between them. Nevertheless, we shall call the treatment based on classical field equations “semiclassical” even though it is no more accurate in a classical field theory at a non-zero temperature than it is in a quantum field theory.
When fluctuations are present, the above simple picture changes completely. In particular, the ‘symmetric’ and ‘broken’ phases are believed to be analytically connected to each other [@Fradkin:1979dv; @Nadkarni:1988pb; @Hart:1997ac; @Kajantie:1997tt]. Order parameter candidates that are not gauge invariant, such as $\langle \Phi \rangle$, vanish in both phases, and positive definite observables, such as ${\rm Tr}\Phi^2$ mentioned above, are non-zero in both phases. It would seem natural that a quantity like the mass of a ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopole, however, should be protected against the effects of the fluctuations by its topology, and that it should therefore serve as an order parameter for the phase transition. If this were the case, the phases could not be analytically connected. One example of this is the Abelian Higgs model, in which the vortex tension indeed acts as an order parameter [@Kleinert:1982dz; @Kovner:1991pz; @Kajantie:1999zn].
On the other hand, it is not even obvious that the monopole mass can be given a rigorous definition in a fluctuating theory, because, in general, one cannot assume that the field configurations that contribute to the partition function are in some sense close to solutions of classical field equations. This problem was solved in Ref. [@Davis:2000kv], however, where the monopole mass was defined as the increase of the free energy when the total magnetic charge of the system is increased by one. Furthermore, it was shown how this quantity can be measured in Monte Carlo simulations.
Thus, we have a well defined observable, the monopole mass, which could naturally be expected to be zero in the symmetric phase and non-zero in the broken phase, and still the phases are believed to be analytically connected. The purpose of this paper is to explain this apparent paradox.
First, we present a calculation based on a simple dilute monopole gas approximation, which predicts that although the monopole free energy is indeed non-zero and roughly equal to its classical value in a system of intermediate volume, it decays to zero at exponentially large volumes. Therefore, it should actually vanish everywhere in the thermodynamic limit. This calculation is very similar to Polyakov’s argument [@Polyakov:1977fu; @polyakov87] that the photon has an exponentially small mass in the broken phase.
Second, we measure the monopole free energy directly in a Monte Carlo simulation on different volumes using the method developed in Ref. [@Davis:2000kv]. We find that the monopole free energy has a volume-independent value in a wide range of lattice sizes, which shows that it corresponds to a localised, point-like object. In agreement with the analytical arguments, however, it eventually starts to decrease, when the volume is large enough.
The vanishing of the monopole free energy in the infinite volume limit implies that the monopoles condense. This leads to confinement of electric charge according to the dual superconductor picture [@Mandelstam:1976pi], and our results can therefore be considered as a numerical verification of Polyakov’s semi-classical argument [@polyakov87] that the Higgs phase is confining. In particular, since the monopole free energy vanishes in both phases in the infinite volume limit, it does not act as an order parameter, and this resolves the apparent paradox between a smooth crossover and the non-analytic behaviour of the monopole mass in the semiclassical approximation.
Within the framework of high–temperature dimensional reduction [@Kajantie:1996dw], the three–dimensional Georgi–Glashow model is an effective theory for the Yang–Mills theory at high temperatures (see, for example, [@hart99] and references therein). The phase transition of our model, however, is not related to the deconfinement phase transition of the Yang–Mills theory or QCD. On the other hand, our methods can be generalised to four dimensions in a straightforward way, and they may therefore be applicable also to studying Abelian monopoles [@'tHooft:1981ht] in the Yang–Mills theory, in particular whether they condense at the transition point as has been suggested as a possible “mechanism” for confinement [@Mandelstam:1976pi].
Monopole free energies in the Yang–Mills theory have been studied before by several groups [@Smit:1994vt; @DelDebbio:1995sx; @Frohlich:1999wq; @Cea:2000zr] using different techniques. In Refs. [@Smit:1994vt; @Cea:2000zr] fixed boundary conditions were used to create a monopole, but this leads to significant boundary effects. In Refs. [@DelDebbio:1995sx; @Frohlich:1999wq] a monopole creation operator was used, which lets one measure not only the mass but also correlation functions of the monopole field. With periodic boundary conditions, however, the operator creates not only a monopole, but also an antimonopole somewhere in the system in order to satisfy Gauss’s law. The advantage of our approach is that the system really has a non-zero magnetic charge, and because translation invariance is preserved, no singularities can arise even near the boundaries of the lattice.
The structure of the paper is as follows. We start by discussing the three–dimensional Georgi–Glashow model and the lattice definition of its magnetic monopoles in Section \[sect:1Higgs\]. In Section \[sec:expectations\], we use semi-classical results to motivate our numerical results. We present details of the Monte Carlo simulations carried out in Section \[sec:numerics\], and the results obtained in Section \[sec:results\]. Finally we discuss our findings in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
The Georgi–Glashow model {#sect:1Higgs}
========================
In the continuum, the three–dimensional Georgi–Glashow model is defined by the Lagrangian $${\cal L} = \frac{1}{2} \Tr \left( F_{ij} F_{ij} \right) +
\Tr [D_i, \Phi] [D_i,\Phi] + m^2 \Tr \Phi^2 +
\lambda \left( \Tr \Phi^2 \right)^2,$$ where $\Phi$ is in the adjoint representation of the SU(2) gauge group, $D_i=\partial_i+ig_3A_i$ and $F_{ij}=(ig_3)^{-1}[D_i,D_j]$. The partition function of the theory is formally defined as the path integral $${\cal Z}=\int D\Phi DA_i\exp\left(-\int d^3x {\cal L}\right).$$ This can be interpreted as a three–dimensional Euclidean quantum field theory, or as a classical statistical field theory with the Hamiltonian $\beta H=\int d^3x {\cal L}$.
The coupling constant, $g_3^2$, has the dimensions of mass, and we can write the parameters of the theory in terms of dimensionless ratios with the coupling constant $$\label{equ:xdef}
x = \frac{\lambda}{g_3^2}$$ and $$\label{equ:ydef}
y = \frac{m^2(g_3^2)}{g_3^4}.$$ The notation here reflects the fact that the theory is super–renormalisable (in three dimensions), and thus only the scalar mass needs a renormalisation counterterm. Even this is only necessary up to the two loop level, and its value is known both in the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme [@farakos94] and in lattice regularisation [@Laine:1995ag; @laine97]. In Eq. (\[equ:ydef\]), $m^2(g_3^2)$ is the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ renormalised mass with renormalisation scale $\mu=g_3^2$.
To study this model in a fully non–perturbative manner, we formulate the theory in a way that allows numerical solution by Monte Carlo simulation on a cubic, Euclidean lattice consisting of $L^3$ sites, labelled by a triplet of integers $\vec{x}=(x,y,z)$. The action is given by $S = \sum_{\vec{x} } {\cal L}(\vec{x})$, with the Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}(\vec{x}) & = &
\beta\sum_{i<j}\left[1-\frac{1}{2}
\tr U_{ij}(\vec{x})
\right]\nonumber
\\
&&+\sum_{i}\left\{2a \left[\tr\Phi^2(\vec{x}) -
\tr \Phi(\vec{x}) U_i(\vec{x}) \Phi(\vec{x}+\hat{\imath})
U_i^\dagger(\vec{x}) \right]\right.
\nonumber
\\
& &\left. + m^2 a^3 \tr \Phi^2(\vec{x}) + a^3 \lambda
\left[\tr \Phi^2(\vec{x})\right]^2\right\},
\label{equ:lagr}\end{aligned}$$ where $m^2$ is the bare lattice mass parameter and $\beta=4/(ag_3^2)$ is the conventional notation for the bare lattice gauge coupling.
We shall treat this lattice theory as an approximation to the continuum one, and therefore we parameterise the theory in terms of the renormalised continuum couplings defined in Eqs. (\[equ:xdef\]) and (\[equ:ydef\]). We are able to do this, because the relationships between the lattice and continuum couplings are known [@Laine:1995ag; @laine97], but we shall postpone discussion of them until Section \[sec:numerics\]. We shall also express all quantities in continuum units.
Magnetic monopoles
------------------
It is very well known that in the continuum, the field equations have topologically non-trivial solutions, ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopoles [@'tHooft:1974qc; @Polyakov:1974ek]. They can be characterised by a non-zero winding number of the Higgs field at the spatial infinity, $$N_W=\frac{1}{16\pi i}\int d^2S_k \epsilon_{ijk}\tr\ph\left(\partial_i\ph\right)
\left(\partial_j\ph\right)\in \mathbb{Z},$$ where $\ph=\Phi(\Phi^2)^{-1/2}$. Although $N_W$ itself is gauge invariant, the integrand is not, and therefore it does not have a direct physical interpretation. It can be easily seen, however, that $N_W$ actually corresponds to the magnetic charge associated with the residual U(1) gauge invariance.
To see this, let us define the magnetic field as [@'tHooft:1974qc] $$\label{equ:U1field}
{\cal B}_{i}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ijk}\left[\Tr\ph F_{jk}
+\frac{1}{2ig}\Tr\ph (D_j\ph)(D_k\ph)\right].$$ This is a gauge invariant quantity, and agrees with $\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A}_3$ in the unitary gauge $\ph=\sigma_3$. Therefore it is indeed the magnetic field associated with the residual U(1) symmetry. The corresponding magnetic charge density, $\rho_M=\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{\cal B}$, has the following properties: First, because $\rho_M$ is given by a total derivative, the charge inside a given volume can be expressed as a surface integral. Therefore any local deformation of the fields inside the volume cannot change the charge inside the volume. Second, the magnetic charge inside a given volume is, in fact, $$Q_M=\int d^3x \rho_M=\frac{4\pi}{g}N_W,$$ and is therefore quantised in units of $4\pi/g$. These two properties imply that the only way the charge inside a volume can be changed is by moving a magnetic monopole in or out of the volume. In other words, the magnetic charges are topologically stable.
What is less well known is that these same properties are also true for the lattice theory. We can define the analogue of Eq. (\[equ:U1field\]) as $$\hat{B}_i=\epsilon_{ijk}\alpha_{jk}.$$ Here $\alpha_{jk}$ is the lattice U(1) field strength tensor, $$\alpha_{ij}=\tr\Pi_+(\x)U_i(\x)\Pi_+(\xpi)U_j(\xpi)
\Pi_+(\xpij)U^\dagger_i(\xpj)
\Pi_+(\xpj)U^\dagger_j(\x),$$ and $\Pi_+=\frac{1}{2}(1+\ph)$. In the continuum limit, $\hat{B}_i$ approaches $a^2{\cal B}_i$. If we define the magnetic charge inside a lattice cell as $$\hat{\rho}_M(\x)=\sum_i\left[\hat{B}_i(\xpi)-\hat{B}_i(\x)\right],$$ it satisfies the same conditions that guarantee in the continuum the topological stability of magnetic monopoles: the charge is quantised and can be written as a surface integral. These are the same properties that ensure the stability of monopoles in the continuum, and thereby magnetic monopoles are well-defined and absolutely stable objects even in a discrete lattice theory, unlike the instantons of the four-dimensional Yang-Mills theory. Because of the quantisation and stability of magnetic charge, it makes sense to consider ‘microcanonical’ partition functions $Z_{Q_M}$ which are restricted to configurations with a given magnetic charge $Q_M$. The full, ‘canonical’ partition function is then simply $${\cal Z}=\prod_{Q_M=-\infty}^{\infty}Z_{Q_M}.$$ We define the free energy of a given topological sector by $$F_{Q_M}=-\ln Z_{Q_M},$$ and the free energy of a monopole as the free energy difference of sectors $Q_M=1$ and $0$, $$\label{equ:fediff}
\Delta F=F_{1}-F_0.$$ Semiclassically, $Z_{Q_M}=\exp[-S(Q_M)]$, where $S(Q_M)$ is the action of the monopole solution with charge $Q_M$. $S(Q_1)$ can also be interpreted as the mass of a monopole, and with a slight abuse of language we can generalise into the fully non-perturbative case by defining the monopole ‘mass’ $M$ by $$M=g_3^2\Delta F.$$ The semiclassical picture would predict that monopoles are massive in the broken phase and massless in the symmetric phase. If this were true, the mass would serve as an order parameter for the phase transition.
Boundary conditions
-------------------
We measure the monopole free energy following the method of Ref. [@Davis:2000kv], which for convenience we briefly review in this Section.
Our strategy is to work on a finite sized system, and impose boundary conditions that force the total magnetic charge of the lattice to be either odd or even, whilst preserving the translation invariance of the system. This is important because translation invariance guarantees the absence of boundary effects.
Gauss’s law rules out periodic boundary conditions, as the total charge is constrained to be zero. However, translation invariance is preserved by any boundary conditions that are periodic up to symmetries of the Lagrangian, and in general they allow a non-zero magnetic charge. For instance, ‘C–periodic boundary conditions’ [@Kronfeld:1991qu] $$\label{equ:ccbc}
\Phi(n+L\jh) = - \sigma_2 \Phi(n) \sigma_2 = \Phi^*(n), \qquad
U_k(n+L\jh) = \sigma_2 U_k(n) \sigma_2 = U_k^*(n).$$ are such that the net magnetic charge can be non-zero, but it is constrained to be even [@Davis:2000kv]. We shall refer to calculations using such boundary conditions with a subscript ‘0’.
Similarly, if the fields are constrained to behave as $$\Phi(n + L\jh) = - \sigma_j \Phi(n) \sigma_j, \qquad
U_k(n + L\jh) = \sigma_j U_k(n) \sigma_j.
\label{equ:bc}$$ on moving around the lattice, the net magnetic charge is odd. We term these ‘twisted (C–periodic) boundary conditions’, and denote results so obtained by a subscript ‘1’. It is easy to see that both sets of boundary conditions are symmetries of the lattice Lagrangian.
By a gauge transformation, the twisted boundary conditions may be rewritten as (untwisted) C–periodic boundary conditions everywhere save at the edges of the lattice, where $$\begin{aligned}
U_3(x,L,L-1) &=& -U_3{}^*(x,0,L-1)
,\nonumber\\
U_1(L-1,L,z) &=& -U_1{}^*(L-1,0,z)
,\nonumber\\
U_1(L-1,y,L) &=& -U_1{}^*(L-1,y,0)
.\end{aligned}$$ By a suitable redefinition of the fields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:redef}
U_3(x,N,N-1) &\rightarrow&-U_3(x,N,N-1)
,\nonumber\\
U_1(N-1,N,z) &\rightarrow&-U_1(N-1,N,z)
,\nonumber\\
U_1(N-1,y,N) &\rightarrow&-U_1(N-1,y,N)
,\end{aligned}$$ we can express the twisted boundary conditions as a theory with C–periodic boundary conditions everywhere, but with an additional term in the action that depends solely on the gauge fields: $$\label{equ:freeen1}
Z_1 = \int DU_i D\Phi \exp \left(-S - \Delta S \right),$$ where the change in the action is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:monodeltaS}
\Delta S&=&
\beta \left[
\sum_{x=0}^{L-1} \tr U_{23}(x,y_0,z_0)
\nonumber \right.
\\
& & \left.
+
\sum_{y=0}^{L-1}\tr U_{13}(x_0,y,z_0)
+
\sum_{z=0}^{L-1}\tr U_{12}(x_0,y_0,z)
\right].\end{aligned}$$ We emphasise that, because Eq. (\[equ:freeen1\]) is equivalent to Eq. (\[equ:bc\]) with the translation invariant boundary conditions, the choice of coordinates $(x_0,y_0,z_0)$ does not affect any observable, and in particular, it does not fix the location of the monopole on the lattice.
In physical terms, $\Delta S$ gives a negative gauge coupling to three orthogonal stacks of plaquettes which are pierced by three mutually intersecting lines on the lattice. These lines are known in the literature as ’t Hooft lines [@'tHooft:1978hy]. A single, open ’t Hooft line creates a pair of Dirac monopoles, and has been used to measure their interaction potential in Refs. [@Kovacs:2000sy; @Hoelbling:2001su; @hart00d; @deForcrand:2001fi; @Chernodub:2001nz]. It should be noted, however, that Dirac monopoles are rather different from ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopoles. They have only half the magnetic charge of the latter, and are singular, non-dynamical objects. In our case, the ’t Hooft lines are closed by the boundary conditions, and therefore they do not create any singularities, but a non-singular ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopole.
The free energy $\Delta F$ (or the ‘mass’) of a monopole is defined by analogy with Eq. (\[equ:fediff\]) as $$\label{equ:unprog}
\Delta F = F_1 - F_0
\equiv - \ln \left( \frac{Z_1}{Z_0} \right)
= -\ln \langle \exp (-\Delta S) \rangle.$$ In the main, however, we shall study the derivative of $\Delta F$ with respect to the scalar mass parameter, $y$, $$\label{equ:Mderiv}
\frac{1}{g_3} \frac{\partial \Delta F}{\partial y} = g_3^6 V
\left( \frac{\langle \tr \Phi^2 \rangle_1}{g_3^2} -
\frac{\langle \tr \Phi^2 \rangle_0}{g_3^2} \right),$$ where $V$ is the volume of the system. We know that for sufficiently large $y$ in the symmetric phase the free energy of the monopole will go to zero (at least in the large volume limit). If we see the derivative becoming zero, the free energy is at most a constant. In Section \[sec:numerics\] we also measure the free energy at a point in the symmetric phase and find it to be consistent with zero. If the derivative is zero all over the symmetric phase, it is reasonable to assume, then, that the free energy itself is becoming zero.
Semiclassical expectations {#sec:expectations}
==========================
We now turn our attention to the semi–classical predictions for the ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopole (see, for instance, [@polyakov87]), to which we would like to compare our results from the fully quantised theory.
In the broken phase of the theory the scalar field gains a vacuum expectation value (VEV) $${\frac{v}{g_3}}= \sqrt{\frac{-y}{2x}}.$$ The semi–classical solution of unit winding number is the ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopole [@'tHooft:1974qc; @Polyakov:1974ek], associated with an isolated zero of the scalar field. Away from this, the scalar field decays towards its VEV, with a characteristic length scale $$\xi_s g_3^2 = \left( \sqrt{-y} \right)^{-1}.$$ The gauge field simultaneously decays from being SU(2) to being asymptotically U(1) with a length scale $$\xi_g g_3^2 = \left( {\frac{v}{g_3}}\right)^{-1}.$$ We thus have a picture where asymptotically the gauge fields are Abelian, save within some extended core whose size is defined by the above length scales where the gauge fields ‘unwind’ into the full SU(2) gauge manifold. We shall find that this scenario remains at least qualitatively valid when quantum corrections are introduced.
The mass of this object is, semiclassically, $$\frac{M}{g_3^2} = 4 \pi {\frac{v}{g_3}}f(x)
\label{eqn_sc_mass}$$ where $f(x)$ is the ’t Hooft function. To satisfy the Bogomolny lower bound on the mass, $f(0) = 1$. Also, it is known numerically (see, for example, [@goddard78]) that for small $x$, $f(x) \simeq 1 + x$.
The derivative of this mass, as in Eq. (\[equ:Mderiv\]), is $$\frac{p_0}{g_3^2} \equiv \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \frac{M}{g_3^2} =
-\frac{2 \pi}{\sqrt{-2xy}}.
\label{equ:sgl-deriv}$$ Assuming that the monopoles are point-like and non-interacting, we can roughly estimate their density to be [@Polyakov:1977fu] $$\frac{\nu_0}{g_3^6} = \left( {\frac{v}{g_3}}\right)^{\frac{7}{2}}
\exp\left( -\frac{M}{g_3^2} \right),
\label{equ:density}$$ which is suppressed by the exponential of the mass. We may also define a mean separation $D$ of the monopoles as $$\frac{1}{\left( D g_3^2 \right)^3} \equiv \frac{\nu_0}{g_3^6}.$$ When $M\gg g_3^2$, there is a hierarchy between $D$ and the fundamental length scales $\xi_s$ and $\xi_g$, and therefore the above assumption of point-like monopoles is valid.
This is the semiclassical picture for infinite volume. What we are interested in is what happens in the quantised theory of finite volume, and the interplay of the system size, $aL$ with the scales above. Particularly, we wish to know the fate of the monopole mass on large length scales.
Small volumes {#sect:small}
-------------
Let us first briefly discuss what happens when the volume of the system is comparable to, or smaller than, the length scales discussed before. The core size of a monopole is given by the correlation length $\xi$ (we assume for sake of argument that $\xi_g$ and $\xi_s$ are comparable), and therefore if $aL \lesssim \xi$, there is no room for a monopole in the system. If the system is forced by twisted boundary conditions to contain one monopole, its core will fill the lattice and the whole system will be in the confining phase. On the other hand, the untwisted system is in the Higgs phase. The free energy densities of these two phases differ by a certain non-zero amount $\Delta f$, which is essentially the latent heat, and as this is the case in the whole volume, we have $$\Delta F\approx L^3\Delta f.$$ Thus, we can conclude that when $aL\ll\xi$, $\Delta F$ should scale as the volume of the system.
When the volume is increased, $\xi \lesssim aL \lesssim 2.5 \xi$, the fields start to approach the U(1) of the Higgs vacuum far from the monopole core of the twisted system. Nonetheless, the core will be affected by the boundary conditions, and in general a restriction in the core size by the boundary will lead to an increase in the (absolute value of the) free energy and its derivatives. As a rough estimate, if the total non–Abelian flux inside the monopole core is roughly constant, then the flux density will vary as the inverse of the volume. The total energy of the system would then vary as $L^{-3}$. (The figure $2.5 \xi$ is a rough limit derived from our results.)
Intermediate volumes
--------------------
Let us then consider a system that is large enough to comfortably accommodate one monopole, but is so small that the fluctuations are not likely to create isolated monopoles (or, more accurately, well separated monopole–antimonopole pairs). This is the case when $\xi
\ll aL \ll D$. That is, the entropy–action balance is dominated by the action cost, which limits us to the minimum number of monopoles (and antimonopoles) required to satisfy the boundary conditions.
We expect the free energy difference, Eq. (\[equ:unprog\]), to be that between a system of one monopole and an uncharged box. Because a monopole is a localised object, the regions far from the monopole core are unaware of the twist in the boundary conditions. $\Delta F$ only gets a contribution from the monopole core and is therefore independent of the volume. In this case, the identification of $\Delta F$ with the monopole mass makes sense, and a comparison between the measured values and the semiclassical formulæ above yields information on the radiative corrections to the semiclassical monopole.
Large volumes
-------------
As the volume is increased such that $aL \gg D$, the entropy gain in introducing well separated monopole–antimonopole pairs into the vacuum outweighs the action cost and the mean density of topological objects is no longer expected to be the minimum commensurate with the boundary conditions. The free energy required to introduce an extra monopole into the system is now less than the mass of the single monopole, as we demonstrate with a simple model.
### The dilute monopole gas
Following Ref. [@hart00c], where a similar effect was discussed in the case of vortices in (2+1)–dimensions, we assume that the density of monopoles is low enough, so that the probability of finding one in any sub-volume of space is independent of whether there are monopoles present elsewhere in the system. In other words, the monopoles are assumed to be point-like or that overlap of the cores is of vanishing measure. As discussed above, this dilute monopole gas approximation is believed to be valid deep in the broken phase.
The probability of finding $n$ monopoles or antimonopoles (we do not distinguish) in a volume, $V$, follows Poissonian statistics $$p(n;V) = \frac{1}{\cal N} \frac{1}{n!}
\left( \nu_0 V \right)^{n}.$$ We apply this to the volume of the whole lattice $V=(aL)^3=g_3^{-6}(4L/\beta)^3$. We find different normalisation factors for twisted ($n \in {\rm odd}$, and ${\cal N}_1 = \sinh \left(
\nu_0 V \right)$) and untwisted ($n \in {\rm even}$, and ${\cal N}_0 =
\cosh \left( \nu_0 V \right)$) boundary conditions.
The free energy of the system (or its derivative) is extensive and the sum of the free energy of the components for a dilute gas, and considering the entire system we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial y} \frac{\Delta F}{g_3^2}
& = &
\frac{1}{{\cal N}_1} \sum_{n \in {\rm odd}}
n \left( \frac{p_0}{g_3^2} \right) p(n;V)
\nonumber\\&& -
\frac{1}{{\cal N}_0} \sum_{n \in {\rm even}}
n \left( \frac{p_0}{g_3^2} \right) p(n;V)
\nonumber
\\
& = &
4 \left( \frac{p_0}{g_3^2} \right) \nu_0 V
\frac{e^{-2 \nu_0 V}}{1-e^{-4 \nu_0 V}}
\label{equ:multi-deriv}\end{aligned}$$ where $p_0$ was defined in Eq. (\[equ:sgl-deriv\]). Eq. (\[equ:multi-deriv\]) gives the desired plateau for intermediate $V$, but then decays to zero as $V \to \infty$, beginning once $V
\gtrsim V_c$, such that $\nu_0 V_c = 1$. Note that since $\nu_0 V$ is simply the typical number of monopoles and antimonopoles created by fluctuations, this result shows that the monopole free energy decays as soon as the fluctuations can create isolated monopoles.
Crucial in the above calculation is the assumption that the monopoles are non-interacting. Although the monopoles at least semiclassically have a long range Coulomb interaction, we believe this approximation is justified, because the interaction is non-confining. Nevertheless, it is only an approximation, and therefore it must be tested in numerical simulations, as we do in Sect. \[sec:results\].
We can also see that the above argument would break down if we tried to apply it to the four–dimensional case, where the monopoles are world lines rather than point-like objects. In a Euclidean theory, the action of the monopole world line would be proportional to its length, and therefore $\nu_0$ would vanish exponentially when the limit of infinite time dimension is taken. The same happens for vortices in the three–dimensional U(1) theory [@Kajantie:1999zn]. In future work we aim to verify that this is also true for vortices in a non–Abelian theory. On the other hand, if one of the three dimensions is compact as in the (2+1)–dimensional case at a non-zero temperature, $\nu_0$ is finite, and again the vortex free energy vanishes in the infinite volume limit [@hart00c].
### Confinement
The prediction of the dilute monopole gas approximation that the monopole free energy vanishes in both phases in the infinite volume limit is compatible with the properties the phase diagram of the theory is believed to have. Vanishing free energy means that the monopoles condense, and according to the dual superconductor picture [@Mandelstam:1976pi], this gives rise to confinement.
Indeed, it is known semiclassically that the non-zero monopole density gives the photon a non-zero mass even in the Higgs phase [@Polyakov:1977fu], and this leads to confinement. Thus it is natural to assume that the Higgs phase is analytically connected to the confining phase [@Nadkarni:1988pb; @Hart:1997ac]. Again, this can only be true if the monopole free energy vanishes in the Higgs phase, because otherwise it would act as an order parameter signalling a transition from the Higgs to the confining phase.
Previous studies [@Hart:1997ac] have supported the idea of a smooth crossover between the phases, but as they only concentrated on local quantities, they cannot be regarded as proofs. For instance, in the three–dimensional Abelian Higgs model, the phase transition can only be seen in practice by measuring non-local observables such as the vortex tension or the photon mass [@Kajantie:1999zn]. In the present case, the predicted non-zero photon mass has not been observed in simulations [@Hart:1997ac; @Kajantie:1997tt]. It is clear from the results presented here that the reason for this lies in the very large volumes required.
Lattice Monte Carlo simulations {#sec:numerics}
===============================
We simulate the Georgi–Glashow model on the lattice via Monte Carlo importance sampling of the partition functions for both the C–periodic and twisted C–periodic boundary conditions. Updates to the lattice were performed as compound sweeps consisting of one heatbath update to the gauge and scalar fields, followed by two over-relaxation steps to each. Measurements were made once per compound sweep.
Statistical errors were estimated by jack-knife analysis, dividing the data sets into ten bins. For most lattices, the bin size was much longer than the autocorrelation time of the observables, making them independent. This could be seen in an approximate decrease in the statistical errors as $1/\sqrt{N}$ as the number of measurements, $N$, was increased. The only lattice on which this was not readily apparent was the $\beta=4.5$, $L=46$, where the errors did not show such a reduction. This may indicate that, despite considerable computational effort, the ensemble size is still such that the autocorrelation time was comparable to the bin size. Error estimates for this ensemble should thus be treated as lower bounds.
To illustrate that the twisted boundary conditions (\[equ:bc\]) indeed generate a monopole, we show in Fig. \[fig:monopole\] the isosurfaces of ${\rm Tr}\,\Phi^2$ and the gauge action density $\sum_{i<j}(1-{\rm Tr}
U_{ij}/2)$ in a typical field configuration at $x=0.05$, $y=0.45$ and $\beta=18$. The gauge action peaks and ${\rm Tr}\,\Phi^2$ dips around the same point, exactly as is expected to happen near the monopole core. Because of thermal fluctuations, the isosurfaces are not spherical.
Observables
-----------
We measure the free energy and its derivative with respect to the scalar mass. The former is done via Eq. (\[equ:unprog\]). In practice this does not work; the importance sampling of the theory with untwisted boundary conditions has very small overlap with that of the twisted partition function. This leads to strong sign fluctuations in $\Delta S$ which leads to a poor convergence of its average through Monte Carlo simulation.
Instead, as in Refs. [@Kajantie:1999zn; @Kovacs:2000sy; @Hoelbling:2001su], we can introduce a set of ensembles defined by a real parameter, $\varepsilon
\in [0,1]$: $$Z_\varepsilon \equiv
\int DU_i D\Phi \exp \left( -S - \varepsilon \Delta S \right),
\label{equ:freeeneps}$$ where $\varepsilon = 0$ is the untwisted case, and $\varepsilon = 1$ represents twisted boundary conditions. We then write $$\label{equ:monomass}
\Delta F = \int_0^1 d\varepsilon
\frac{\partial F_\varepsilon}{\partial \varepsilon}
= \int_0^1 d\varepsilon \langle \Delta S \rangle_\varepsilon,$$ where the subscript $\varepsilon$ indicates that the expectation value must be measured using Eq. (\[equ:freeeneps\]). This gives us the absolute value of $\Delta F$, but with the cost that we have to measure expectation values at non-physical values of $\varepsilon$. We call this the ‘method of progressive twisting’. Calculations of the free energy by progressive twisting typically used 10,000 to 20,000 measurements for each of 37 values of the twisting parameter, $\varepsilon$, which are then numerically integrated. (For an alternative approach, see Ref. [@deForcrand:2001fi].)
Alternatively, the derivative of the free energy, Eq. (\[equ:Mderiv\]), may be measured directly, which avoids the reweighting problem. We are, however, calculating an intensive quantity as the difference of two approximately extensive numbers. Maintaining a constant error on the former demands increasing accuracy in the latter for increasing volume. Even allowing for self–averaging and the good scaling properties of the simulation algorithm, maintaining comparable precision in the free energy derivative requires CPU time rising as $L^6$. This limits the results of this study to $L \le 46$. Calculations of the derivative with respect to the scalar mass used between 200,000 and 500,000 measurements for each of the boundary condition choices.
Lattice parameters
------------------
------ ---------------------------------- -------- --------- ----
0.35 $-10$, $-3$, $-1$, $-0.5$, 1, 10 $18.0$ $0.222$ 16
------ ---------------------------------- -------- --------- ----
: \[tab:prog-params\] Lattices used to study the monopole free energy by the method of progressive twisting.
------ ---------- ------ ------- ----------------------------------
0.35 $-0.124$ 4.5 0.889 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20,
22, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 46
6.0 0.667 4, 6, 8, 10
9.0 0.444 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16
12.0 0.333 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20
18.0 0.222 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20
------ ---------- ------ ------- ----------------------------------
: \[tab:deriv-params\] Lattices used to study the system size dependence of the derivative of the monopole free energy.
The physical and lattice parameter values used are listed for reference in Tables \[tab:prog-params\] and \[tab:deriv-params\].
In this section we discuss simulations of the SU(2) Georgi–Glashow model in three Euclidean dimensions. The action for the theory has been given in Eq. (\[equ:lagr\]). In addition to the parameters that define our theory in the continuum limit, $x$ and $y$, there are two additional complications in the lattice theory, being the lattice spacing, $a g_3^2$, and the volume, $(a g_3^2 L)^3$, of the cubic lattice on which we perform the simulations.
Detailed investigations of finite volume effects and scaling of correlation lengths have been performed for the $d=2+1$ pure gauge SU(2) and Georgi–Glashow field theories in [@teper98; @hart99]. Here we summarise the findings briefly for the benefit of non–specialist readers.
The lattice calculations yield dimensionless results, which may be interpreted as being the physical result multiplied by the lattice spacing raised to their naïve dimensions, and which we denote via a circumflex accent. We remove the dependence on the unknown lattice spacing by multiplying the result with the appropriate power of $\beta=4/(ag_3^2)$, and therefore it is natural to express the results in terms of powers of $g_3$, which has the dimensions of (mass)$^{1/2}$. For sufficiently fine lattices, the agreement with the continuum limit will be within the statistical errors of the lattice data, but on coarser lattices there may in principle be deviations. The results in Refs. [@teper98; @hart99] are indicative of the continuum limit for $\beta \gtrsim 4.5$, which includes relatively coarse lattices at the lower end of this range (as we discuss later).
The lattice theory in Eq. (\[equ:lagr\]) is parameterised by three couplings $(m^2,\lambda,\beta)$. In order to vary the lattice spacing, we wish to change $\beta$ whilst maintaining the same continuum theory \[ $(x,y)$\]. This is commonly referred to as moving along ‘lines of constant physics’. These trajectories have been calculated [@Laine:1995ag; @laine97] in the limit $\beta\rightarrow\infty$, and they are believed to be valid for lattices finer than $\beta \simeq 4.5 - 5.0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\beta &=& \frac{4}{ag_3^2},\nonumber\\
\lambda &=& x g_3^2,\nonumber\\
\frac{m^2}{g_3^4} &\approx& y-\left(4+5x\right)\frac{3.1759}{4\pi ag_3^2}
\nonumber\\
&&
-\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\Biggl[
\left( 20x-10x^2 \right)
\left(\ln\frac{6}{ag_3^2}+0.09\right)
\nonumber\\
&&
~~~~~~~~~~+11.6x+8.7
\Biggr].\end{aligned}$$ Again, we address the range of applicability in a later section. We are primarily interested in testing the idea that the ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopoles condense. The measurement of this is a fine balance. Whilst monopoles are topologically stable even if their core is smaller than the lattice spacing, it should be much larger than that to ensure they resemble the semiclassical ’t Hooft–Polyakov solution. Experience indicates that the correlation lengths of the gauge and scalar field should be at least 2 or 3 lattice spacings. Simultaneously, in order to see the screening of the free energy that signals the formation of the plasma, we require lattices that are (much) larger than the mean separation of the monopoles, such that it is possible for screening of magnetic charge to occur. Given that these two scales may be widely separated, it is not at all clear that we will be able to achieve the balance using a lattice size, $L$, which can be realistically simulated on the resources available.
We can use the known, semi-classical description of the monopoles [@Polyakov:1977fu] to estimate the parameters needed for the lattice. Such estimates are, of course, only expected to be accurate up to numerical factors which may be important here. Nonetheless, we may hope the results are indicative at least, and the exercise gives some insight into the possible screening mechanism.
The monopole density (\[equ:density\]) has a maximum value of just under $0.000345$. Screening will become apparent when the physical volume, $g_3^6 V \equiv \left( 4L/\beta \right)^3$, is such that $\nu_0 V_c = 1$; this yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{4L_c}{\beta}
& \gtrsim &
\left( \left. \frac{\nu_0}{g_3^6} \right|_{\rm max}
\right)^{-\frac{1}{3}}, \\
L_c
& \gtrsim &
3.56 \beta.\end{aligned}$$ If a conservative value of $L_c = 16$ is chosen to allow for possible suppression of the monopole density, this indicates that the gauge coupling is restricted to be $\beta\le 4.5$. Our primary interest is in observing the monopole screening, so it is not strictly necessary that the perturbative lines of constant physics still hold on our lattices. We would like to maintain some contact with continuum physics, however, and thus go no lower than $\beta = 4.5$.
Using Eq. (\[equ:density\]), the maximum monopole density is reached for $v/g_3 = 0.421$. We are most interested in the fate of the monopole mass in the region of the phase diagram where there is a crossover between the two phases. For this reason we select $x=0.35$, and thus $y=-0.124$. At this parameter set, the gauge correlation length is, in units of the lattice spacing, $$\hat{\xi}_g = \frac{\beta}{4} \left( {\frac{v}{g_3}}\right)^{-1} = 2.67,$$ and the scalar field correlation length is $$\hat{\xi}_s = \frac{\beta}{4} \left( \sqrt{-y} \right)^{-1} = 3.20,$$ which are both suitably larger than the lattice grid size. Finer lattices were used to resolve better the small volume behaviour.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Small volumes {#small-volumes}
-------------
As discussed in Sect. \[sect:small\] the free energy $\Delta F$ is expected to be proportional to the volume of the system when $L\lesssim \xi$. We studied this in our simulations by measuring its $y$-derivative with couplings $x=0.35$ and $y=-0.124$. Obviously, this should behave in the same way as the free energy difference itself. The results from lattices of different sizes and different lattice spacings are plotted in Fig. \[fig:small-L\] as functions of the physical lattice size $ag_3^2L$. At small $L$ the data show very little scaling violation. This suggests that we are not seeing a physically interesting effect here and supports the idea that the behaviour with $L$ has a simple origin. We show a fit of the form $-d_0L^{d_1}$, where $d_{\{0,1\} }$ are free parameters. Whilst the power law fits well by eye, the precise nature of the data makes the fits all quite poor ($\chi^2/{\rm dof} \gtrsim 5$). The fit shown is to the $\beta=18.0$ data only, and gives $d_1 = 4.2 \, (5)$. Whilst not precisely 3, this gives qualitative support to our simple picture.
Beyond $g_3^2 L \simeq 3.5$ we see different behaviour. The derivative now decreases towards a plateau on intermediate scales. Whilst this decay may be a power law, we find the data insufficient to support a precise fit. The value of the plateau does show evidence of a discretisation effect. We may attempt to quantify this through a continuum extrapolation of the data at $g_3^2L = 5.3$, admittedly still in the transient region, but where we have results for four couplings. We show the data in Fig. \[fig:plat\_scal\], along with a fit assuming only a leading order correction to scaling that is quadratic in the lattice spacing. This describes the data $\beta \geq
6.0$ well (with $\chi^2/{\rm dof} = 0.178$). Even $\beta=4.5$ only deviates from this line by 7%, which backs up our previous statements on scaling and the applicability of the perturbative lines of constant physics (used to maintain constant $x,y$ as we varied $\beta$). In addition, this fit suggests that residual lattice spacing corrections are indeed very small at $\beta=18$, being around 2% in this case.
In the region of intermediate volumes, when the twisted lattice supports a single monopole, we may attempt to measure the mass directly, to test the applicability of the semiclassical results to fully quantised excitations. We have two methods of approaching this. Less prone to statistical uncertainty is to use measurements of the derivative of the mass $dM/dy$ over a range in $y$ at fixed $x$. We make a ‘mean field’ assumption that we can describe this data using the formul[æ]{} of Section \[sec:expectations\], allowing for a shift in the phase transition by the substitution $y \to y - y_c$. Typical data, with such a fit, are shown in Fig. \[fig:deriv\]. The mean field assumption fits the data well, and from the coefficient $c_0$ we may extract a value for the radiatively corrected ’t Hooft function. We find $y_c$ to be consistent with zero for $x=0.35$.
Alternatively, we can measure the mass directly by the method of progressive twisting for fixed $x,y$. We show such a calculation in Fig. \[fig:prog\_twist\]. The dominant error arises from the almost complete cancellation of the areas under the curve either side of $\varepsilon=0.5$. To illustrate this we plot also the same curve rotated through $180^\circ$.
------ ------------- ---------- ------------- ----------- ----------- ------
0.05 deriv. 1.066 (11) 18.0 $16 - 20$
0.35 deriv. 1.257 (14) 18.0 $16 - 24$
0.35 prog. twist $-10$ 50.8 (14.4) 1.07 (31) 18.0 $16$
0.35 prog. twist $-3$ 33.3 (5.5) 1.28 (22) 18.0 $16$
0.35 prog. twist $-1$ 18.2 (4.7) 1.21 (32) 18.0 $16$
0.35 prog. twist $-0.5$ 13.4 (1.9) 1.26 (18) 18.0 $16$
0.35 prog. twist $1$ 1.4 (2.1) — 18.0 $16$
0.35 prog. twist $10$ 1.5 (1.2) — 18.0 $16$
0.35 prog. twist $-0.124$ 2.8 (1.6) 0.53 (31) 4.5 $16$
0.35 prog. twist $-0.124$ 5.8 (1.8) 1.10 (35) 9.0 $16$
0.35 prog. twist $-0.124$ 6.3 (2.4) 1.19 (46) 12.0 $16$
------ ------------- ---------- ------------- ----------- ----------- ------
: \[tab:mass\] Estimates of the monopole mass and the ’t Hooft function.
We summarise these estimates of $f(x)$ in Table \[tab:mass\], and in Fig. \[fig:mass\] where we show a fit to different $y$ as per Eq. (\[eqn\_sc\_mass\]). The masses and their derivatives behave much as the semiclassical expectations. Similarly the ’t Hooft function, within the limits of our statistical errors, does not appear to differ markedly due to radiative corrections. There is, however, a considerable variation in the data at $y=-0.124$ as we change $\beta$, and we may worry about systematic effects in our results. The first source of these is discretisation effects. The majority of our estimates are for $\beta=18.0$, and as we have argued above, the residual lattice spacing effects are small here. The variation in $\beta$ in the table is also in part due to a corresponding change in the physical volume of the system, and we may ask whether all our measurements are for ‘plateau’ masses uncontaminated by the transient small volume effects. We believe such biases to be small, especially for the $y \leq -1$. As we vary $y$ in Fig. \[fig:deriv\] there is a great change in the correlation lengths $\xi_{\{s,g\}}$ for fixed volume. That the different [*effective*]{} volumes considered agree suggests we are indeed seeing the intermediate plateau unaffected by small $L$ transients. We are thus confident that our errors on these estimates of $f(x)$ are accurate. The joint fit in Fig. \[fig:mass\] yields $f(0.35) = 1.23 \, (12)$.
Intermediate and large volumes
------------------------------
The large to intermediate system size data for the derivative of the free energy are shown in Fig. \[fig:screening\]. For intermediate system size it is clear that the data is well represented by a constant independent of the lattice size, and we use such a hypothesis: $$\frac{1}{g_3^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \frac{M}{g_3^2} =
c_0
\label{equ:const-fit}$$ where we expect the parameter $c_0$ to be $p_0/g_3^2$. We show such fits in Table \[tab:const-fit\]. Our method is to begin with a low upper limit for the fitting range, and to then increase this, including progressively more data in the fit. The $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom and $Q$ (if our fitted form is the correct model, the probability that our data could have arisen as random fluctuations around that model) remain (very) acceptable up to $L \sim 40$. It is clear that beyond this the fits become unacceptable: the behaviour has changed as a consequence of screening.
[|c|c|c|\*[3]{}[r@[.]{}l|]{}]{} & [$L_{\rm high}$]{} & [$N_{\rm dof}$]{} & & &\
6 & 32 & 10 & 12&431 (58) & 0&686 & 0&722\
6 & 36 & 11 & 12&426 (58) & 1&106 & 0&353\
6 & 40 & 12 & 12&421 (58) & 1&704 & 0&066\
6 & 46 & 13 & 12&419 (58) & 1&813 & 0&040\
10 & 32 & 8 & 12&705 (82) & 0&772 & 0&628\
10 & 36 & 9 & 12&689 (82) & 1&229 & 0&272\
10 & 40 & 10 & 12&677 (82) & 1&873 & 0&044\
10 & 46 & 11 & 12&671 (82) & 1&976 & 0&027\
We can attempt to describe the screening by fitting over a similar range using a fitting ansatz suggested by the dilute gas model: $$\frac{1}{g_3^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \frac{M}{g_3^2} =
4 c_0 c_1 (ag_3^2L)^3
\frac{e^{-2 c_1 (a g_3^2 L)^3}}{1-e^{-4 c_1 (a g_3^2 L)^3}}
\label{equ:screen-fit}$$ where $c_0$ is as before, and $c_1 = \nu_0/g_3^6$. We show such fits over similar ranges in Table \[tab:screen-fit\]. For intermediate $L$ the fits are similar to those obtained using just a constant description. As data from larger systems is included, however, we see that the ansatz now remains good. A comparison of the two fits is plotted in Fig. \[fig:screening\].
[|c|c|c|\*[4]{}[r@[.]{}l|]{}]{} & [$L_{\rm high}$]{} & [$N_{\rm dof}$]{} & & & &\
6 & 32 & 9 & 12&499 (44) & 0&151 (93) & 0&938 & 0&490\
6 & 36 & 10 & 12&500 (44) & 0&187 (40) & 0&867 & 0&564\
6 & 40 & 11 & 12&502 (44) & 0&202 (35) & 0&826 & 0&614\
10 & 32 & 7 & 12&445 (83) & 1&36 (106) & 0&816 & 0&582\
10 & 36 & 8 & 12&451 (83) & 1&82 (47) & 0&753 & 0&675\
10 & 40 & 9 & 12&454 (83) & 1&99 (37) & 0&722 & 0&689\
10 & 46 & 10 & 12&449 (83) & 1&79 (35) & 0&773 & 0&655\
We may calculate from $c_1$ the mean density of monopoles, $\nu_0 / g_3^6 = 1.3 \, (3) \times 10^{-5}$, which makes their mean separation $$g_3^2 D = 42.6 \, (3.3)$$ or, in lattice units at $\beta = 4.5$, $\hat{D} = 47.8 \, (3.7)$. From this it is clear that we have not got the lattice volume necessary to see a complete screening of the free energy at $L \gg \hat{D}$. We cannot therefore completely rule out from our data the possibility that $\Delta F$ remains finite even in the infinite volume limit.
As was seen for small system sizes, the plateau values at least are heavily influenced by discretisation effects at $\beta = 4.5$. To perform a scaling study of the screening mechanism is beyond our current means. Nonetheless, for a demonstration of the mechanism such effects are immaterial and do not affect the qualitative arguments.
Note also that no attempt has been made to estimate here the systematic errors in the monopole density. To do so would require a comparison of different screening hypotheses and fit functions, something that the data is, unfortunately, not accurate enough to address satisfactorily.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this paper, we have used a fully non-perturbative technique to measure the free energy of a ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopole in the three–dimensional Georgi–Glashow model. This was achieved by simulating systems with two different boundary conditions, both of which are periodic up to symmetries of the Lagrangian. This preserves the lattice translation invariance of the system and therefore makes sure there are no boundary effects.
We found that in the Higgs phase, the free energy reached a constant value at intermediate volumes, which shows that it is associated with a localised object. This is the quantum analogue of the ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopole. We measure its mass by two different methods, and find it compatible with semiclassical expectations. ‘Mean field’ application of the classical relations appears successful, and we can make estimates of the quantum corrected ’t Hooft function. Our best estimates are $f(0.05) = 1.066 \, (11)$ and $f(0.35) = 1.257 \, (14)$ from the derivative of the mass with respect to $y$, and $f(0.35) =
1.23 \, (12)$ by the method of progressive twisting. These estimates are both self–consistent, and in agreement with the classical variation $f(x) \simeq 1 + x$ for small $x$ [@goddard78], indicating that radiative corrections are small.
When the volume increased above a certain critical value, however, the free energy started to approach zero. This is consistent with an analytical calculation within the dilute monopole gas approximation, which predicts that the free energy vanishes in the infinite volume limit at any values of the couplings.
In the dual superconductor picture, the vanishing monopole free energy implies confinement, and therefore our results are numerical evidence for Polyakov’s prediction that the Higgs phase of this theory is confining. Furthermore, if the monopole free energy vanishes everywhere, it cannot be used as an order parameter, and therefore our results strongly support the conjecture that the confining and Higgs phases are analytically connected to one another.
Neither, of course, can the monopole mass measured from the plateau in the free energy for intermediate system sizes act to distinguish the phases. It is non-zero in the deep Higgs phase and zero in the deep symmetric phase. This plateau does not exist, however, everywhere in the phase diagram, notably near the transition line itself. The mean monopole separation there will be comparable to the core size and no plateau would be observed. Thus the ‘mass’ is ill–defined and cannot serve as an order parameter.
Our findings suggest a straightforward generalisation to other cases. In a Euclidean formulation in any number of dimensions, any point-like topological defect that has finite action, will always have a non-zero density at any non-zero temperature. This means that these objects always have a zero free energy. An extended topological defect, such as a string or a domain wall, is, however, either a closed loop, surface etc., in which case it does not contribute to the global properties of the systems, or it has an infinite action. In the latter case, the fluctuations cannot generate them, and their free energy remains non-zero even in the infinite volume limit. Because the free energy can be used as an order parameter, this suggests that models with extended topological defects always have a true phase transition rather than a smooth crossover. This question will be studied further in a future publication.
We would like to thank Mikko Laine and Kari Rummukainen for useful discussions. This work was supported by PPARC(UK) and by the ESF COSLAB Programme. The computational work was carried out on the U.K. Computational Cosmology Consortium COSMOS Origin2000 supercomputer.
[99]{}
G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. [B 79]{} (1974) 276. A. M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. [20]{} (1974) 194. E. Fradkin and S. H. Shenker, Phys. Rev. [D 19]{} (1979) 3682. S. Nadkarni, Phys. Rev. Lett. [60]{} (1988) 491; Nucl. Phys. B 334 (1990) 559. A. Hart, O. Philipsen, J. D. Stack and M. Teper, Phys. Lett. B [396]{} (1997) 217 . K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B [503]{} (1997) 357 . H. Kleinert, Lett. Nuovo Cim. [35]{} (1982) 405. A. Kovner, B. Rosenstein and D. Eliezer, Nucl. Phys. [B 350]{} (1991) 325. K. Kajantie, M. Laine, T. Neuhaus, J. Peisa, A. Rajantie and K. Rummukainen, Nucl. Phys. [B 546]{} (1999) 351 . A. C. Davis, T. W. B. Kibble, A. Rajantie and H. Shanahan, JHEP [0011]{} (2000) 010 . A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B [120]{} (1977) 429. A. M. Polyakov, Gauge Fields and Strings (Harwood, 1987).
G. ’t Hooft, in “High Energy Physics”, EPS International Conference, Palermo 1975, ed. A. Zichichi; S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rept. [23]{} (1976) 245. K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B [458]{} (1996) 90 . A. Hart and O. Philipsen, Nucl. Phys. B 572 (2000) 243 ; A. Hart, M. Laine and O. Philipsen. Nucl. Phys. B 586 (2000) 443 ; Phys. Lett. B 505 (2001) 141 .
G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. [B 190]{} (1981) 455. J. Smit and A. J. van der Sijs, Nucl. Phys. B 422 (1994) 349 . L. Del Debbio, A. Di Giacomo and G. Paffuti, Phys. Lett. [B 349]{} (1995) 513 ; A. Di Giacomo, B. Lucini, L. Montesi and G. Paffuti, Phys. Rev. [D 61]{} (2000) 034503 . J. Fröhlich and P. A. Marchetti, Nucl. Phys. B 551 (1999) 770 . P. Cea and L. Cosmai, Phys. Rev. D [62]{} (2000) 094510 . K. Farakos, K. Kajantie, K. Rummukainen and M. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. [B 442]{} (1995) 317 . M. Laine, Nucl. Phys. B [451]{} (1995) 484 . M. Laine and A. Rajantie, Nucl. Phys. [B 513]{} (1998) 471 . A. S. Kronfeld and U. J. Wiese, Nucl. Phys. B 357 (1991) 521; Nucl. Phys. B 401 (1993) 190 . G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. [B 138]{} (1978) 1. T. G. Kovacs and E. T. Tomboulis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [85]{} (2000) 704 . C. Hoelbling, C. Rebbi and V. A. Rubakov, Phys. Rev. D [63]{} (2001) 034506 . A. Hart, B. Lucini, Z. Schram and M. Teper, JHEP 11 (2000) 043 .
P. de Forcrand, M. D’Elia and M. Pepe, Phys. Rev. Lett. [86]{} (2001) 1438 . M. N. Chernodub, F. V. Gubarev, M. I. Polikarpov and V. I. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. B [514]{} (2001) 88 . P. Goddard and D. I. Olive, Rept. Prog. Phys. [41]{} (1978) 1357.
A. Hart, B. Lucini, Z. Schram and M. Teper, JHEP 06 (2000) 040 .
M. Teper, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 014512 .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a new stackable recurrent cell (STAR) for recurrent neural networks (RNNs) that has significantly less parameters than widely used LSTM [@lstm] and GRU [@gruX] while being more robust against vanishing or exploding gradients. Stacking multiple layers of recurrent units has two major drawbacks: *i*) many recurrent cells (e.g., LSTM cells) are extremely eager in terms of parameters and computation resources, *ii*) deep RNNs are prone to vanishing or exploding gradients during training. We investigate the training of multi-layer RNNs and examine the magnitude of the gradients as they propagate through the network in the “vertical” direction. We show that, depending on the structure of the basic recurrent unit, the gradients are systematically attenuated or amplified. Based on our analysis we design a new type of gated cell that better preserves gradient magnitude. We validate our design on a large number of sequence modelling tasks and demonstrate that the proposed STAR cell allows to build and train deeper recurrent architectures, ultimately leading to improved performance while being computationally efficient.'
author:
- |
Mehmet Ozgur Turkoglu, Stefano D’Aronco, Jan Dirk Wegner, Konrad Schindler\
EcoVision Lab, ETH Zurich\
bibliography:
- 'draft\_main.bib'
title: 'Gating Revisited: Deep Multi-layer RNNs That Can Be Trained'
---
Conclusion
==========
We have proposed STAR, a novel stackable recurrent cell type that it is specifically designed to be employed in deep recurrent architectures. A thorough theoretical analysis and associated numerical simulations indicated that widely used standard RNN cells like LSTM and GRU do not preserve gradient magnitudes in the “vertical” direction during backpropagation. As the depth of the network grows, the risk of either exploding or vanishing gradients increases. We leveraged this analysis to design a novel cell that *i*) better preserves the gradient magnitude between two adjacent layers, *ii*) is better suited for deep architectures, and *iii*) requires less parameters than other widely used recurrent cells, such as LSTM and GRU. An extensive experimental evaluation on several publicly available datasets confirms that STAR units can be stacked into deeper architectures showing performance comparable to other state-of-the-art architectures. For future research it appears promising to investigate whether the analysis of the gradient flows could serve as a basis for better initialisation schemes. This could help to compensate the systematic influences of the cell structure, e.g., gating functions, for training deep RNNs.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The aim of this paper is to study the well-posedness and the existence of global attractors for a family of Cahn-Hilliard equations with a mobility depending on the chemical potential. Such models arise from generalizations of the (classical) Cahn-Hilliard equation due to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. E. Gurtin</span>.'
author:
- 'Maurizio Grasselli[^1], Alain Miranville[^2], Riccarda Rossi[^3], Giulio Schimperna[^4]'
date: 'March 11th, 2010'
title: |
Analysis of the Cahn-Hilliard equation\
with a chemical potential dependent mobility[^5]
---
\#1 \#2 \#3 [width \#1pt height \#2pt depth \#3pt]{}
\#1 \#2 \#3 [width \#1pt height \#2pt depth \#3pt]{}
\#1 \#2 \#3 [width \#1pt height \#2pt depth \#3pt]{}
Introduction {#s:1}
============
In this paper, we address the initial and boundary value problem for the following [*generalized Cahn-Hilliard equation*]{}: $$\label{e:1} \chi_t -\Delta \alpha\left(\delta \chi_t -\Delta \chi
+\phi(\chi) \right)=0 \qquad \text{in }\Omega \times (0,T),$$ where $\delta \geq 0$, $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^3$ is a bounded domain, $T>0$ a finite time horizon, and $\alpha:{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ a strictly increasing function.
The classical Cahn-Hilliard equation reads $$\chi _t-\Delta w=0,\ \ w=-\Delta \chi +\phi (\chi ) \qquad \text{in
}\Omega \times (0,T),$$ where $\chi $ is the order parameter (corresponding to a density of atoms), $w$ is the chemical potential (defined as a variational derivative of the free energy with respect to the order parameter), and $\phi $ is the derivative of a double-well potential. This equation plays an essential role in materials science and describes phase separation processes in binary alloys (see, e.g., [@Cah; @CahH; @NC]).
By considering a mechanical version of the second law of thermodynamics and introducing a new balance law for interactions at a microscopic level, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. E. Gurtin</span> proposed in [@Gu] the following equations: $$\begin{cases}
\displaystyle{
\chi_t-{\rm div}(A(\chi ,\nabla \chi ,\chi _t,w)\nabla w)=0,}
\\
\displaystyle{
w=\delta (\chi ,\nabla \chi ,\chi _t,w)\chi _t-\Delta \chi +\phi
(\chi )}
\end{cases} \qquad \text{in } \Omega \times (0,T),$$ Taking $\delta $ constant and $A=a(w)I$, with $a: {\mathbb{R}}\to
{\mathbb{R}}$ a positive function, we then obtain an equation of the form , in which $\alpha$ is some primitive of the function $a$.
In the viscous case $\delta >0$, such equations have been studied in [@rossi05; @rossi06]. Therein, results on the well-posedness and the existence of global attractors have been obtained.
Our main aim in this paper is to treat the case $\delta =0$. We also consider the viscous case $\delta >0$ under different (and more general) assumptions on $\alpha $ and $\phi $ from those in [@rossi05; @rossi06]. In particular, we prove the existence of solutions both in the non-viscous case $\delta =0 $ (cf. Theorem \[th:1\]) and in the viscous case $\delta >0$ (see Theorem \[th:2\]). In the latter setting, under more restrictive assumptions on the nonlinearities $\alpha$ and $\phi$, we also obtain (cf. Theorem 3.1) well-posedness and continuous dependence results for (the Cauchy problem for) . For $\delta>0$ we are also able to study the asymptotic behavior of the system and establish the existence of the global attractor (see Theorem \[th:4\]) in a quite general frame of assumptions on $\alpha$ and $\phi$, which may allow for non-uniqueness of solutions. That is why, for this long-time analysis we rely on the notion of generalized semiflows proposed by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.M. Ball</span> in [@Ball97], and on the extension given in [@rossi-segatti-stefanelli08]. Finally, relying on the short-trajectory approach developed in [@malek-prazak], we also conclude the existence of exponential attractors and, thus, of finite-dimensional global attractors. We recall that an exponential attractor is a compact and semi-invariant set which has finite fractal dimension and attracts the trajectories exponentially fast; note that the global attractor may attract the trajectories at a slow (polynomial) rate (see, e.g., [@BabinVishik92; @EFNT; @MZH]).
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we define our notation and give some preliminary results. Then, in Section 3, we state our main results, whose proofs are carried out in the remaining sections. Finally, in Appendix, we introduce the approximation scheme for our problem and justify the a priori estimates (formally) developed throughout the paper.
Preliminaries {#ss:2.1}
=============
#### Notation and functional setup.
Throughout the paper, we consider a bounded domain $\Omega
\subset {\mathbb{R}}^3$, with sufficiently smooth boundary $\partial \Omega$, and write $|\mathcal{O}|$ for the Lebesgue measure of any (measurable) subset $ \mathcal{O} \subset \Omega$. Furthermore, given a Banach space $B$, we denote by $\Vert\cdot\Vert_B$ the norm in $B$ and by $_{B'}\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_B$ the duality pairing between $B'$ and $B$. We use the notation $$H:=L^2 (\Omega),\quad
V:=H^1(\Omega), \quad
Z:=\left\{ v \in H^{2}(\Omega) \: : \: \partial_{n} v=0 \right\},$$ and identify $ H $ with its dual space $ H' $, so that $
Z \subset V \subset H \subset V'\subset Z' $, with dense and compact embeddings. We denote by $ \mathcal{H} $, $ \mathcal{V} $, $ \mathcal{Z}
$, $ \mathcal{V'} $, and $ \mathcal{Z'} $ the subspaces of the elements $v$ of $H$, $ V $, $Z$, $ V' $, and $Z'$, respectively, with zero mean value $ {m}(v) =\frac{1}{|\Omega|}
{ \sideset{_{Z' }}{_{ Z}} {\mathop{\langle v , 1 \rangle}}} $. We consider the operator $$\label{def:opA}
A: V \rightarrow V', \qquad _{V'}\langle Au, v \rangle _V:=\int_{\Omega} \nabla u \cdot\nabla v \quad \forall u, v \in V,$$ and note that $ Au \in {\mathcal{V'}}$ for every $ u \in V $. Indeed, the restriction of $ A $ to $ {\mathcal{V}}$ is an isomorphism, so that we can introduce its inverse operator $
{\mathcal{N}}: {\mathcal{V'}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{V}}$. We recall the relations $$\begin{aligned}
&& \label{Aa}
{ \sideset{_{V' }}{_{ V}} {\mathop{\langle Au , {\mathcal{N}}(v) \rangle}}} = { \sideset{_{V' }}{_{ V}} {\mathop{\langle v , u \rangle}}}\quad \forall u \in V, \; \forall v \in {\mathcal{V'}},
\\ && \label{Bb} { \sideset{_{V' }}{_{ V}} {\mathop{\langle u , {\mathcal{N}}(v) \rangle}}} =\int_{\Omega} \nabla({\mathcal{N}}(u)) \cdot\nabla({\mathcal{N}}(v)) \, {\mathrm{d}}x =
{ \sideset{_{V' }}{_{ V}} {\mathop{\langle v , {\mathcal{N}}(u) \rangle}}} \quad \forall u, v \in {\mathcal{V'}},\end{aligned}$$ and that, on account of Poincaré’s inequality for zero mean value functions, the following norms on $V$ and $V'$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\| u {\|_{V}}^{2}:= { \sideset{_{V' }}{_{ V}} {\mathop{\langle Au , u \rangle}}} + \,{m}(u)^2 \quad \forall u \in V,
\nonumber \\
&&
\| v {\|_{V'}}^{2}:= { \sideset{_{V' }}{_{ V}} {\mathop{\langle v , {\mathcal{N}}(v -{m}(v)) \rangle}}} + \,{m}(v)^2\quad \forall v \in V',
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ are equivalent to the standard ones. It follows from the above formulae that $$\| v {\|_{V'}}^2= { \sideset{_{V' }}{_{ V}} {\mathop{\langle v , {\mathcal{N}}(v) \rangle}}}= \|{\mathcal{N}}(v) {\|_{V}}^2
\quad \forall v \in {\mathcal{V'}}.$$
It is well known that the operator $A$ extends to an operator (which will be denoted by the same symbol) $A: H \to \mathcal{Z'} $. The inverse of the restriction of $A$ to $ \mathcal{H}$ is the extension of ${\mathcal{N}}$ to an operator ${\mathcal{N}}: \mathcal{Z'} \to \mathcal{H}
$. By means of the latter, we define the space $$\label{e:sob-neg}
\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{W}^{-2,q}(\Omega)}:= \left\{v \in \mathcal{Z'}\, : \
{\mathcal{N}}(v) \in L^q (\Omega) \right\} \qquad \text{for a given $q>1$,}
\\
\text{with the norm $\| v \|_{{\mathcal{W}^{-2,q}(\Omega)}}:=\| {\mathcal{N}}(v)\|_{L^q
(\Omega)}$.}
\end{gathered}$$ The following result shows that, for $q\in (2,6)$ (which is the index range relevant to the analysis to be developed in what follows, cf. ), the space ${\mathcal{W}^{-2,q}(\Omega)}$ can be identified with the dual of the space $${\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)}= \left\{ z \in \mathcal{V}\, : \, Az \in
L^{q'}(\Omega)\right\}\,,$$ $q'$ being the conjugate exponent of $q$. We endow the latter space with the norm $ \|z \|_{{\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)}}:=
\|Az\|_{L^{q'}(\Omega)}$, which is equivalent to the standard $W^{2,q'}$-norm by the (generalized) Poincaré inequality.
\[le:sob-dual\] For $q\in (2,6)$, the operator $\mathrm{J}: {\mathcal{W}^{-2,q}(\Omega)} \to
({\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)})' $ defined by $$\label{def:operator}
{ \sideset{_{({\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)})' }}{_{ {\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)}}} {\mathop{\langle \mathrm{J}(v) , z \rangle}}}:=
{ \sideset{_{V' }}{_{ V}} {\mathop{\langle Az , {\mathcal{N}}(v) \rangle}}} \qquad \text{for all $z \in
{\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)}$ and $v \in {\mathcal{W}^{-2,q}(\Omega)}$}$$ is an isomorphism.
We preliminarily note that, since $q \in (2,6)$, the conjugate exponent $q'$ belongs to $(6/5,2)$ and, consequently, one has the following embeddings: $$\label{e:embeddings} \mathcal{H} \subset \mathcal{V'} \subset
{\mathcal{W}^{-2,q}(\Omega)}, \qquad L^{q'}(\Omega) \subset \mathcal{V'}, \qquad
\mathcal{Z} \subset {\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)}\,.$$ Clearly, the operator $\mathrm{J}$ is well defined, linear, and continuous, since, for all $z \in {\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)}$ and $v \in
{\mathcal{W}^{-2,q}(\Omega)}$, $$\label{ineq-cont}
\left|{ \sideset{_{({\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)})' }}{_{ {\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)}}} {\mathop{\langle \mathrm{J}(v) , z \rangle}}}
\right| \leq \| Az\|_{L^{q'}(\Omega)} \|{\mathcal{N}}(v) \|_{L^q(\Omega)}
\leq \|z \|_{{\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)}} \| v\|_{{\mathcal{W}^{-2,q}(\Omega)}}\,.$$ Furthermore, for every $v \in {\mathcal{W}^{-2,q}(\Omega)}$, one can choose $z_v =
{\mathcal{N}}(|{\mathcal{N}}(v)|^{q-2}{\mathcal{N}}(v) )$ (note that $z_v$ is well defined and belongs to $\mathcal{V}$, since $|{\mathcal{N}}(v)|^{q-2}{\mathcal{N}}(v) \in
L^{q'}(\Omega) \subset \mathcal{V'}$ by the second of ). Then, $$\begin{aligned}
& { \sideset{_{({\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)})' }}{_{ {\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)}}} {\mathop{\langle \mathrm{J}(v) , z_v \rangle}}}=
\|{\mathcal{N}}(v)\|_{L^q
(\Omega)}^{q},
\\ &
\|Az_v\|_{L^{q'}(\Omega)}=
\||{\mathcal{N}}(v)|^{q-2}{\mathcal{N}}(v)\|_{L^{q'}(\Omega)}= \|{\mathcal{N}}(v)\|_{L^q
(\Omega)}^{q-1},
\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\|\mathrm{J}(v)\|_{({\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)})'} \geq
\frac{\left|{ \sideset{_{({\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)})' }}{_{ {\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)}}} {\mathop{\langle \mathrm{J}(v) , z_v \rangle}}}
\right|}{\|z_v \|_{{\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)}}} = \frac{\|{\mathcal{N}}(v)\|_{L^q
(\Omega)}^{q}}{\|{\mathcal{N}}(v)\|_{L^q (\Omega)}^{q-1}}=\|{\mathcal{N}}(v)\|_{L^q
(\Omega)}= \|v\|_{{\mathcal{W}^{-2,q}(\Omega)}}\,.$$ In view of , we conclude that $\mathrm{J}$ is an isometry. In particular, it is injective and the image $\mathrm{J}({\mathcal{W}^{-2,q}(\Omega)} )$ is closed in $({\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)})'$. To conclude that $\mathrm{J}$ is surjective, we will prove that $$\label{image:dense}
\text{$\mathrm{J}({\mathcal{W}^{-2,q}(\Omega)} )$ is dense in
$({\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)})'$.}$$ Indeed, let $\bar{z} \in {\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)} $ be such that $$\label{e:test-densita}
{ \sideset{_{({\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)})' }}{_{ {\mathcal{W}^{2,q'}(\Omega)}}} {\mathop{\langle \mathrm{J}(v) , \bar{z} \rangle}}}=0
\ \ \text{for all $v \in {\mathcal{W}^{-2,q}(\Omega)}$.}$$ In particular, holds for all $v \in
\mathcal{H}$, so that, also in view of , $$0 = { \sideset{_{V' }}{_{ V}} {\mathop{\langle A\bar{z} , {\mathcal{N}}(v) \rangle}}} ={ \sideset{_{V' }}{_{ V}} {\mathop{\langle v , \bar{z} \rangle}}}
= \int_{\Omega} \bar{z} v \quad \text{for all $v \in
\mathcal{H}$\,.}$$ From the above relation, we easily conclude that $\bar{z}=0$, whence .
#### A generalization of Poincaré’s inequality.
The following result will play an important role in the derivation of the *a priori estimates* of Section \[s:3.1\].
\[le-poinca\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces, with $X$ reflexive, and assume that $$\label{e:compact-embed} \text{$X \Subset Y$ with compact
embedding.}$$ Consider $$\begin{aligned}
& \label{funz-g} G: X \to Y \quad \text{a linear,
weakly-weakly continuous functional,}
\\
& \label{funz-psi}
\begin{aligned}
\Psi: X \to [0,+\infty) \quad & \text{a $1$-positively
homogeneous,} \\
& \text{sequentially weakly lower-semicontinuous functional.}
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ Assume that $G$ and $\Psi$ comply with the following [*compatibility condition*]{}: for all $v \in X$, $$\label{e:comp} Gv=0 \quad \text{and} \quad \Psi(v) =0 \ \Rightarrow
\ v=0\,,$$ and that $$\label{e:norm-equivalent} \exists\, C\geq 1 : \ \ \forall\, v \in X
\quad \frac{1}C \left( \| v\|_{Y} + \| Gv\|_{Y} \right) \leq
\|v\|_{X} \leq C\left( \| v\|_{Y} + \| Gv\|_{Y} \right)\,.$$ Then, $$\label{e:poinc-gen} \exists \, K>0: \ \ \forall\, v\in X \quad
\|v\|_{X} \leq K\left( \| Gv\|_{Y} + \Psi(v) \right)\,.$$
[*Proof.*]{} Assume, by contradiction, that does not hold: then, there exists a sequence $\{ v_n \} \subset X$ such that, for every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $$\label{e:contradd} \|v_n\|_{X} > n \left( \| Gv_n\|_{Y} + \Psi(v_n)
\right)\,.$$ In particular, this yields that $\|v_n\|_{X} \neq 0$ for all $n$. Letting $w_n:= v_n / \|v_n\|_{X}$ and using the $1$-homogeneity of $\Psi$, we deduce from that $$\| Gw_n\|_{Y} +
\Psi(w_n) <\frac1n \quad \text{for every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$}\,,$$ giving $$\label{e:2.1.12}\text{ $Gw_n \to 0$ in $Y$ \ and \ $\Psi(w_n) \to
0$ as $n \to +\infty$.}$$ On the other hand, by the reflexivity of $X$, there exists a subsequence $\{ w_{n_k}\}$ weakly converging in $X$ to some $\bar{w}$. In view of –, we find $$w_{n_k} \to w \ \ \text{in $Y$}, \qquad Gw_{n_k} {\rightharpoonup}Gw \ \
\text{in $Y$}, \qquad \Psi(w) \leq \lim_{k \to +\infty}
\Psi(w_{n_k})\,.$$ Hence, yields that $Gw=0$ and $\Psi(w)=0$, so that, by , $w=0$. Thus, by and , $$\lim_{k \to +\infty}\|w_{n_k}\|_{X}\leq C\lim_{k \to +\infty} \left(
\|w_{n_k} \|_{Y} + \| Gw_{n_k}\|_{Y} \right) =0,$$ in contrast with the fact that $\| w_n\|_{X}=1$ for all $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$.
#### A compactness criterion.
Let $$\label{e:setting}
\begin{gathered}
\text{$\mathcal{O} \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$, $d\geq 1$, be an open set with
$|\mathcal{O}|<+\infty$,}
\\
\text{ $B$ be a separable Banach space, and $ 1 \leq p <+\infty$.}
\end{gathered}$$ We recall that a sequence $ \{ u_n \} \subset L^{p}(\mathcal{O};B)
$ is *$p$-uniformly integrable* (or simply *uniformly integrable* if $p=1$) if $$\label{lour}
\forall\, \varepsilon > 0 \quad \exists\, \delta > 0:\quad
\forall\, J
\subset \mathcal{O} \quad |J| <
\delta\ \Rightarrow\ \sup_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}} \int_{J}
\|u_n(y) \|_{B}^{p} {\, \mathrm{d}}y \leq \varepsilon.$$ We quote the following result (cf. [@Dunford-Schwartz58 Thm. III.6]) which will be extensively used in what follows.
\[t:ds\] In the setting of , given a sequence $
\{ u_n \}
\subset L^{p}(\mathcal{O};B) $, assume that there exist a subsequence $\{u_{n_k}\}$ and a measurable function $u :\mathcal{O} \to B$ such that $$u_{n_k} (y) \to u(y) \ \ \text{in $B$} \ \ \text{for almost all}\
y \in \mathcal{O}\,.$$ Then, $u_{n_k} \to u$ in $L^{p}(\mathcal{O};B) $ if and only if it is $ p $-uniformly integrable.
Finally, for the reader’s convenience, here below we report the celebrated lower semicontinuity result due to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A.D. Ioffe</span> [@ioffe77].
\[th-ioffe\] Let $f: \mathcal{O} \times {\mathbb{R}}^n \times {\mathbb{R}}^m \to [0,+\infty]$, $n,\,m\geq 1$, be a measurable non-negative function such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hyp:ioffe1} &
f(x,\cdot,\cdot) \ \ \ \text{is lower
semicontinuous on ${\mathbb{R}}^n \times {\mathbb{R}}^m$ for every $x \in \mathcal{O}$,}
\\
& f(x,u,\cdot) \ \ \ \text{is convex on $ {\mathbb{R}}^m$ for every $(x,u)
\in \mathcal{O} \times {\mathbb{R}}^n$.}\end{aligned}$$ Let $(u_k,v_k), \ (u,v): \mathcal{O} \to {\mathbb{R}}^n \times {\mathbb{R}}^m $ be measurable functions such that $$u_k(x) \to u(x) \quad \text{in measure in $ \mathcal{O}$,} \qquad
v_k {\rightharpoonup}v \quad \text{weakly in $L^1 ( \mathcal{O}; {\mathbb{R}}^m)$}.$$ Then, $$\label{integral-lsc} \liminf_{k \to +\infty} \int_{\mathcal{O}}
f(x,u_k(x),v_k(x)) \, \mathrm{d}x \geq \int_{\mathcal{O}}
f(x,u(x),v(x)) \, \mathrm{d}x\,.$$
Global attractors for generalized semiflows {#ss:2.1.1}
-------------------------------------------
As mentioned in the introduction, in order to study the long-time behavior of solutions to the generalized Cahn-Hilliard equation *in the viscous case*, we rely on the theory of *generalized* semiflows introduced by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.M. Ball</span> in [@Ball97]. In order to make this paper as self-contained as possible, in this section we recall the main definitions and results of this theory, closely following [@Ball97].
\[not:phase-space\] The phase space is a (not necessarily complete) metric space $({X},
{\operatorname{d}_X})$, the distance ${\operatorname{d}_X}$ inducing the *Hausdorff semidistance* $\operatorname{e}$ of two non-empty subsets $A, \, B \subset {X}$ by the formula $\operatorname{e}(A,B):= \sup_{a \in A} \inf_{b \in B} {\operatorname{d}_X}(a,b)$.
\[def:generalized-semiflow\] A *generalized semiflow* ${\mathcal{S}}$ on ${X}$ is a family of maps $g:[0,+\infty) \to {X}$ (referred to as “solutions") satisfying the following properties:
(P1)
: ***(Existence)*** for any $g_0 \in {X}$, there exists at least one $g \in {\mathcal{S}}$ such that $g(0)=g_0$;
(P2)
: ***(Translates of solutions are solutions)*** for any $g \in
{\mathcal{S}}$ and $\tau \geq 0$, the map $g^\tau (t):=g(t+\tau),$ $t \in
[0,+\infty),$ belongs to ${\mathcal{S}}$;
(P3)
: ***(Concatenation)*** for any $ g $, $ h \in {\mathcal{S}}$ and $\tau
\geq 0$ with $h(0)=g(\tau)$, then $z \in {\mathcal{S}}$, $ z$ being the map defined by $$\label{def:concaten}
z(t):= \begin{cases} g(t) & \text{if $0 \leq t \leq \tau,$}
\\
h(t-\tau) & \text{if $ t >\tau$;}
\end{cases}$$
(P4)
: ***(Upper-semicontinuity w.r.t. the initial data)*** if $\{g_n \} \subset {\mathcal{S}}$ and $g_n (0) \to g_0, $ then there exist a subsequence $\{g_{n_k}\}$ of $\{g_n \}$ and $g \in {\mathcal{S}}$ such that $
g(0)=g_0$ and $g_{n_k}(t) \to g(t)$ for all $t \geq 0.$
#### Orbits, $\omega$-limits and attractors.
Given a solution $ g \in {\mathcal{S}}$, we recall that the *$\omega$-limit* $\omega(g)$ of $g$ is defined by $$\omega(g):= \{ x \in {X}\ : \ \exists \{t_n\} \subset [0,+\infty),
\ t_n \to +\infty, \ \text{such that} \ \ g(t_n) \to x \}\,.$$ Similarly, the *$\omega$-limit* of a set $E \subset {X}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(E):=\big\{
x \in {X}\ : \ & \exists \{g_n\} \subset {\mathcal{S}}\
\text{such that $\{g_n (0)\} \subset E$, $\{g_n (0)\}$ is bounded,
and} \\
& \exists \{t_n\} \subset [0,+\infty), \ t_n \to +\infty,\
\text{such that $ g_n (t_n) \to x$} \big\}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we say that $w: {\mathbb{R}}\to {X}$ is a *complete orbit* if, for any $s \in {\mathbb{R}}$, the translate map $w^s$, restricted to the positive half-line $[0,+\infty),$ belongs to $ {\mathcal{S}}$. For every $\,t \geq 0 $, we can introduce the operator $\,{T}(t): 2^{X}\to 2^{X}\,$ by setting $$\label{eq:operat-T}
{T}(t)E:=\{ g(t) \ : \
g \in {\mathcal{S}}\ \ \text{with} \ \ g(0) \in E\}\quad \text{for all
} E \subset {X},$$ and define, for $\tau \geq 0$, the set $$\gamma^{\tau}(E):= \cup_{t \geq \tau} {T}(t)E\,.$$ The family of operators $\{{T}(t)\}_{t \geq 0}$ defines a *semigroup* on the power set $2^{X}$. Given subsets $U, E \subset {X}$, we say that $U $ *attracts* $E$ if $\operatorname{e}(T(t)E,U) \to 0$ as $t \to
+\infty$. Furthermore, we say that $U $ is *fully invariant* if $T(t)U = U$ for every $t \geq 0$. Finally, a set $\mathcal{A}
\subset {X}$ is the *global attractor* for ${\mathcal{S}}$ iff it is compact, fully invariant under ${\mathcal{S}}$, and attracts all the bounded sets of ${X}$.
#### **Compactness and dissipativity properties.**
Let $ {\mathcal{S}}$ be a generalized semiflow. We say that $
{\mathcal{S}}$ is
***eventually bounded*** iff, for every bounded set $B \subset
{X}$, there exists $\tau \geq 0$ such that $ \gamma^\tau (B)$ is bounded;
***point dissipative*** iff there exists a bounded set $B_0 \subset {X}$ such that, for any $g \in {\mathcal{S}}$, there exists $\tau \geq 0$ such that $g(t) \in B_0 $ for all $t \geq
\tau$. The set $B_0$ is then called a (pointwise) *absorbing* set;
***compact*** iff, for any sequence $\{g_n \} \subset {\mathcal{S}}$ with $\{g_n (0)\}$ bounded, there exists a subsequence $\{g_{n_k}
\} $ such that $ \{g_{n_k}(t) \} $ is convergent for any $t
>0.$
We note that the notions that we have just introduced are not independent one from another (cf. [@Ball97 Props. 3.1 and 3.2] for more details).
#### **Lyapunov function.**
The notion of a *Lyapunov function* can be introduced starting from the following definitions: we say that a complete orbit $g \in {\mathcal{S}}$ is *stationary* if there exists $x \in {X}$ such that $g(t)=x$ for all $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$ - such an $x$ is then called a *rest point*. Note that the set of rest points of ${\mathcal{S}}$, denoted by $Z({\mathcal{S}})$, is closed in view of **(P4)**. A function $V: {X}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is said to be a *Lyapunov function* for ${\mathcal{S}}$ if $V$ is continuous, $V(g(t)) \leq V(g(s))$ for all $g \in {\mathcal{S}}$ and $0 \leq s \leq
t$ (i.e., $V$ decreases along all solutions), and, whenever the map $t \mapsto V(g(t))$ is constant for some complete orbit $ g$, then $
g $ is a stationary orbit.
#### **Existence of the global attractor.**
The following theorem subsumes the main results from [@Ball97] (cf. Thms. 3.3, 5.1, and 6.1 therein) and provides the basic criteria for the existence of the global attractor ${\mathcal{A}}$ for a generalized semiflow ${\mathcal{S}}$.
\[thm:ball1\] Let ${\mathcal{S}}$ be an eventually bounded and compact generalized semiflow. Assume that ${\mathcal{S}}$ also admits a Lyapunov function $V$ and that $$\label{rest-bounded} \text{
the set of its rest points ${Z({\mathcal{S}})}$ is bounded.}$$ Then, ${\mathcal{S}}$ is also point dissipative, and, consequently, it possesses a global attractor. Moreover, the attractor ${\mathcal{A}}$ is unique, it is the maximal compact fully invariant subset of ${X}$, and it can be characterized as $$\label{eqn:attrattore}
{\mathcal{A}}= \bigcup \{\omega(B) \ : \ \text{$B \subset {X}$
bounded}\}=\omega({X}).$$ Finally, for every $g \in {\mathcal{S}}$, $$\label{e:additional} \omega(g) \subset {Z({\mathcal{S}})}.$$
\[rem:restriction\_to\_invariant\_set\] Actually, it is immediate to check that, if ${\mathcal{S}}$ is compact, eventually bounded, and admits a Lyapunov function, then condition can be replaced by $$\label{e:saab}
\begin{gathered}
\exists\, \mathcal{D} \subset {X}\,, \ \ \mathcal{D}\neq
\emptyset\,, \ \ \text{such that}
\ \ \begin{cases}
{T}(t) \mathcal{D} \subset \mathcal{D}
\quad \forall t \geq 0,
\\
\text{the set $ Z({\mathcal{S}}) \cap \mathcal{D} $ is bounded in
${X}$}. \end{cases}
\end{gathered}$$ Then, under these hypotheses, ${\mathcal{S}}$ also possesses a (unique) global attractor ${\mathcal{A}}\subset
\mathcal{D}$ and holds.
Main results {#s:2}
============
A global existence result for the non-viscous problem {#ss:2.2}
-----------------------------------------------------
#### Assumptions on the nonlinearities.
We assume that $$\label{e:hyp1} \tag{H1}
\begin{gathered}
\alpha: {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}\qquad \text{is a strictly increasing,
differentiable function such that}
\\
\exists\, p \geq 0, \ \ \exists\, C_1,\, C_2 >0 \, : \quad \forall\,
r \in {\mathbb{R}}\qquad C_1 \left( |r|^{2p}+ 1\right) \leq \alpha'(r) \leq
C_2 \left( |r|^{2p}+1\right)\,.
\end{gathered}$$ Clearly, the latter growth condition entails that $$\label{e:conse1} \exists\, C_3,\, C_4,\, C_5 >0 \, : \quad \forall\,
r \in {\mathbb{R}}\qquad C_3 |r|^{2p+1}-C_4 \leq \alpha(r)\text{\rm sign}(r)
\leq C_5 \left( |r|^{2p+1}+1\right)\,.$$
Concerning the nonlinearity $\phi$, we require that $$\label{e:hyp2}
\tag{H2}
\begin{gathered}
\text{dom}(\phi) = I, \ \ \text{$I$ being an open, possibly unbounded,
interval $(a,b)$, $ -\infty \leq a < 0 < b \leq +\infty$,}
\\
\phi \in {\mathrm{C}}^1 (I),
\\
\lim_{r \searrow a} \phi(r) = -\infty,\qquad \lim_{r \nearrow b}
\phi(r) = +\infty,
\\
\lim_{r \searrow a} \phi'(r) =\lim_{r \nearrow b} \phi'(r) =
+\infty\,.
\end{gathered}$$ We shall denote by $\widehat{\phi} $ (one of) the antiderivative(s) of $\phi$. It follows from the above assumptions that $\widehat{\phi}$ is bounded from below. Hereafter, for the sake of simplicity, we assume that $$\label{phicappucciopos} \widehat{\phi}(r) \geq 0 \quad \text{for all
$r \in I$.}$$ Furthermore, obviously yields that $$\label{e:hyp2-bis} \exists\, C_{\phi,1} >0 \, : \ \ \forall\, r \in
I \qquad \phi'(r) \geq -C_{\phi,1}\,,$$ namely, $\phi$ is a Lipschitz perturbation of a non-decreasing function. In particular, we will use the fact that there exists a non-decreasing function $\beta: I \to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$\label{e:hyp2-aftermath} \phi(r) = \beta(r) -C_{\phi,1} r \qquad
\forall\, r \in I\,.$$ Consequently, $\widehat{\phi}$ is a quadratic perturbation of a convex function. Arguing in the very same way as in [@mirzel04] (where the case $I= (-1,1)$ was considered), it can be proved that, under these conditions, the following crucial estimate holds: $$\label{e:2.2.14} \forall\, m \in (a,b)\ \ \exists\, C_m,\ C_m'>0 \,
: \ \ \forall\, r \in (a-m,b-m) \quad |\phi(r+m)| \leq C_m
\phi(r+m)r +C_m'\,.$$\
Finally, we also assume that $$\label{hyp:3} \tag{H3} \exists\, \sigma \in (0,1), \ \ \exists\,
C_6>0\, : \quad \forall\, r \in (a,b) \quad |\phi(r)|^{\sigma} \leq
C_6 \left( \widehat{\phi}(r) +1\right)\,,$$ and that the following [*compatibility condition*]{} holds between $\sigma$ and the growth index $p$ of $\alpha$ in : $$\label{hyp:4} \tag{H4} \sigma >
\max\left\{\frac{6p-3}{6p+2},0\right\} \,.$$ Hence, if $p\leq 1/2$, then any $\sigma \in (0,1)$ is admissible, while if, for instance, $p=1$, then the range of admissible $\sigma$’s is $(3/8, 1)$, and it is $(9/{14},1)$ for $p=2$.
\[not:2.1\] Hereafter, we will use, for every $p\geq 0$, the short-hand notation $$\label{e:index-notation} \rho_p:= \frac{2p+2}{2p+1}, \qquad
\kappa_p:=\frac{6p+6}{2p+1}, \qquad \eta_{p\sigma}=
\frac{6-\sigma}{(3-3\sigma)(2p+1)}\,.$$ For later convenience, we note that $\rho_p$ and $\kappa_p$ are decreasing functions of $p$ and $$\label{e:2.17} 1<\rho_p<2, \qquad 3<\kappa_p <6 \qquad \text{for
every $p\geq 0$.}$$ Furthermore, it can be checked that $$\label{e:really-necessary} \eta_{p\sigma}>1 \quad \text{for every} \
p \geq 0 \ \text{and for all} \ \sigma >
\max\left\{\frac{6p-3}{6p+2},0\right\}\,.$$
#### The existence result.
We are now able to give the variational formulation of the boundary value problem associated with in the non-viscous case.
\[p:1\]Find a pair $(\chi,w)$ fulfilling $$\begin{aligned}
& \label{1-var} \chi_t + A (\alpha(w)) =0 \qquad \text{in
${\mathcal{W}^{-2,\kappa_p}(\Omega)}$} \quad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ (0,T)\,,
\\
& \label{2-var} A\chi + \phi(\chi) =w \qquad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega \times
(0,T)\,.\end{aligned}$$
Note that, owing to Lemma \[le:sob-dual\], is equivalent to $$\label{e:difficult}
\begin{aligned}
{ \sideset{_{{\mathcal{W}^{-2,{\kappa_p}}(\Omega)} }}{_{ {\mathcal{W}^{2,{\kappa_p}'}(\Omega)}}} {\mathop{\langle \chi_t , v \rangle}}}
& + { \sideset{_{{\mathcal{W}^{-2,{\kappa_p}}(\Omega)} }}{_{ {\mathcal{W}^{2,{\kappa_p}'}(\Omega)}}} {\mathop{\langle A
(\alpha(w)) , v \rangle}}}=0 \\ & \text{for all $ v \in
{\mathcal{W}^{2,{\kappa_p}'}(\Omega)} \quad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ (0,T)$.}
\end{aligned}$$
\[th:1\] Under assumptions –, for every initial datum $\chi_0$ satisfying $$\label{hyp:initial-datum} \chi_0 \in V, \qquad
\widehat{\phi}(\chi_0) \in L^1(\Omega)\,,$$ there exists at least a solution $(\chi,w)$ to Problem \[p:1\], with the regularity $$\begin{aligned}
& \label{reg-chi} \chi \in L^2 (0,T;W^{2,6} (\Omega)) \cap L^\infty
(0,T;V), \qquad \chi_t \in L^{\eta_{p\sigma}}(0,T;
{\mathcal{W}^{-2,\kappa_p}(\Omega)})\,,
\\
& \label{reg-w0} w \in L^2 (0,T;V), \qquad \alpha(w) \in
L^{\eta_{p\sigma}}(0,T;L^{\kappa_p}(\Omega))\,,\end{aligned}$$ fulfilling the initial condition $$\label{e:init-cond} \chi(0)=\chi_0 \quad \text{in $V$.}$$
A formal proof of this result will be developed in Section \[s:3\] and rigorously justified in Appendix.
A global existence result for the viscous problem {#ss:2.3}
-------------------------------------------------
We replace our assumptions – on $\phi$ and its antiderivative $\widehat{\phi}$ by $$\label{hyp:5} \tag{H5}
\begin{gathered}
\widehat{\phi} : {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}\quad \text{belongs to ${\mathrm{C}}^2 ({\mathbb{R}})$ and satisfies}
\\
\exists\, C_7>0\,
: \quad \forall\,r \in {\mathbb{R}}\quad |\phi(r)| \leq C_7 \left(
\widehat{\phi}(r) +1\right)\,.
\end{gathered}$$ The latter assumption means that we consider potentials with at most an exponential growth at $\infty$, and it clearly yields that $\widehat{\phi} $ is bounded from below. Hence, as in , we again assume that $\widehat{\phi}$ takes non-negative values. Furthermore, as in the non-viscous case we require that $$\label{e:hyp2-bis-visco} \tag{H6}
\begin{gathered}
\exists\, C_{\phi,2} >0 \, : \ \ \forall\, r \in {\mathbb{R}}\qquad \phi'(r) \geq -C_{\phi,2}\,.
\end{gathered}$$ This and imply that $$\label{e:lambda-convex} \ r \in {\mathbb{R}}\mapsto \widehat{\phi}(r)
+\frac{C_{\phi,2}}2 r^2 \ \ \text{is convex and bounded from below.}$$
Let us point out that yields $$\label{e:phi-add} |\widehat{\phi}(r)| \leq |\widehat{\phi}(0)| +
|\phi(r)||r|+ \frac{C_{\phi,2}}{2}r^2 \quad \text{for all $r \in
{\mathbb{R}}$.}$$ Indeed, it follows from and an elementary convexity inequality that, for every $r \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $$\widehat{\phi}(0) - \widehat{\phi}(r) - \frac{C_{\phi,2}}{2}r^2 \geq
-r\left( \phi(r) + C_{\phi,2}r \right)\,,$$ whence we deduce with straightforward algebraic manipulations.
We will address the analysis of the Cahn-Hilliard equation in the viscous case under the aforementioned assumptions. The related variational formulation reads
\[p:2\]Given $\delta >0$, find a pair $(\chi,w)$ fulfilling $$\begin{aligned}
& \label{1-var-better}
\chi_t + A (\alpha(w)) =0 \qquad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega \times (0,T)\,,
\\
&
\label{2-var-better} \delta \chi_t+ A\chi + \phi(\chi) =w \qquad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega \times
(0,T)\,.
\end{aligned}$$
#### The existence result.
\[th:2\] Assume , , and . Then, for every initial datum $\chi_0$ complying with , there exists at least a solution $(\chi,w)$ to Problem \[p:2\], with the regularity $$\begin{aligned}
& \label{reg-chi-bis} \chi \in L^2 (0,T;Z) \cap L^\infty (0,T;V)
\cap H^1 (0,T;H)\,,
\\
& \label{reg-w} w \in L^2 (0,T;V) \cap
L^{2p+2}(0,T;L^\infty(\Omega)), \qquad \alpha(w) \in
L^{\rho_p}(0,T;Z)\,,\end{aligned}$$ and such that $\chi$ satisfies the initial condition .
We refer to Section \[s:3\] for a formal proof of Theorem \[th:2\] and to Appendix for all rigorous calculations.
In addition, we also have the following regularity result, which plays a key role in Section \[ss:2.4\].
\[prop:regularized\] Assume , , and . Assume that, in addition, $\phi$ satisfies $$\label{e:addphi} \widehat{\phi} \in \mathrm{C}^2 ({\mathbb{R}}) \ \
\text{and} \ \ \exists\, C_{\phi,3}>0\,: \ \ \forall\, r \in {\mathbb{R}}\quad |\phi{'}(r)| \leq C_{\phi,3}(1+|r|^4)\,.$$ Then, for all $0 <\tau <T$, the pair $(\chi,w)$ has the further regularity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:further-reg-chi} & \chi \in L^\infty(\tau, T; Z) \cap H^1
(\tau,T; V)\,,
\\
& \label{e:further-reg-w}
\alpha(w) \in L^{\rho_p} (\tau, T; H^3(\Omega))\,.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, if $\chi_0\in Z$, then the above properties hold for any $\tau\in [0,T)$.
\[uniform\] From the proof of Proposition \[prop:regularized\], it is not difficult to recover a uniform estimate of the following form: $$\label{uniform-gronwall} \Vert\chi\Vert_{ L^\infty(\tau, T; Z) \cap
H^1 (\tau,T; V)} +
\Vert\alpha(w)\Vert_{L^{\rho_p} (\tau, T; H^3(\Omega))}
\le Q(\tau^{-1},\Vert \chi_0\Vert_V),$$ where $Q$ is a suitable function which is nondecreasing with respect to both arguments.
Well-posedness for the viscous problem
--------------------------------------
#### Continuous dependence on the initial data and uniqueness.
We will prove uniqueness (and continuous dependence) results for Problem \[p:2\] under more restrictive assumptions on $\alpha$ and on the growth of the function $\phi$. In particular, we are going to consider two sets of assumptions.
First, we will suppose that $\phi$ behaves like a polynomial of degree at most $3$. For the sake of simplicity and without loss of generality, we will carry out our analysis in the case when $\phi$ is the derivative of the double-well potential $\widehat{\phi}(r)=(r^2-1)^2/4$. Furthermore, we will replace by $$\label{e:hyp1-bis} \tag{H7}
\begin{gathered}
\alpha: {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}\qquad \text{is a strictly increasing and
differentiable function such that}
\\
\ \exists\, C_{9},\, C_{10} >0 \, : \quad \forall\, r
\in {\mathbb{R}}\qquad C_{9} \leq \alpha'(r) \leq C_{10}\,,
\end{gathered}$$ and – by $$\label{e:hyp7-bis} \tag{H8} \phi(r) =r^3-r \qquad \forall\, r \in
{\mathbb{R}}\,.$$
\[th:3\] Assume and . Let $\chi_{0}^{1}$ and $\chi_{0}^{2} $ be two initial data for Problem \[p:2\] fulfilling and set $M_{*}:= \max_{i=1,2} \{\| \chi_{0}^{i}{\|_{V}}\}
$; let $ \chi_{i} $, $ i=1,2 $, be the corresponding solutions. Then, for every $\delta>0$, there exists a positive constant $ S_{\delta} $, also depending on $$\label{e:only-depe}
\text{$ M_{*} $,
$ T $, $ |\Omega| $, $C_{9}$, and $C_{10} $,}$$ such that $$\label{contdepV}
\| \chi_1 (t) - \chi_2 (t) \|_{V} + \| \chi_1 - \chi_2 \|_{H^1
(0,t;H) \cap L^2 (0,t;Z)}
\leq
S_{\delta} \|\chi_{0}^{1} - \chi_{0}^{2} \|_{V}
\quad \forall t \in
[0,T].$$
Our second continuous dependence results holds in the more general frame of assumptions of Proposition \[prop:regularized\], but for more regular initial data. Indeed, we have
\[th:3.2\] Assume that holds for some $p\in
[0,1]$, and that $\phi$ complies with , , and . Let $\chi_{0}^{1}$ and $\chi_{0}^{2} $ be two initial data for Problem \[p:2\] such that $\chi_{0}^{i} \in Z$ and $\widehat{\phi}(\chi_{0}^{i}) \in L^1
(\Omega)$ for $i=1,2$, and let $ \chi_{i} $, $ i=1,2 $, be the corresponding solutions. Then, for every $\delta>0$, there exists a positive constant $ S_{\delta} $, also depending on $T$, $|\Omega|$, $C_1$, $C_2$ and $M^{*}:= \max_{i=1,2} \{\| \chi_{0}^{i}\|_Z \}$, such that estimate holds for all $t \in [0,T]$.
Global attractor and exponential attractors for the viscous problem {#ss:2.4}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The *energy functional* associated with Problem \[p:2\] reads $$\label{e:ene-funct} {\mathcal{E}}: {X}\to {\mathbb{R}}, \ \ \ \ {\mathcal{E}}(v):= \frac12
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^2 + \int_{\Omega} \widehat{\phi}(v) \ \
\text{for all $v \in {X}$.}$$ Consequently, we introduce the phase space $({X},{\operatorname{d}_X})$ of energy bounded solutions, defined by $$\label{e:pspace}
\begin{aligned}
& {X}= \left\{v \in V\, : \ \widehat{\phi}(v) \in L^1 (\Omega)
\right\},
\\
& {\operatorname{d}_X}(v_1,v_2) = \| v_1 -v_2 \|_{H^1 (\Omega)} +
\left\|\widehat{\phi}(v_1) -
{\widehat{\phi}(v_2)} \right\|_{L^1(\Omega)} \qquad \text{for all
$v_1, \, v_2 \in {X}$.}
\end{aligned}$$
The following definition details the properties of the solutions to Problem \[p:2\] to which our long-time analysis will apply.
\[def:solp2\] We say that a function $\chi : [0,+\infty) \to
{X}$ is a *solution to Problem \[p:2\] on $(0,+\infty)$* if, for all $T>0$, $\chi$ enjoys regularity on the interval $(0,T)$ and there exists a function $w$, with regularity for all $T>0$, such that equations – hold almost everywhere on $\Omega \times (0,+\infty)$. We set $$\label{e:gen-semiflow} \mathcal{S}= \left \{ \chi : [0,+\infty ) \to
X \, : \ \text{$\chi$ is a solution to Problem~\ref{p:2} on
$(0,+\infty)$} \right\}\,.$$
We assume that, besides , $\alpha$ complies with the following condition, slightly stronger than : $$\label{e:hyp-add-alpha} \tag{H9}
\exists\, \mathsf{c}_{\alpha}>0, \ \
\exists\, \Psi: {\mathbb{R}}\to [0,+\infty) \ \text{convex}\,: \ \ \forall
\, r \in {\mathbb{R}}\, \quad \alpha(r) r - \mathsf{c}_{\alpha}|r|^{2p+2} =
\Psi(r)\,.$$ Hence, our first result asserts that the solution set $\mathcal{S}$ is a *generalized semiflow* in the sense of Definition \[def:generalized-semiflow\].
\[prop:2.1\] Assume , –. Then,
1. every $\chi \in \mathcal{S}$ (cf. ) complies with the *energy identity* $$\label{e:enid} \delta\int_s^t \int_{\Omega} |\chi_t|^2 + \int_s^t
\int_{\Omega} \alpha'(w)|\nabla w|^2 + {\mathcal{E}}(\chi(t)) = {\mathcal{E}}(\chi(s))
\quad \text{for all $0 \leq s \leq t$,}$$ the function $w:(0,+\infty) \to V$ being defined by on $\Omega \times (0,+\infty)$.
2. Assume that $\alpha$ in addition complies with . Then, the set $\mathcal{S}$ is a generalized semiflow in the phase space , and its elements are continuous functions from $[0,+\infty)$ onto $X$.
We prove our main result on the long-time behavior of the solutions to Problem \[p:2\] under a further condition on $\phi$, which in particular implies (and thus replaces) , namely $$\label{lim-infty-phi} \tag{H10}
\begin{aligned}
\lim_{r\to +\infty}\phi(r)=+\infty, \qquad \lim_{r\to
-\infty}\phi(r)=-\infty\,,
\\
\lim_{r\to +\infty}\phi'(r)=\lim_{r\to -\infty}\phi'(r)=+\infty\,.
\end{aligned}$$
\[th:4\] Assume , , , and . For a given $\mathrm{m}_0
>0$, denote by $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{m}_0}$ the set $$\label{e:fixed-mean-value} \mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{m}_0}= \left \{ \chi
\in X\, : \ |m(\chi)| \leq {\mathrm{m}_0} \right\}\,.$$ Then, the semiflow $\mathcal{S}$ possesses a unique global attractor $\mathcal{A}$ in $\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{m}_0}$, given by $$\label{e:att} \mathcal{A}: =\bigcup\left \{\omega(D)\, : \ D \subset
\mathcal{D}_{\mathrm{m}_0} \ \text{bounded}\right\}\,.$$ Finally, we have the following enhanced regularity for the elements of the $\omega$-limit of every trajectory: $$\label{e:enhanced-regularity} \forall\, p \in [1,+\infty) \ \
\exists\,C_p>0\,: \ \ \forall\,\chi \in \mathcal{S}, \ \ \forall\,
\bar{\chi} \in \omega(\chi) \quad \| \bar{\chi}\|_{W^{2,p}(\Omega)}
+ \| \widehat{\phi}(\bar{\chi})\|_{L^p(\Omega)} \leq C_p\,.$$
\[rem:poly-advantages\] Notice that, in the case $$\label{e:special-case}
\text{
$\widehat{\phi}$ is a polynomial of even degree $\mathsf{m} \geq 4$, with a positive leading
coefficient,}$$ then conditions and are satisfied.
\[zeta\] In addition to hypotheses , , , and of Theorem \[th:4\], assume that $\phi$ complies with . Then, the enhanced regularity estimate holds for $\chi$.
This regularity is reflected in the further regularity $$\label{e:further-reg-att}
\mathcal{A}\subset Z,$$ for the global attractor $\mathcal{A}$, which holds provided that one works with the (smaller) set of solutions to Problem \[p:2\] arising from the approximation procedure which will be detailed in Appendix. In fact, the estimates leading to can be rigorously justified only for this approximate problem, as we will see in the proof of Proposition \[prop:regularized\], cf. Section \[s:3.3\]. Now, the aforementioned family of “approximable” solutions to Problem \[p:2\] (see, e.g., [@BabinVishik92; @rossi-segatti-stefanelli08; @schimperna07; @segatti06] for analogous constructions) complies with the properties defining a generalized semiflow, except for the concatenation axiom. This has motivated the introduction in [@rossi-segatti-stefanelli08; @segatti06] of the (slightly more general) notion of *weak* global attractor, tailored to the *weak* generalized semiflows without the concatenation property. Hence, relying on the abstract results of [@rossi-segatti-stefanelli08; @segatti06] and arguing as in the proof of Theorem \[th:4\], it is straightforward to prove that the semiflow associated with the approximable solutions to Problem \[p:2\] admits a *weak* global attractor for which holds. On the other hand, Theorem \[th:5\] below shows that, under the stronger assumptions of Theorem \[th:3.2\], the semiflow possesses the standard global attractor $\mathcal{A}$ satisfying , namely, $\mathcal{A}$ is a compact and invariant set which attracts (in the $V$-metric) all bounded sets of initial data as time goes to infinity.
We conclude this section by showing that it is also possible to construct an exponential attractor through the short-trajectories approach developed in [@malek-prazak]. Let us first set for a given $\tau>0$ $$X_\tau=L^2(0,\tau;V),\quad Y_\tau=\left\{u\in L^2(0,\tau;Z)\,:\, u_t \in L^2(0,\tau;H)\right\}$$ and observe that $Y_\tau$ is compactly embedded in $X_\tau$.
Under assumptions , , , and , we know that, for any $\chi_0\in V$ and any $T>0$, there exists a pair $(\chi,w)$ which solves Problem \[p:2\] with the regularity , , , (cf. Theorem \[th:2\] and Proposition \[prop:regularized\]). In particular, $\chi\in Y_T$. In addition, thanks to and arguing in the same way as in the forthcoming Section \[s:3.1\], it is not difficult to show that $\Vert
\chi\Vert_{Y_T}$ can be estimated uniformly with respect to $\Vert\chi_0\Vert_V$, . The energy identity also entails the existence of a bounded set $B^0\subset V$ such that, if $(\chi,w)$ is a solution to Problem \[p:2\] with the aforementioned properties, then there exists $t_0>0$, only depending on $\Vert\chi_0\Vert_V$, such that $\chi(t)\in B^0$ for all $t\geq
t_0$ and $\chi(t)\in B^0$ for all $t\geq 0$ whenever $\chi_0\in B^0$ (see the proof of the eventual boundedness of $\mathcal{S}$ in Section \[ss:5.2\]). Let us now consider the set $\mathcal{X}_\ell=\{\chi : (0,\ell)\to V\}$ of all the $\ell$-trajectories $\chi$ such that $(\chi,w)$ is a solution to Problem \[p:2\] satisfying , , , . Then, we endow this set with the $X_\ell$-topology (note that it might be a non-complete metric space). Moreover, denoting by $V_w$ the space $V$ endowed with the weak topology, we have $\mathcal{X}_\ell\subset
C^0([0,\ell];V_w)$. Consequently, any $\ell$-trajectory makes sense pointwise.
From now on, we assume that assumption holds for some $p\in[0,1]$. Thanks to , for any $\ell$-trajectory, there exists $\tau\in (0,\ell)$ such that $\chi(\tau)\in Z$. This is sufficient to conclude that $\chi$ is unique from $\tau$ on, as a consequence of Proposition \[prop:regularized\] and Theorem \[th:3.2\]. Therefore, if $\chi\in \mathcal{X}_\ell$ and $T>\ell$, then there exists a unique $\tilde \chi\in\mathcal{X}_T$ such that $\tilde\chi\vert_{[0,\ell]} = \chi$. Thus, we can define a semigroup $L_t$ on $\mathcal{X}_\ell$ by setting $$(L_t\chi)(\tau):= \tilde\chi(t+\tau),\qquad \tau\in [0,\ell],$$ where $\tilde\chi$ is the unique element of $\mathcal{X}_{\ell+\tau}$ such that $\tilde\chi\vert_{[0,\ell]} = \chi$.
Let us now set $$B^0_\ell:=\left\{\chi\in\mathcal{X}_\ell\,:\, \chi(0)\in B^0\right\}.$$ Then, by Proposition \[prop:regularized\], we can infer that the set $\left\{\chi\vert_{[\ell/2,\ell]}\,:\, \chi\in B^0_\ell\right\}$ is bounded in $L^\infty(\ell/2,\ell;Z)$. Hence, we can prove a continuous dependence estimate like , which allows us to apply [@malek-prazak Lemma 2.1] and deduce that $L_t$ is Lipschitz continuous on $B^0_\ell$, uniformly with respect to $t\in [0,\tau]$ for any fixed $\tau>0$. Observe that, arguing as in Section \[s:3.3\], we can prove that $B^1_\ell=\overline{L_\tau(B^0_\ell)}^{X_\ell} \subseteq B^0_\ell$ for some $\tau>0$. From this fact we deduce that the dynamical system $(\mathcal{X}_\ell,L_t)$ has a global attractor $\mathcal{A}_\ell$ (see [@malek-prazak Thm. 2.1]). In addition, $L_\tau: \mathcal{X}_\ell \to Y_\ell$ is Lipschitz continuous for some $\tau>0$. Indeed, recall that $B^1_\ell$ is bounded in $L^\infty(0,\ell;Z)\cap H^1(0,\ell;V)$ and use . Thus, on account of [@malek-prazak Thm. 2.2], we can infer that $\mathcal{A}_\ell$ has finite fractal dimension. In order to go back to the original geometric space $V$, we introduce the evaluation mapping $e: \mathcal{X}_\ell \to V,$ $e(\chi):=\chi(\ell)$. Then, we set $B^1:=e(B^1_\ell)$ and we note that, for any $\chi_0\in B^1$, there is a unique solution to Problem \[p:2\], so that the solution operator $S_t$ is well defined on $B^1$ and $S_t(B^1)\subseteq B^1$, for all $t\geq 0$. In addition, $e$ is (Lipschitz) continuous on $B^1_\ell$ (use and [@malek-prazak Lemma 2.1] once more). Therefore, we use [@malek-prazak Thm. 2.4] to deduce that $\mathcal{A}:=e(\mathcal{A}_\ell)$ is the finite-dimensional global attractor of the dynamical system $(B^1,S_t)$.
It remains to prove the existence of an exponential attractor. We already know that $L_t$ is Lipschitz continuous on $B^1_\ell$, uniformly with respect to $t\in [0,\tau]$ for every fixed $\tau>0$ (see above). Thus, we only need to show that $t\mapsto L_t\chi$ is Hölder continuous with values in $V$, uniformly with respect to $\chi\in B^1_\ell$. This follows from [@malek-prazak Lemma 2.2], recalling that $B^1_\ell$ is, in particular, bounded in $H^1(0,\ell;V)$. Hence, $(\mathcal{X}_\ell,L_t)$ has an exponential attractor $\mathcal{E}_\ell$ and $\mathcal{E}:=e(\mathcal{E}_\ell)$ is an exponential attractor for $(B^1,S_t)$.
Summing up, we have proved the
\[th:5\] Assume that holds for some $p\in[0,1]$. Also, assume , , and . Then, there exists a bounded invariant set $B^1\subset V$ such that Problem \[p:2\] generates a dynamical system $(B^1,S_t)$ which possesses an exponential attractor $\mathcal{E}$. In addition, the system also has a global attractor $\mathcal{A}$ with finite fractal dimension.
Note that, in the framework of Theorem \[th:5\], neither assumption nor are needed.
Proofs of Theorems \[th:1\] and \[th:2\] {#s:3}
========================================
#### Scheme of the proofs of Theorems \[th:1\] and \[th:2\].
We will prove Theorems \[th:1\] and \[th:2\] by taking the limit of a suitable approximation scheme for Problems \[p:1\] and \[p:2\]. For the sake of readability, we postpone detailing such a scheme in Appendix.
In Section \[s:3.1\], we will instead perform all estimates leading to the aforementioned passage to the limit directly on systems – and –. Note that, at this stage, some of the following calculations will only be formal, cf. Remark \[solo-formale\] below. Their rigorous justification will be given in Appendix, see Section \[ss:a.1\].
Next, in Section \[s:3.2\] (in Section \[s:3.3\], respectively), we will carry out a passage to the limit in some unspecified approximation scheme for Problem \[p:1\] (for Problem \[p:2\], respectively) and conclude the (formal) proof of Theorem \[th:1\] (of Theorem \[th:2\], respectively). In Section \[ss:a.2\], we will adapt the limiting arguments developed in Sections \[s:3.2\] and \[s:3.3\] to the approximation scheme for Problems \[p:1\] and \[p:2\] and carry out the rigorous proofs of the related existence theorems.
\[not:3.1\] We will perform the a priori estimates on systems – and –, distinguishing the ones which hold both in the viscous and the non-viscous cases from the ones which depend on the constant $\delta$ in (which can be either strictly positive or equal to zero), and on our different assumptions on the nonlinearity $\phi$ in the viscous and non-viscous cases. Accordingly, we will use the generic notation $C$ for most of the constants appearing in the forthcoming calculations and depending on the problem data, and $C_\delta$ ($C_0$, respectively) for those constants *substantially* depending on the problem data and on $\delta >0$ (on $\delta =0$, respectively). We will adopt the same convention for the constants $S^i$, $S^i_\delta$, $S_0^i$, $i\geq 1$.
A priori estimates {#s:3.1}
------------------
#### First a priori estimate.
We test by $w$, by $\chi_t$, add the resulting relations, and integrate over some time interval $(0,t) \subset (0,T)$. Elementary calculations lead to $$\label{est:1} \int_0^t \int_{\Omega} \alpha'(w) |\nabla w|^2 +
\delta \int_0^t \| \chi_t \|_{H}^2 + \frac12 \| \nabla \chi(t)
\|_{H}^2 + \int_{\Omega} \widehat{\phi} \left( \chi(t)\right)
=\frac12 \| \nabla \chi_0 \|_{H}^2 + \int_{\Omega} \widehat{\phi}
\left( \chi_0\right)\,.$$ Recalling , the second of (which, in particular, yields that $\alpha'$ is bounded from below on ${\mathbb{R}}$ by a positive constant) and the positivity of $\widehat{\phi}$ (cf. ), we conclude that, for some constant $S^1
>0$, $$\label{e:stima1} \| \nabla w \|_{L^2 (0,T;H)} + \| \nabla \chi
\|_{L^\infty (0,T;H)} + \| \widehat{\phi}(\chi)\|_{L^\infty (0,T;L^1
(\Omega))} \leq S^1.$$
#### First a priori estimate in the viscous case.
In the case $\delta>0$, from the previous a priori estimate we also have $$\label{e:stima1-delta} \| \chi_t \|_{L^2 (0,T;H)} + \|
\chi\|_{L^\infty (0,T;V)} \leq S_\delta^1\,.$$
#### Second a priori estimate.
We test by $1$ and find ${m}(\chi_t)=0$ a.e. in $(0,T)$, so that, in particular, $$\label{e:constant-m-value}
{m}(\chi(t))=m_0:={m}(\chi_0) \qquad \forall\, t \in [0,T].$$ Hence, testing by $1$, we obtain $$\label{est:2} {m}(\phi(\chi(t))) = {m}(w(t)) \qquad {\text{for a.a.}}\ t \in
(0,T).$$
#### Second a priori estimate in the non-viscous case.
It follows from and the Poincaré inequality that $$\label{est:2-deltazero} \| \chi\|_{L^\infty (0,T;V)} \leq S^2\,.$$
#### Third a priori estimate in the non-viscous case.
We test by $\chi-{m}(\chi)$: we have, for a.e. $t \in
(0,T)$, $$\label{est:3}
\begin{aligned}
\| \nabla \chi(t) \|_{H}^2 +
\int_{\Omega} \phi(\chi(t)) \left( \chi(t) - {m}(\chi(t)) \right) &=
\int_{\Omega} w(t) \left( \chi(t) - {m}(\chi(t)) \right) \\ & =
\int_{\Omega} \left( w(t) - {m}(w(t)) \right) \left( \chi(t) -
{m}(\chi(t)) \right)\\ & \leq C \| \nabla \chi(t) \|_{H} \| \nabla
w(t) \|_{H} \leq C S^1 \| \nabla w(t) \|_{H} ,
\end{aligned}$$ the latter estimate ensuing from the Poincaré inequality for zero mean value functions and the previous . On the other hand, and yield that there exist constants $C_{m_0}, C_{m_0}'>0$ such that, for a.e. $t \in [0,T]$, $$\label{e:useful-later} \int_{\Omega} |\phi( \chi(t))| \leq C_{m_0}
\int_{\Omega} \phi(\chi(t)) \left( \chi(t) - {m}(\chi(t)) \right) +
C_{m_0}' \,.$$ Combining this with , we deduce that there exists $C>0$, also depending on $C_{m_0}$ and on $C_{m_0}'$, such that, for a.e. $t \in (0,T)$, $$\label{est:4}
\int_{\Omega} |\phi( \chi(t))| \leq C \left(\| \nabla
w(t) \|_{H} + 1\right)\,.$$ Thus, in view of , we obtain an estimate for $\phi(\chi)$ in $L^2
(0,T; L^1 (\Omega))$. Finally, due to , we find $$\| {m}(w) \|_{L^2 (0,T)} \leq C_0.$$ Hence, by and the Poincaré inequality, we conclude that $$\label{e:stima3} \| w \|_{L^2 (0,T;V)} \leq S^1_0\,.$$
#### Third a priori estimate in the viscous case.
Estimate for $\widehat{\phi}(\chi)$ and yield that $$\label{est:3-delta} \| \phi(\chi) \|_{L^\infty (0,T; L^1 (\Omega))
} \leq S_\delta^2\,.$$ Recalling , we immediately infer that $$\label{est:4-delta} \| {m}(w) \|_{L^\infty (0,T)} \leq S_\delta^3,$$ whence, again, $$\label{est:5-delta} \| w \|_{L^2 (0,T; V)} \leq S_\delta^4.$$
#### Fourth a priori estimate in the non-viscous case.
We preliminarily observe that, thanks to , equation can be rewritten as $$\label{e:more-convenient_form} A\chi + \beta(\chi) = w + C_{\phi,1}
\chi \qquad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega \times (0,T)\,.$$ Notice that, in view of and , the right-hand side of belongs to $L^2 (0,T; L^6 (\Omega))$. Hence, we can test by $|\beta(\chi)|^4 \beta(\chi)$ and easily conclude that $$\|A\chi\|_{L^2 (0,T; L^6 (\Omega))} +\|\beta(\chi)\|_{L^2 (0,T;
L^6 (\Omega))} \leq C_0\,.$$ Then, also by standard elliptic regularity results, we find $$\label{e:stima3-bis} \| \phi(\chi)\|_{L^2 (0,T; L^6 (\Omega))} + \|
\chi \|_{L^2 (0,T;W^{2,6} (\Omega))} \leq S^2_0\,.$$
#### Fourth a priori estimate in the viscous case.
We combine and and argue by comparison in . Relying on and on the related elliptic regularity estimate, we have $$\label{e:useful-again} \| \phi(\chi) \|_{L^2 (0,T;H)} \leq
S^5_\delta\,,$$ as well as an estimate for $A\chi$ in $L^2 (0,T; H)$, so that $$\label{e:stima3-delta} \| \chi \|_{L^2 (0,T;Z)} \leq S^6_\delta\,.$$
#### Fifth a priori estimate.
It follows from and that $\int_0^T \int_{\Omega} w^{2p} |\nabla w|^2
\leq C$, whence we conclude that $$\label{est:3.14} \| \nabla (|w|^{p}w) \|_{L^2 (0,T;H)} \leq S^3\,.$$
#### Sixth a priori estimate in the non-viscous case.
From , , and , we deduce that $$\label{e:crucial0}
\||\phi(\chi)|^{\sigma}\|_{L^{2/\sigma}(0,T; L^{6/\sigma} (\Omega)) \cap L^\infty (0,T; L^1
(\Omega))} \leq C_0\,.$$ Using the interpolation inequality $$\forall\, v \in L^1 (\Omega) \cap L^{6/\sigma} (\Omega) \quad \| v
\|_{L^{1/\sigma} (\Omega)} \leq \| v \|_{L^1 (\Omega)}^{\theta}\, \| v
\|_{L^{6/\sigma} (\Omega)}^{1-{\theta}}, \quad \text{with ${\theta}=
\frac{5\sigma}{6-\sigma}$,}$$ we obtain the estimate $$\label{e:crucial}
\||\phi(\chi)|^{\sigma}\|_{L^{q_\sigma}(0,T; L^{1/\sigma}
(\Omega))} \leq C_0, \quad
\text{with $q_\sigma=\frac{2}{\sigma} \, \frac{1}{1-{\theta}}= \frac{6-\sigma}{3\sigma-3\sigma^2}$,}$$ whence a bound for $\phi(\chi)$ in $L^{\sigma q_\sigma} (0,T; L^1
(\Omega))$. Taking into account , we conclude that $$\label{e:3.15} \| {m}(w) \|_{L^{\sigma q_\sigma}(0,T)} \leq C_0\,,
\quad \text{whence} \quad \| |{m}(w)|^{p+1} \|_{L^{(\sigma
q_\sigma)/(p+1)}(0,T)} \leq C_0\,.$$ On the other hand, applying the *nonlinear* Poincaré inequality with the choices $X=V$, $Y=H$, $Gv= \nabla v$, and $\Psi(v)= |\Omega|^{-p-1}|\int_{\Omega} |v|^{\frac{1}{p+1}} \mathrm{sign}(v)|^{p+1}$, where $v=|w|^p w$, we find $$\label{e:poinc-est} \||w|^p w \|_{V} \leq K \left( \| \nabla
(|w|^{p}w) \|_{H} + \left| {m}(w)\right|^{p+1}\right)\,.$$ Therefore, combining estimate for $|{m}(w)|^{p+1}$ with , we finally obtain, owing to the Poincaré inequality , $$\label{e:to-be-cited3} \| |w|^p w\|_{L^{(\sigma
q_\sigma)/(p+1)}(0,T; V)} \leq C_0.$$ Using the embedding $V \subset L^6
(\Omega)$ and the growth for $\alpha$, we infer
\[e:est-refined\] $$\label{e:est-refined_1}
\| \alpha(w) \|_{L^{\eta_{p\sigma}} (0,T; L^{\kappa_p} (\Omega))}
\leq S_0^3\,$$ (where we have used the fact that $(\sigma q_\sigma)/(2p+1)$ equals the index $\eta_{p\sigma}$ defined in ). Hence, by comparison in , we also conclude that $$\label{e:3.18} \| \chi_t \|_{L^{\eta_{p\sigma}}} (0,T;
{\mathcal{W}^{-2,{\kappa_p}}(\Omega)}) \leq S_0^4$$
(see again for the definition of $\kappa_p$).
#### Sixth a priori estimate in the viscous case.
Combining , and the Poincaré-type inequality , we deduce an estimate for $|w|^{p}w $ in $L^2 (0,T;V)$. Then, arguing in the same way as for , we have $$\label{e:to-be-quoted}
\| \alpha(w) \|_{L^{\rho_p} (0,T; L^{\kappa_p}
(\Omega))} \leq C_\delta,$$ the index $\rho_p$ being defined in . Now, in view of estimate for $\chi_t$ in $L^2 (0,T;H)$, a comparison in yields an estimate for $A(\alpha (w))$ in $L^2 (0,T;H)$. By elliptic regularity results, we finally conclude that $$\label{e:3.19}
\| \alpha(w) \|_{L^{\rho_p} (0,T; Z)} \leq S_\delta^7\,.$$
#### Seventh a priori estimate in the non-viscous case.
Our aim is now to show that $$\label{useful2}
\| \phi(\chi) \|_{L^{\sigma q_\sigma} (0,T;L^{6}(\Omega))} \leq S_0^5, \qquad \text{with $\sigma q_\sigma =
\frac{6-\sigma}{3-3\sigma}>2$\,.}$$ Indeed, again recalling the embedding $V \subset L^6 (\Omega)$, we observe that yields an estimate for $w$ in $L^{\sigma q_\sigma}(0,T; L^{6p+6}(\Omega))$. Then, taking into account estimate for $\chi$ in $L^\infty
(0,T; L^6 (\Omega))$, together with the aforementioned elliptic regularity argument, we find estimate by a comparison in .
#### Seventh a priori estimate in the viscous case.
We combine estimate , the continuous embedding $Z \subset
L^\infty(\Omega)$, and the growth condition to deduce an estimate for $w$ in $L^{\rho_p (2p+1)} (0,T;L^\infty (\Omega))$, whence $$\label{e:3.22} \| w\|_{L^{2p+2} (0,T; L^{\infty}(\Omega))} \leq
S_\delta^8\,.$$
\[solo-formale\] Notice that all the a priori estimates for the viscous Problem \[p:2\] are in fact rigorously justified on system –. This has significant repercussions on the long-time analysis of Problem \[p:2\]. Indeed, this allows us to work with the semiflow associated with the solutions to Problem \[p:2\] (cf. ) and prove the existence of a global attractor in the sense of [@Ball97]. However, as pointed out in Remark \[zeta\], if we address further regularity properties of the attractor (e.g., ), then we need additional estimates which cannot be performed directly on system –, due to insufficient regularity of the solutions. Thus, we have to rely on some approximation. On the one hand, this leads to a smoother attractor $\mathcal{A}$, but, on the other hand, we lose the concatenation property of the trajectories (cf. [@rossi-segatti-stefanelli08; @segatti06]); moreover, only trajectories which are limits of the approximation scheme will be attracted by the smoother attractor $\mathcal{A}$.
We also point out that the viscous system – cannot be used as an approximation for the non-viscous problem. Indeed, it is not difficult to realize that the fourth a priori estimates – (yielding a bound for $\phi(\chi)$ which plays a crucial role in the ensuing calculations) are not compatible with the term $\delta\chi_t$ in . This fact seems to suggest the use of two different approximation schemes for Problem \[p:1\] and Problem \[p:2\], which would lead to cumbersome and repetitious calculations. In order to circumvent this problem, we will construct in Appendix an approximation scheme depending on two distinct parameters and prove the existence of solutions to Problem \[p:1\] by passing to the limit in three steps. Since the (rigorous) proof of existence for Problem \[p:2\] can be performed along the very same lines, we have chosen not to detail it in Appendix.
Proof of Theorem \[th:1\] {#s:3.2}
-------------------------
Let $\{ (\chi_n, w_n )\} $ be some sequence of approximate solutions to Problem \[p:1\]. Due to estimates , , , , and , applying standard compactness and weak compactness results (see [@simon]), we find that there exists a pair $(\chi,w)$ with the regularities specified by – such that, along a (not relabeled) subsequence, the following strong, weak, and weak$^*$ convergences hold as $n \to +\infty$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:conv-chi-strong}
&
\begin{aligned}
\chi_n \to \chi \quad &\text{in \ $L^2
(0,T; W^{2-{\varepsilon},6} (\Omega)) \cap L^q (0,T;V) \cap {\mathrm{C}}^0 ([0,T];
H^{1-{\varepsilon}} (\Omega))$} \\ & \text{for every ${\varepsilon}>0 $ and $1 \leq
q < +\infty$,}
\end{aligned}
\\
& \label{e:conv-chi-weak1}
\chi_n {{\stackrel{*}{\rightharpoonup}\,}}\chi \quad \text{in \ $L^2
(0,T; W^{2,6} (\Omega)) \cap L^\infty (0,T;V)$,} \\
& \label{e:conv-chi-weak2}
\chi_{n,t}
{\rightharpoonup}\chi_t \quad \text{in \ $L^{\eta_{p\sigma}} (0,T;
{\mathcal{W}^{-2,\kappa_p}(\Omega)})$,}
\\
& \label{e:conv-w-strong} w_n {\rightharpoonup}w \quad \text{in \ $L^2 (0,T;
V)$.}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, there exists $\bar{\alpha} \in L^{\eta_{p\sigma}} (0,T;
L^{\kappa_p} (\Omega)) $ such that $$\label{e:conv-alpha-weak} \alpha(w_n) {\rightharpoonup}\bar{\alpha} \quad
\text{in \ $L^{\eta_{p\sigma}} (0,T; L^{\kappa_p} (\Omega))$.}$$ Now, estimate in particular yields (recall that $\sigma q_\sigma >2$) that $$\label{e:cruc-pass1} \text{the sequence $\{ \phi(\chi_n)\}$ is
uniformly integrable in $L^2 (0,T;H)$.}$$ Furthermore, we have, up to a further subsequence, $$\label{e:cruc-pass2} \phi(\chi_n(x,t)) \to \phi(\chi(x,t)) \qquad
{\text{for a.a.}}\, (x,t) \in \Omega \times (0,T)\,,$$ which is a consequence of the continuity of $\phi$ and of the pointwise convergence (up to a further subsequence) $\chi_n(x,t) \to \chi(x,t)$ a.e. in $\Omega \times (0,T)$ (cf. ). Combining and and recalling the compactness criterion Theorem \[t:ds\], we conclude that $$\label{e:strong-phi} \phi(\chi_n) \to \phi(\chi) \qquad \text{in \
$L^2 (0,T; H). $}$$ Exploiting –, one easily concludes that the triplet $(\chi,w,\bar{\alpha})$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
& \label{1-var-lim} \chi_t + A \bar{\alpha} =0 \qquad \text{in
${\mathcal{W}^{-2,\kappa_p}(\Omega)}$} \quad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ (0,T)\,,
\\
& \label{2-var-lim} A\chi + \phi(\chi) =w \qquad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega
\times (0,T)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, in order to prove that $$\label{final-step} \bar{\alpha} (x,t) = \alpha (w(x,t)) \qquad
{\text{for a.a.}}\ (x,t) \in \Omega \times (0,T)\,,$$ we test the equation approximating by $w_n$ and integrate in time. We thus have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n \to +\infty}\int_0^T \int_{\Omega} |w_n|^2 &= \lim_{n \to
+\infty} \int_0^T \int_{\Omega}\phi(\chi_n) w_n + \lim_{n \to +\infty}
\int_0^T \int_{\Omega}\nabla \chi_n \cdot \nabla w_n \\ & = \int_0^T
\int_{\Omega}\phi(\chi) w+ \int_0^T \int_{\Omega}\nabla \chi
\cdot\nabla w\\ & =\int_0^T \int_{\Omega} |w|^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality follows from convergences , , and , and the last one from . Hence, we conclude that $$w_n \to w \ \ \text{in $L^2 (0,T;H)$, \ whence} \quad w_n \to w \ \
{\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega \times (0,T)$$ (the latter convergence holding up to a subsequence). By continuity of $\alpha$, we also have $\alpha(w_n) \to \alpha (w)$ a.e. in $\Omega \times (0,T)$. Estimate (recall ) and again Theorem \[t:ds\] yield, for instance, that $$\alpha(w_n) \to \alpha(w) \quad \text{in $L^1 (0,T; L^1 (\Omega))$,}$$ whence the desired equality .
Proofs of Theorem \[th:2\] and Proposition \[prop:regularized\] {#s:3.3}
---------------------------------------------------------------
#### Proof of Theorem \[th:2\].
Let $\{ (\chi_n, w_n )\} $ be some sequence of approximate solutions to Problem \[p:2\]. Thanks to estimates , , , , , and , applying standard compactness and weak compactness results (see [@simon]), we find a triplet $(\chi,w,\bar{\alpha})$ such that, along a (not relabeled) subsequence, the following strong, weak, and weak$^*$ convergences hold as $n \to +\infty$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:conv-chi-strong-v}
&
\begin{aligned}
\chi_n \to \chi \quad &\text{in \ $L^2
(0,T; H^{2-{\varepsilon}} (\Omega)) \cap L^q (0,T;V) \cap {\mathrm{C}}^0 ([0,T];
H^{1-{\varepsilon}} (\Omega))$} \\ & \text{for every ${\varepsilon}>0 $ and $1 \leq
q < +\infty$,}
\end{aligned}
\\
& \label{e:conv-chi-weak-v}
\begin{aligned}
\chi_n {{\stackrel{*}{\rightharpoonup}\,}}\chi \quad & \text{in \ $L^2
(0,T; Z) \cap L^\infty (0,T;V) \cap H^1 (0,T;H)$,}
\end{aligned}
\\
& \label{e:conv-w-strong-v} w_n {{\stackrel{*}{\rightharpoonup}\,}}w \quad \text{in \ $L^2
(0,T; V) \cap L^{2p+2} (0,T; L^{\infty}(\Omega))$.}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, from , we deduce that $$\label{step-1} {\mathcal{N}}(\chi_{n,t}) {\rightharpoonup}{\mathcal{N}}(\chi_t) \qquad \text{in
$L^2 (0,T; Z)$.}$$ Furthermore, by , there exists $\bar{\alpha}
\in L^{\rho_p} (0,T; L^{\kappa_p} (\Omega)) $ such that $$\label{e:conv-alpha-weak-v} \alpha(w_n) {\rightharpoonup}\bar{\alpha} \quad
\text{in \ $L^{\rho_p} (0,T; L^{\kappa_p} (\Omega))$.}$$ Now, up to a subsequence, by the last of and by continuity of $\phi$, we have, for all $t \in [0,T]$, $$\label{step0} \phi(\chi_n (\cdot,t)) \to \phi(\chi(\cdot,t)) \qquad
{\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega\,.$$ On the other hand, it follows from estimate that $$\label{step00}
\text{the sequence $\{ \phi(\chi_n )\}$ is
uniformly integrable in $L^1 (0,T;L^1 (\Omega))$.}$$ Then, by – and Theorem \[t:ds\], we conclude that, along the same subsequence as in , $\phi(\chi_n) \to
\phi(\chi)$ in $L^1 (0,T; L^1 (\Omega))$. We then have, up to a subsequence, $$\label{step1} \phi(\chi_n (t)) \to \phi(\chi(t)) \qquad \text{in
$L^1 (\Omega)$} \ \ {\text{for a.a.}}\ t \in (0,T)\,.$$ Next, using , we see that $\phi(\chi_n)$ is uniformly integrable in $L^{\nu} (0,T; L^1 (\Omega))$ for all $\nu \in [1,+\infty)$. Applying Theorem \[t:ds\], from , we deduce that $$\label{step2} \phi(\chi_n ) \to \phi(\chi) \qquad \text{in $L^{\nu}
(0,T; L^1(\Omega))$ \ for every $\nu \in [1,+\infty)$.}$$ Collecting – and , we conclude that the triplet $(\chi,w,\bar{\alpha})$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
& \label{1-var-lim-v} \chi_t + A \bar{\alpha} =0 \qquad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\
\Omega \times (0,T)\,,
\\
& \label{2-var-lim-v} \delta \chi_t + A\chi + \phi(\chi) =w \qquad
{\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega \times (0,T)\,.\end{aligned}$$ It remains to show that $\bar{\alpha} \equiv \alpha(w)$. To this aim, we note that $\alpha$ defines a maximal monotone graph in the duality $(L^{2p+2} (\Omega\times (0,T)), L^{\rho_p} (\Omega\times
(0,T)))$ (note that $\rho_p$ and $2p+2$ are conjugate exponents). Taking into account relations and , and applying a well-known result from the theory of maximal monotone operators in Banach spaces (see [@barbu Lemma 1.3, p. 42]), it is then sufficient to prove that $$\label{3.40} \limsup_{n\to +\infty} \int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega}
\alpha(w_n) w_n \leq \int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega} \bar{\alpha} w\,.$$ Now, $$\label{a1}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega} \alpha(w_n) w_n & =\int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega}
\big(\alpha(w_n)-{m}(\alpha(w_n))\big)\, w_n +|\Omega| \int_{0}^T
{m}(\alpha(w_n))\, {m}(w_n)\\ & = -\int_{0}^T\int_{\Omega}
{w_n}\,{{\mathcal{N}}(\chi_{n,t})} +|\Omega| \int_{0}^T {m}(\alpha(w_n))\,
{m}(w_n)\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality follows from . Then, using and , we find the chain of inequalities $$\label{e:3.40}
\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n \to +\infty}
& \Big( \int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega}{w_n}\,{{\mathcal{N}}(\chi_{n,t})}\Big)
\\
& \geq \liminf_{n \to +\infty} \delta \int_{0}^T \| \chi_{n,t}
\|_{V'}^2 + \lim_{n \to +\infty} \int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega} \chi_{n,t}
\chi_n + \lim_{n \to +\infty} \int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega}\phi(\chi_n)
{\mathcal{N}}(\chi_{n,t})\\ & \geq \delta \int_{0}^T \| \chi_{t} \|_{V'}^2 +
\int_0^T \int_{\Omega} \chi_t \chi + \int_{0}^T
\int_{\Omega}\phi(\chi) {\mathcal{N}}(\chi_{t})\\ &= \int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega}
{w}\,{{\mathcal{N}}(\chi_{t})} =-\int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega}
\big(\bar{\alpha}-{m}(\bar{\alpha})\big)\, w\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality follows from convergences and for $\chi_n$ and from combining with , while the subsequent identities are due to –. On the other hand, it follows from that $$\label{step3} {m}(\alpha(w_n)) {\rightharpoonup}{m}(\bar{\alpha}) \qquad
\text{in $L^{\rho_p} (0,T)$,}$$ whereas, from , we gather that $$\label{step4} {m}(w_n)= {m}(\phi (\chi_n)) \to
{m}(\phi(\chi))={m}(w) \qquad \text{in $L^{2p+2} (0,T)$.}$$ Combining –, we conclude that $$\label{e:3.41} \lim_{n \to +\infty} |\Omega| \int_{0}^T
{m}(\alpha(w_n))\, {m}(w_n)=
|\Omega| \int_{0}^T {m}(\bar{\alpha})\, {m}(w)\,.$$ Collecting , , and , we infer the desired . Ultimately, we have proved that $$\label{e:for-later-convenience}
\alpha(w_n) {\rightharpoonup}\alpha(w) \ \
\text{in \ $L^{\rho_p} (0,T; L^{\kappa_p} (\Omega))$ \ \ and} \ \
\lim_{n\to +\infty} \int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega} \alpha(w_n) w_n =
\int_{0}^T \int_{\Omega} \alpha(w) w\,.$$
#### Proof of Proposition \[prop:regularized\].
In order to prove that system – enjoys the regularization in time –, using the Gagliardo-Nirenberg interpolation inequality we note that $L^2(0,T; Z) \cap L^\infty (0,T;V) \subset L^8 (0,T; W^{1,12/5}(\Omega)) $ with continuous embedding. Therefore, regularity for $\chi$ and standard Sobolev embeddings yield $$\label{e:stichi} \| \chi\|_{L^8 (0,T; L^{12}(\Omega))} \leq C\,.$$
Now, we test by $A\chi_t$. Note that all the forthcoming computations are rigorous on the approximation scheme for Problem \[p:2\] which we will detail in Appendix. Elementary calculations yield $$\label{e:elem1}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{ {\mathrm{d}}t}\left(\frac12 \int_{\Omega}|A\chi|^2 \right) +
\delta\int_{\Omega}|\nabla \chi_t|^2 = I_1 + I_2\,,
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&
\label{e:elem2} I_1 := \int_{\Omega} \nabla w
\,\cdot\, \nabla \chi_t \leq \frac{\delta}2\int_{\Omega} |\nabla
\chi_t|^2 + \frac{1}{2\delta}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla w|^2\,,
\\
& \label{e:elem3}
\begin{aligned}
I_2 & := - \int_{\Omega} \phi{'}(\chi) \left(\nabla\chi
\cdot \nabla \chi_t\right)
\\ & \leq C_{\phi,3} \int_{\Omega}|\nabla \chi||\nabla
\chi_t| \left( 1+|\chi|^4\right)\\ & \leq C \| \nabla \chi_t \|_{H}
\| \nabla \chi \|_{L^6(\Omega)} \left(\| \chi\|_{L^{12}(\Omega)}^4 +
1 \right)\\ & \leq \frac{\delta}{4}\| \nabla \chi_t \|_{H}^2 + C
\left(\| \chi\|_{L^{12}(\Omega)}^8 + 1 \right) \| \chi \|_{Z}^2\,,
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality follows from , the third one from the Hölder inequality, and the last one by taking into account the continuous embedding $Z \subset W^{1,6}(\Omega)$.
Collecting –, taking into account , and applying the uniform Gronwall Lemma (see [@temam Lemma III.1.1]), we find for every $\tau>0$ an estimate of the form for $\nabla \chi_t $ in $L^2 (\tau,T;H) $ and for $A\chi $ in $L^\infty (\tau,T;H)$, whence $$\chi \in L^\infty (\tau,T;Z) \cap H^1 (\tau,T;V)\quad \text{for all
} 0<\tau<T\,.$$ Then, a comparison in also yields a bound for $A(\alpha(w))$ in $L^{\rho_p}(\tau,T;V)$, whence an estimate for $\alpha(w) $ in $L^{\rho_p}(\tau,T;H^3(\Omega))$, in view of . Thus, we conclude –, as well as estimate .
Global attractor for Problem \[p:2\] {#s:5}
====================================
Proof of Proposition \[prop:2.1\] {#ss:5.1}
---------------------------------
We need two preliminary lemmas. The first one clarifies some properties of the energy functional ${\mathcal{E}}$ .
\[l:5.1\] Assume –. Then, the functional ${\mathcal{E}}: {X}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ defined by is bounded from below, lower-semicontinuous w.r.t. the $H$-topology, and satisfies the chain rule $$\label{e:l5.1}
\begin{gathered}
\text{for all $v \in H^1(0,T;H)$ with $Av+ \phi(v) \in
L^2(0,T;H)$,} \\
\text{ the map $t \in [0,T] \mapsto {\mathcal{E}}(v(t))$ is absolutely
continuous, and}
\\
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t} {\mathcal{E}}(v(t)) = \int_{\Omega} v_t(t)
\left(Av(t)+ \phi(v(t)) \right) \qquad {\text{for a.a.}}\ t \in (0,T)\,.
\end{gathered}$$
In order to prove the lower-semicontinuity property, we fix a sequence $\{v_n \}$ converging to some $v $ in $H$ and assume, without loss of generality, that $\sup_n {\mathcal{E}}(v_n) <+\infty$. Since $\widehat{\phi}$ is bounded from below, we conclude that $\{v_n\}$ is actually bounded in $V$, and thus $v_n {\rightharpoonup}v$ in $V$, yielding $\textstyle \int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^2 \leq \liminf_{n}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v_n|^2$. On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n \to +\infty} \int_{\Omega} \widehat{\phi}(v_n) & =
\liminf_{n \to +\infty} \int_{\Omega}
\left(\widehat{\phi}(v_n)+\frac{C_{\phi,2}}{2} |v_n|^2 \right) -
\frac{C_{\phi,2}}2\lim_{n \to +\infty} \int_{\Omega}|v_n|^2 \\ &
\geq \int_{\Omega}\left( \widehat{\phi}(v)+\frac{C_{\phi,2}}2
|v|^2\right) -\frac{C_{\phi,2}}2\int_{\Omega}|v|^2\,, \end{aligned}$$ the latter inequality following from and, for instance, from Ioffe’s Theorem \[th-ioffe\]. Finally, to check the chain rule , we observe that the functional $$\label{funz-bar} \mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{cv}} (v): = \mathcal{E}(v) +
\frac{C_{\phi,2}}{2}\int_{\Omega} |v|^2 \qquad \text{for all $v \in
X$}$$ is convex, thanks to . Then, follows from the chain rule for $ \mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{cv}}$, see [@brezis73 Lemma III.3.3].
\[l:5.2\] Assume . Then, $$\label{e:5.2.2} \text{for all $w \in V \cap L^\infty (\Omega)$, there
holds} \ \ \nabla \alpha(w(x)) = \alpha'(w(x)) \nabla w(x) \ \
{\text{for a.a.}}\ x \in \Omega\,.$$
Since $\Omega$ is smooth, we can take a sequence $\{w_k \}\subset
\mathrm{C}^1 (\overline{\Omega})$ such that $w_k \to w$ in $V \cap
L^q (\Omega)$ for all $1\leq q<+\infty$. Clearly, for all $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$, there holds $$\label{e:clearl} \nabla \alpha(w_k(x)) = \alpha'(w_k(x)) \nabla
w_k(x) \qquad \forall\, x \in \Omega\,.$$ Now, since $\alpha'(r)$ grows like $|r|^{2p}$ by , we conclude that $\alpha'(w_k)\to \alpha'(w) $ and $\alpha(w_k)\to
\alpha(w) $ in $L^q (\Omega)$ for all $1\leq q<+\infty$. Therefore, $\nabla \alpha(w_k) = \alpha'(w_k) \nabla w_k \to \alpha'(w) \nabla
w $ in $L^{\rho}(\Omega)$ for all $\rho\in[1,2)$ and follows.
#### Proof of Proposition \[prop:2.1\].
Thanks to Theorem \[th:2\], the set ${\mathcal{S}}$ complies with the existence axiom **(P1)** in Definition \[def:generalized-semiflow\]. The translation property **(P2)** is immediate to check. Concerning the concatenation axiom, let $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ be two solutions to Problem \[p:2\] on $(0,+\infty)$, satisfying $\chi_1(\tau) =
\chi_2 (0)$ for some $\tau \geq 0$, and let the functions $w_1$ and $w_2$ be such that, for $i=1,2$, the pairs $(\chi_i,w_i)$ satisfy equations –, with regularities and . Then, one easily sees that the concatenations (cf. ) $\tilde
\chi$ and $\tilde w$ of $\chi_1, \, \chi_2$ and $w_1,\, w_2$, respectively, satisfy equations –, and still enjoy regularities and , respectively (the fact that $\chi_1(\tau) = \chi_2 (0)$ is crucial for the time-regularity of $\tilde{\chi}$).
To prove that all solutions $\chi \in {\mathcal{S}}$ are continuous w.r.t. the phase space topology , let us fix $\{t_n\}, t_0$ in $[0,+\infty)$, and show that $$\label{e:continuity}
t_n \to t_0 \ \Rightarrow \ \left( \| \chi(t_n)
-\chi(t_0)\|_{V} + \left\|\widehat{\phi}(\chi(t_n))-
\widehat{\phi}(\chi(t_0)) \right\|_{L^1(\Omega)} \right)\to 0\quad
\text{as $n \to +\infty$}\,.$$ Indeed, thanks to regularity , for all $T>0$, the function $\chi:[0,T] \to V$ is continuous w.r.t. the weak $V$-topology, hence $$\label{e:weakV} \chi(t_n) {\rightharpoonup}\chi(t_0) \qquad \text{in $V$.}$$ Therefore, by Lemma \[l:5.1\], we have $$\liminf_{n\to +\infty} \mathcal{E}(\chi(t_n)) \geq
\mathcal{E}(\chi(t_0))\,.$$ Combining this inequality with the continuity of the map $t \in [0,T] \mapsto
\mathcal{E}(\chi(t))$, one concludes that
\[e:converg\] $$\begin{aligned}
& \label{e:c1}
\lim_{n \to +\infty} \int_{\Omega} |\nabla
\chi(t_n)|^2 = \int_{\Omega} |\nabla \chi(t_0)|^2,
\\
& \label{e:c2}
\lim_{n \to +\infty}
\int_{\Omega} \widehat{\phi}(\chi(t_n))= \int_{\Omega}
\widehat{\phi}(\chi (t_0))\,.\end{aligned}$$
Clearly, , combined with , yields that $\chi(t_n) \to \chi(t_0)$ in $V$. In order to prove the additional convergence $$\label{e:stronger-conv} \|\widehat{\phi}(\chi(t_n))-
\widehat{\phi}(\chi(t_0)) \|_{L^1 (\Omega)} \to 0 \quad \text{as $n
\to +\infty$}\,,$$ we note that implies, in particular, that $$\label{e:ci-serve} \widehat{\phi}(\chi(\cdot, t_n)) \to
\widehat{\phi}(\chi(\cdot,t_0)) \qquad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega\,.$$ In view of [@rocca-schimperna04 Lemma 4.2], , combined with and the fact that $\widehat{\phi}$ takes non-negative values, yields .
The energy identity follows by multiplying by $w$ (note that the latter is an admissible test function, thanks to ), by $\chi_t$, adding the resulting relations, taking into account the chain rule and formula , and integrating in time.
It remains to prove the upper-semicontinuity with respect to the initial data. To this aim, we will exploit . Thus, let us fix a sequence of solutions $\{\chi_n \} \subset {\mathcal{S}}$ and $\chi_0 \in {X}$, with $$\label{conv-zero}
{\operatorname{d}_X}(\chi_n(0),\chi_0) \to 0 \ \text{as $n \to +\infty$, so that, in particular, ${\mathcal{E}}(\chi_n(0)) \to
{\mathcal{E}}(\chi_0)$.}$$ Identity yields that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that, for all $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $$\label{aprio1}
\delta\int_0^t \int_{\Omega} |\partial_t \chi_n|^2 + \int_0^t
\int_{\Omega} \alpha'(w_n)|\nabla w_n|^2 + {\mathcal{E}}(\chi_n(t)) =
{\mathcal{E}}(\chi_n(0)) \leq C \ \ \text{for all $t\geq 0$}.$$ Arguing as in Section \[s:3.1\], we obtain estimates , , , , , and for the sequence $\{(\chi_n,w_n)\} $, on every interval $(0,T)$. Therefore, with a diagonalization procedure, we find a subsequence $\{(\chi_{n_k}, w_{n_k}) \}$ and functions $(\chi,w):(0,+\infty) \to {X}\times V$ for which –, , and hold on every interval $(0,T)$, for all $T>0$. Using all the aforementioned relations, we have $\chi(0)=\chi_0$ and, arguing as in Section \[s:3.3\], we conclude that $\chi \in {\mathcal{S}}$. In order to prove that $$\label{e:conv-chink} \text{for all $t \geq 0$}, \ \ \left( \|
\chi_{n_k}(t) -\chi(t)\|_{V} + \left\|
\widehat{\phi}(\chi_{n_k}(t))- \widehat{\phi}(\chi(t)) \right\|_{L^1
(\Omega)} \right)\to 0 \ \ \ \text{as $k \to +\infty$,}$$ we first obtain some *enhanced* convergence for the sequence $\{ w_{n_k}\}$. To this aim, we note that, for every $T>0$, there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\mathsf{c}_\alpha \limsup_{k \to +\infty} \int_0^T \int_{\Omega}
|w_{n_k}|^{2p+2} & \leq \limsup_{k \to +\infty} \int_0^T
\int_{\Omega} \alpha(w_{n_k}) w_{n_k} - \liminf_{k \to +\infty}
\int_0^T \int_{\Omega} \Psi(w_{n_k}) \\ & \leq \int_0^T
\int_{\Omega} \alpha(w) w - \int_0^T \int_{\Omega} \Psi(w) =
\mathsf{c}_\alpha \int_0^T \int_{\Omega} |w|^{2p+2}\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, the first inequality follows from , the second one from the second convergence in , and from , together with the convexity of $\Psi$ (thanks to Ioffe’s Theorem [@ioffe77]), and the third one from again. Taking into account the fact that $$\liminf_{k \to +\infty} \int_0^T \int_{\Omega} |w_{n_k}|^{2p+2} \geq
\int_0^T \int_{\Omega} |w|^{2p+2},$$ due to , we have $$w_{n_k} \to w \qquad \text{in $L^{2p+2}(0,T; L^{2p+2} (\Omega))$ \ \
for all $T>0$}$$ and, thus, finally, $$\label{strong-w} w_{n_k} \to w \qquad \text{in measure in $\Omega
\times (0,T)$ for all $T>0$.}$$ As a consequence, for all $t \geq 0$, $$\label{e:ioffe-again} \liminf_{k \to +\infty} \int_0^t \int_{\Omega}
\alpha'(w_{n_k}) |\nabla w_{n_k}|^2 \geq \int_0^t \int_{\Omega}
\alpha'(w) |\nabla w|^2\,,$$ thanks to the convergence in measure , the weak convergence for $\{ \nabla w_{n_k}\}$ in $L^2 (0,T; H)$ for all $T>0$, and again Ioffe’s Theorem \[th-ioffe\]. Hence, passing to the limit in the energy identity (written for the functions $(\chi_{n_k},w_{n_k})$), we infer, for all $t \geq 0$, $$\label{e:elem-arg}
\begin{aligned}
\delta\int_0^t \int_{\Omega} |\partial_t \chi|^2 & + \int_0^t
\int_{\Omega} \alpha'(w)|\nabla w|^2 + {\mathcal{E}}(\chi(t)) \\ & \leq
\liminf_{k \to +\infty} \left( \delta\int_0^t \int_{\Omega}
|\partial_t \chi_{n_k}|^2 + \int_0^t \int_{\Omega}
\alpha'(w_{n_k})|\nabla w_{n_k}|^2 + {\mathcal{E}}(\chi_{n_k}(t)) \right)
\\ & \leq
\limsup_{k \to +\infty} \left( \delta\int_0^t \int_{\Omega}
|\partial_t \chi_{n_k}|^2 + \int_0^t \int_{\Omega}
\alpha'(w_{n_k})|\nabla w_{n_k}|^2 + {\mathcal{E}}(\chi_{n_k}(t)) \right)
\\
& = \lim_{k \to +\infty} {\mathcal{E}}(\chi_{n_k}(0))= {\mathcal{E}}(\chi_0) =
\delta\int_0^t \int_{\Omega} |\partial_t \chi|^2 + \int_0^t
\int_{\Omega} \alpha'(w)|\nabla w|^2 + {\mathcal{E}}(\chi(t))\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality follows from –, , and the fact that ${\mathcal{E}}$ is lower-semicontinuous w.r.t. the $H$-topology, the third one from , the fourth one from , and the last equality from the *energy identity* satisfied by all solutions in $\mathcal{S}$. With an elementary argument, we deduce from that, for all $t>0$, $$\int_0^t \int_{\Omega} |\partial_t \chi_{n_k}|^2 \to \int_0^t
\int_{\Omega} |\partial_t \chi|^2, \quad \text{whence} \quad
\chi_{n_k} \to \chi \ \ \text{in $H^1(0,t;H)$,}$$ as well as $${\mathcal{E}}(\chi_{n_k}(t)) \to {\mathcal{E}}(\chi(t)).$$ Arguing in the same way as throughout – and again invoking [@rocca-schimperna04 Lemma 4.2], we obtain . This concludes the proof.
Proof of Theorem \[th:4\] {#ss:5.2}
-------------------------
#### Eventual boundedness.
In order to check that ${\mathcal{S}}$ is eventually bounded, we fix a ball $B(0,R)$ centered at $0$ of radius $R$ in ${X}$, some initial datum $\chi_0 \in B_{X}(0,R)$, namely satisfying (recall that we can assume that $\widehat{\phi}$ is a positive function) $$\label{e:in-a-ball}
\|\chi_0\|_V+\int_{\Omega}\widehat{\phi}(\chi_0) \leq
R,$$ and consider a generic trajectory $\chi \in {\mathcal{S}}$ starting from $\chi_0$. Recalling the energy identity , we find, for all $t \geq 0$, $$\label{e:eb1} \int_{\Omega}\widehat{\phi}(\chi(t)) \leq
{\mathcal{E}}(\chi(t)) \leq {\mathcal{E}}(\chi_0) \leq R, \qquad \int_{\Omega}|\nabla
\chi(t)|^2 \leq 2R\,.$$ Now, taking into account the fact that $m(\chi(t)) = m(\chi_0)$ for all $t \geq 0$ (cf. ), we deduce from a bound for $\| \chi \|_{L^\infty
(0,+\infty;V)}$. Hence, there exists $R'>0$ such that ${\operatorname{d}_X}(\chi(t),0) \leq R'$ for all $t \geq
0$. Since $\chi_0$ is arbitrary, we conclude that the evolution of the ball $B_{X}(0,R)$ is contained in the ball $B_{X}(0,R')$.
#### Compactness.
In order to verify that ${\mathcal{S}}$ is compact, we consider a sequence $\{\chi_n\}\subset{\mathcal{S}}$ such that $\{\chi_n(0)\}$ is bounded in ${X}$. We write the energy identity and, as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:2.1\], deduce that there exist a subsequence $\{(\chi_{n_k}, w_{n_k}) \}$ and functions $(\chi,w):(0,+\infty)
\to {X}\times V$ for which convergences –, , and hold on every interval $(0,T)$ for all $T>0$. However, we cannot prove that $$\label{e:conv-chink-comp} \left( \| \chi_{n_k}(t) -\chi(t)\|_{V} +
\left\|\widehat{\phi}(\chi_{n_k}(t))- \widehat{\phi}(\chi(t))
\right\|_{L^1(\Omega)} \right)\to 0 \ \ \ \text{for all $t>0$},$$ arguing in the same way as throughout –, for, in this case, we do not have the convergence of the initial energies ${\mathcal{E}}(\chi_{n_k}(0))$ at our disposal. Then, we rely on the following procedure (see also [@rossi-segatti-stefanelli08; @segatti06] for the use of an analogous argument).
First, we apply Helly’s compactness principle (with respect to the pointwise convergence) for monotone functions to the functions $t \mapsto {\mathcal{E}}(\chi_{n_k}(t))$, which are non-increasing in view of the energy identity . Thus, up to a (not relabeled) subsequence, there exists a non-increasing function $\mathscr{E}:
[0,+\infty) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$\label{helly} \mathscr{E}(t):= \lim_{k \to +\infty}
{\mathcal{E}}(\chi_{n_k}(t)) \qquad \text{for all $t \geq 0$}.$$ By the lower-semicontinuity of ${\mathcal{E}}$ (w.r.t. the $H$-topology), we find
$$\label{helly-ineq} {\mathcal{E}}(\chi(t)) \leq \mathscr{E}(t) \qquad
\text{for all $t \geq 0$.}$$
On the other hand, ensures that, up to a further extraction, for almost all $s \in (0,t)$, $$\label{e:enhanced-conv} \chi_{n_k}(s) \to \chi(s) \ \ \text{in
$H^{2-{\varepsilon}}(\Omega)$ for all ${\varepsilon}>0$, whence} \ \ \chi_{n_k}(s) \to
\chi(s) \ \ \text{in $H^1 (\Omega) \cap L^\infty(\Omega) $.}$$ Thus, in particular, $$\label{e:pointwise} \widehat{\phi}(\chi_{n_k}(\cdot,s)) \to
\widehat{\phi}(\chi(\cdot,s)) \qquad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega\,.$$ Moreover, for every $\mathcal{O} \subset \Omega$, there holds $$\label{e:unifinte}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathcal{O}}
|\widehat{\phi}(\chi_{n_k}(s))| & \leq
|\mathcal{O}||\widehat{\phi}(0)| +\frac{C_{\phi,2}}2
\int_{\mathcal{O}} |\chi_{n_k}(s)|^2 + \int_{\mathcal{O}}
|{\phi}(\chi_{n_k}(s))| |\chi_{n_k}(s)| \\ & \leq C
\left(|\mathcal{O}|+
\int_{\mathcal{O}}|{\phi}(\chi_{n_k}(s))|\right)\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality follows from and the second one from . Notice that the right-hand side of tends to zero as $|\mathcal{O}| \to 0$, since the sequence $\{ {\phi}(\chi_{n_k}(s)) \}$ is uniformly integrable in $L^1 (\Omega)$ thanks to . Hence, yields that $\{ \widehat{\phi}(\chi_{n_k}(s)) \}$ is itself uniformly integrable in $L^1 (\Omega)$. Combining this with , in view of Theorem \[t:ds\] we conclude that $\widehat{\phi}(\chi_{n_k}(s)) \to \widehat{\phi}(\chi(s))$ in $L^1 (\Omega)$. Finally, we have shown that there exists a negligible set $\mathscr{N} \subset (0,+\infty)$ such that $$\label{e:convene} \mathscr{E}(s) = \lim_{k \to +\infty}
{\mathcal{E}}(\chi_{n_k}(s)) = {\mathcal{E}}(\chi(s)) \qquad {\text{for a.a.}}\, s \in
(0,+\infty) \setminus \mathscr{N}\,.$$
We are now in a position to carry out the argument for (which bypasses the lack of convergence of the initial data in the phase space ), using the fact that the energy identity holds for all $t>0$. Indeed, for every fixed $t>0$ and for all $s \in (0,t) \setminus \mathscr{N}$, we can pass to the limit in the energy identity , written for the sequence $(\chi_{n_k}, w_{n_k})$ on the interval $(s,t)$. Note indeed that convergences – and for $(\chi_{n_k}, w_{n_k})$ hold on $(s,t)$. Proceeding as above, we then deduce once more that $$\lim_{k \to +\infty} \int_s^t \int_{\Omega} \alpha(w_{n_k}) w_{n_k} =
\int_s^t \int_{\Omega} \alpha(w) w\,,$$ whence $w_{n_k} \to w$ in $L^{2p+2}(s,t;L^{2p+2}(\Omega))$. Therefore, repeating the very same passages as in and relying on , we find $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\int_s^t \int_{\Omega} |\partial_t \chi|^2 & + \int_s^t
\int_{\Omega} \alpha'(w)|\nabla w|^2 + {\mathcal{E}}(\chi(t)) \\ & = \lim_{k
\to +\infty} \left(\delta\int_s^t \int_{\Omega} |\partial_t
\chi_{n_k}|^2 + \int_s^t \int_{\Omega} \alpha'(w_{n_k})|\nabla
w_{n_k}|^2 + {\mathcal{E}}(\chi_{n_k}(t)) \right)\,,
\end{aligned}$$ which gives $$\mathscr{E}(t) = \lim_{k \to +\infty} {\mathcal{E}}(\chi_{n_k}(t)) =
{\mathcal{E}}(\chi(t)) \quad\text{for all $t>0$},$$ and, finally, .
#### Lyapunov function and rest points.
We now verify that ${\mathcal{E}}$ acts as a Lyapunov functional for ${\mathcal{S}}$. Actually, ${\mathcal{E}}$ clearly is continuous on ${X}$ and decreasing along all solutions, thanks to the energy identity . Furthermore, assume that, along some $\chi \in
{\mathcal{S}}$, the map $t \in [0,+\infty) \mapsto {\mathcal{E}}(\chi(t))$ is constant. Then, in view of , we find $\nabla w \equiv 0$ and $\chi_t \equiv 0$ a.e. in $(0,+\infty)$, so that $\chi(t) \equiv \chi(0) $ for all $t \in
[0,+\infty)$. Analogously, we immediately find that $\bar{\chi} \in
{X}$ is a rest point for ${\mathcal{S}}$ if and only if it satisfies the stationary system
\[e:sub\] $$\begin{aligned}
& \label{e:sub1} A (\alpha(\bar{w})) =0 \quad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega\,,
\\
& \label{e:sub2} A \bar{\chi}+ \phi(\bar{\chi}) =\bar{w} \quad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\
\Omega\,.\end{aligned}$$
#### Conclusion of the proof.
We apply Theorem \[thm:ball1\] and Remark \[rem:restriction\_to\_invariant\_set\] with the choice $\mathcal{D}:=\mathcal{D}_{m_0} $ for some $m_0>0$ (cf. ). Thanks to (recall the second a priori estimate in Section \[s:3.1\]), for all $\chi_0 \in \mathcal{D}_{m_0} $, every solution starting from the initial datum $\chi_0$ remains in $\mathcal{D}_{m_0} $, so that the first condition in is satisfied. To check the second one, we fix some $\bar{\chi} \in
{Z({\mathcal{S}})}$ with $|m(\bar{\chi})| \leq m_0 $. It follows from and that $\nabla \bar{w} \equiv
0$, so that $\bar{w}$ is constant in $\Omega$. Hence, we test by $\bar{\chi} - m(\bar{\chi})$. Since $\bar{w}= m(\bar{w})$, we infer that $$\label{est:rest-points}
\| \nabla \bar{\chi} \|_H^2 + \int_{\Omega} \phi(\bar{\chi})
(\bar{\chi}-m(\bar{\chi})) \leq 0\,.$$ On the other hand, ensures that estimate holds, so that there exist constants $\mathcal{K}_{m_0}, \,\mathcal{K}_{m_0}^1>0$, only depending on $m_0$, such that $$\label{est-aggiunta} \int_{\Omega}|\phi(\bar{\chi})| \leq
\mathcal{K}_{m_0} \int_{\Omega} \phi(\bar{\chi})
(\bar{\chi}-m(\bar{\chi})) + \mathcal{K}_{m_0}^1\,.$$ Collecting and , we deduce that $$\| \nabla \bar{\chi} \|_H^2 +
\frac1{\mathcal{K}_{m_0}}\int_{\Omega}|\phi(\bar{\chi})| \leq
\frac{\mathcal{K}_{m_0}^1}{\mathcal{K}_{m_0}}\,,$$ whence, in particular, $$|m(\bar{w})|=|m(\phi(\bar{\chi}))| \leq
\frac{\mathcal{K}_{m_0}^1}{|\Omega|}.$$ Taking into account the fact that $\nabla \bar{w}=0$ (so that $\bar{w}$ is a constant) and that $|m(\bar{\chi})| \leq m_0 $, we conclude that $$\label{e:est-rest} \exists\,\mathcal{K}_{m_0}^{2}>0\,: \ \ \forall\,
\bar{\chi} \in {Z({\mathcal{S}})}\cap\mathcal{D}_{m_0}\ \ \| \bar{\chi} \|_{V} +
| \bar{w} | \leq \mathcal{K}_{m_0}^2\,.$$ Thus, a comparison in and the standard elliptic regularity estimate (cf. also the calculations developed throughout –), yield $$\label{e:later}
\exists\,\mathcal{K}_{m_0}^{3}>0\,: \ \ \forall\,
\bar{\chi} \in {Z({\mathcal{S}})}\cap\mathcal{D}_{m_0} \ \ \| {\phi}(\bar{\chi})
\|_{L^6 (\Omega)}+ \| \bar{\chi}\|_{W^{2,6}(\Omega)} \leq
\mathcal{K}_{m_0}^3\,,$$ whence, in particular, an estimate for $\bar{\chi}$ in $L^\infty
(\Omega)$. Then, using , we readily infer that $$\label{e:est-rest2} \exists\,\mathcal{K}_{m_0}^{4}>0\,: \ \
\forall\, \bar{\chi} \in {Z({\mathcal{S}})}\cap\mathcal{D}_{m_0} \ \ \|
\widehat{\phi}(\bar{\chi}) \|_{L^6 (\Omega)} \leq
\mathcal{K}_{m_0}^4\,.$$ Finally, and yield that ${Z({\mathcal{S}})}\cap\mathcal{D}_{m_0} $ is bounded in the phase space ${X}$, and the existence of the global attractor follows from Theorem \[thm:ball1\].
In fact, with the same calculations as in the above lines, joint with a boot-strap argument, one easily proves that $$\label{rest}
\forall\, p \in [1,+\infty)\,: \ \ \exists\,C_p>0 \ \
\bar{\chi} \in {Z({\mathcal{S}})}\cap\mathcal{D}_{m_0} \quad \|
\bar{\chi}\|_{W^{2,p}(\Omega)} + \|
\widehat{\phi}(\bar{\chi})\|_{L^p(\Omega)} \leq C_p.$$ Then, estimate is a straightforward consequence of and .
\[s:6\]
Proof of Theorems \[th:3\] and \[th:3.2\] {#ss:6.1}
=========================================
#### Proof of Theorem \[th:3\].
Within this proof, we denote by $c_\delta$ a positive constant depending on $\delta>0$ and on quantities . Referring to the notation of the statement of Theorem \[th:3\], let us set ${\underline{\chi}_{0}}:=
\chi_{0}^{1}-\chi_{0}^{2}$, $ {\underline{\chi}}:=\chi_1 -\chi_2 $, and ${\underline{w}}:=
w_1-w_2$. The pair $ ({\underline{\chi}},{\underline{w}}) $ obviously satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&&
{\underline{\chi}}_t + A(\alpha (w_1))- A(\alpha (w_2)) =0
\quad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega \times (0,T),
\label{unodifb}\\
&&
\label{duedifb}
\delta {\underline{\chi}}_t +A {\underline{\chi}}+ \chi_{1}^3-\chi_{2}^3 -{\underline{\chi}}= {\underline{w}}\quad
{\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega \times (0,T).\end{aligned}$$ Following the proof of [@rossi05 Prop. 2.1], we test by $ \mathcal{N}\left({\underline{w}}- {m}({\underline{w}}) \right)$, by $
\mathcal{N}( {\underline{\chi}}_t)+ {\underline{\chi}}$, add the resulting equations, and integrate over $(0,t)$, $ t \in (0,T)$. We refer to the proof of [@rossi05 Prop. 2.1] for all the detailed computations, leading to (cf. [@rossi05 (3.51)]) $$\label{basic-cont-dep}
\begin{aligned}
\int_0^t \| {\underline{w}}\|_{H}^2 + \delta \int_0^t \|{\mathcal{N}}({\underline{\chi}}_t)
{\|_{V}}^2+ \delta \|{\underline{\chi}}(t) \|_{H}^2
+ \int_0^t \|
\nabla {\underline{\chi}}\|_{H}^2
\leq C\left(\|{\underline{\chi}_{0}}\|_H^2 + \int_0^t \|{\underline{\chi}}\|_H^{2} \right).
\end{aligned}$$ An easy application of Gronwall’s lemma to the function $t \mapsto
\|{\underline{\chi}}(t)\|_H^{2} $ entails $$\label{eq:stima-cont-dep-h} \| {\underline{\chi}}\|_{C^0 ([0,t];H) \cap L^2
(0,t;V)}+ \| {\underline{\chi}}_t\|_{L^2 (0,t;V')}+
\| {\underline{w}}\|_{L^2 (0,t;H)}\leq c_\delta \| {\underline{\chi}_{0}}\|_H.$$ Furthermore, exploiting and the above , it follows from the Hölder inequality that $$\label{b}
\begin{aligned}
&\| \phi(\chi_1) -\phi(\chi_2) \|_{L^2 (0,t;H)}^2 \\ & \leq C
\int_0^t \int_\Omega |{\underline{\chi}}|^2 \left(\chi_1^2 +\chi_2^2 +1\right)^2
\\
&\leq C \int_0^t \left(\| \chi_1 \|_{L^6 (\Omega)}^4 + \| \chi_2
\|_{L^6 (\Omega)}^4 \right) \| {\underline{\chi}}\|_{L^6 (\Omega)}^2 + C
\int_0^t \int_\Omega |{\underline{\chi}}|^2
\\
&\leq C \left(\| \chi_1 \|_{L^{\infty}(0,T;L^{6}(\Omega))}^4 + \|
\chi_2 \|_{L^{\infty}(0,T;L^{6}(\Omega))}^4 +1\right) \| {\underline{\chi}}\|_{L^2 (0,t;V)}^2 \leq c_\delta \| {\underline{\chi}_{0}}\|_H^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Next, we test by ${\underline{\chi}}_t $ and integrate in time to obtain $$\label{e:6.5}
\begin{aligned}
\frac\delta2\int_0^t \| {\underline{\chi}}_t \|_H^2 + \frac12 \|
\nabla({\underline{\chi}}(t)) \|_H^2 \leq \frac12 \|\nabla{\underline{\chi}_{0}}\|_{H}^2
+c_\delta \left(\int_0^t \| {\underline{w}}\|_{H}^2 +\int_0^t \|\phi(\chi_1)
-\phi(\chi_2)\|_H^2 + \int_0^t \| {\underline{\chi}}\|_{H}^2 \right)\,.
\end{aligned}$$ In view of –, we readily infer the continuous dependence estimate for ${\underline{\chi}}$ in $C^0 ([0,t];V) \cap H^1 (0,t;H)$. Then, the estimate for $\| {\underline{\chi}}\|_{L^2 (0,t;Z)}$ follows from – by a comparison argument.
#### Proof of Theorem \[th:3.2\].
Referring to the notation of the proof of Theorem \[th:3\], we again test by $ \mathcal{N}\left({\underline{w}}- {m}({\underline{w}}) \right)$, by $
\mathcal{N}( {\underline{\chi}}_t)+ {\underline{\chi}}$, add the resulting equations, and integrate over $(0,t)$, $ t \in (0,T)$. Developing the same calculations as in the above lines, we note that the chain of inequalities is now trivial, since under the present assumptions the functions $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ are estimated in $L^\infty (0,T;Z)$ (see Proposition \[prop:regularized\]). On the other hand, the following term: $$I :=\int^t_0 \int_\Omega m({\underline{w}})\left(\alpha(w_1) -\alpha(w_2)\right),$$ which was easily estimated in the proof of Theorem \[th:3\], now needs to be carefully handled because of the (at most) quadratic controlled growth of $\alpha^\prime$. Indeed, observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\vert I\vert &\le \int_0^t \Vert m({\underline{w}})\Vert_{L^\infty(\Omega)}
\Vert\alpha(w_1) -\alpha(w_2)\Vert_{L^1(\Omega)}
\\
&\le C\int_0^t \left(\Vert m({\underline{w}})\Vert_{L^1(\Omega)}\int_\Omega
(1+\vert w_1\vert^{2p} +\vert w_2\vert^{2p}){\underline{w}}\right)
\\
&\le C \int_0^t \left(\Vert \phi(\chi_1)
-\phi(\chi_2)\Vert_{L^1(\Omega)} (1+\Vert
w_1\Vert^{2p}_{L^\infty(\Omega)} +\Vert
w_2\Vert^{2p}_{L^\infty(\Omega)})\Vert {\underline{w}}\Vert_{L^1(\Omega)}
\right)
\\
&\le C \int_0^t \left(\Vert{\underline{\chi}}\Vert_{L^1(\Omega)} (1+\Vert
w_1\Vert^{2p}_{L^\infty(\Omega)} +\Vert
w_2\Vert^{2p}_{L^\infty(\Omega)})\Vert {\underline{w}}\Vert_{L^1(\Omega)}
\right)
\\
&\le \varrho \int_0^t\Vert {\underline{w}}\Vert^2_{H} + C_\varrho \int_0^t
(1+\Vert w_1\Vert^{4p}_{L^\infty(\Omega)} +\Vert
w_2\Vert^{4p}_{L^\infty(\Omega)}) \Vert{\underline{\chi}}\Vert^2_{H}
\end{aligned}$$ for some $\varrho \in (0,1)$ and $C_{\varrho}>0$. This modification gives, in place of , $$\begin{aligned}
&(1-\varrho)\int_0^t \| {\underline{w}}\|_{H}^2 + \delta \int_0^t \|{\mathcal{N}}({\underline{\chi}}_t) {\|_{V}}^2+ \delta \|{\underline{\chi}}(t) \|_{H}^2
+ \int_0^t \|
\nabla {\underline{\chi}}\|_{H}^2\\
&\leq C\left(\|{\underline{\chi}_{0}}\|_H^2 +
\int_0^t (1+\Vert w_1\Vert^{4p}_{L^\infty(\Omega)}
+\Vert w_2\Vert^{4p}_{L^\infty(\Omega)}) \Vert{\underline{\chi}}\Vert^2_{H}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, recalling , we can use Gronwall’s lemma to deduce . Estimate can be obtained by arguing as in the proof of Theorem \[th:3\], hence the result.
Appendix
========
We propose the following approximate system for *both* Problem \[p:1\] and Problem \[p:2\]: $$\begin{aligned}
& \label{1-var-better-mudelta}
\chi_t + A (\alpha_M(w)) =0 \qquad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega \times (0,T)\,,\\
& \label{2-var-better-mudelta}
\delta \chi_t+ A\chi + \phi_{{\mu}}(\chi) =w \qquad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega \times (0,T)\,,\end{aligned}$$ depending on the parameters $\delta,\, M, \, {\mu}>0$, where $$\label{approalfa}
\alpha_M(r)=\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
\alpha(-M) + C_1(r-M) &{\quad\text}{if }\,r<- M,
\\
\alpha(r)& {\quad\text}{if }\,|r|\le M,\\
\alpha(M) + C_1(r-M) &{\quad\text}{if }\,r> M,
\end{array}
\right.$$ $C_1$ being the same constant as in , and $$\label{approphi}
\phi_{{\mu}}(r)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\phi(r) &{\quad\text}{if }\,|\phi(r)|\le\frac1{{\mu}},\\
\frac1{{\mu}}\operatorname{sign}(r) &{\quad\text}{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ It is immediate to check that, for any choice of the approximation parameters $M$ and ${\mu}$, the functions $\alpha_M$ and $\phi_{{\mu}}$ are Lipschitz continuous on ${\mathbb{R}}$ and that $$\label{e:uniformly-cpt}
\begin{aligned}
&
\alpha_M \to \alpha \qquad \text{uniformly
on compact subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}$ as $M \nearrow +\infty$,}
\\
&
\phi_\mu \to \phi \qquad \text{uniformly
on compact subsets of ${\text{dom}}(\phi)$ as $\mu \searrow 0$.}
\end{aligned}$$ Of course, the Lipschitz constants of $\alpha_M$ and $\phi_\mu$ explode as $M \nearrow +\infty$ and $\mu \searrow 0$, respectively. Let us also point out that, by construction, $$\label{e:coercivity} \alpha_{M}'(r) \geq C_1>0 \qquad \text{for all
$r \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $M
>0,$}$$ which yields that the inverse $\rho_M : {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ of $\alpha_M$ is Lipschitz continuous, with $$\label{e:impo-conse} |\rho_M(x) -\rho_M(y)| \leq \frac{1}{C_1}|x-y|
\quad \text{for all $x,y \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $M
>0.$}$$ What is more, relying on convergence of $\phi_{\mu}$ to $\phi$, one can also check that, for $\mu>0$ sufficiently small (say $0<\mu\leq \mu_*$), and hold on this approximate level as well, i.e., $$\label{e:2.2.14-approx}
\begin{aligned}
\forall\, m \in {\text{dom}}(\phi)=(a,b)\ \ \exists\, C_m,\
C_m'>0 \, : \ \ &\forall\, 0<\mu\leq \mu_* \quad \forall\, r \in
(a-m,b-m) \\ & |\phi_{\mu}(r+m)| \leq C_m \phi_{\mu}(r+m)r +C_m'\,,
\end{aligned}$$ as well as $$\label{hyp:3-appr} \ \ \exists\, C>0\, : \ \ \forall\, 0<\mu\leq
\mu_* \quad \quad \forall\, r \in (a,b) \quad
|\phi_{\mu}(r)|^{\sigma} \leq C \left( \widehat{\phi_{\mu}}(r)
+1\right)\,,$$ with $\sigma \in (0,1)$ as in , in particular, complying with the compatibility condition .
It was proved in [@rossi05 Thm. 2.1] that, for every $\delta,\, M, \, {\mu}>0$, there exists a unique pair $({\chi},{w})$, with $$\label{initial-regularity}
\begin{aligned}
& {\chi}\in L^2 (0,T;Z) \cap L^\infty (0,T;V) \cap H^1 (0,T;H),\\
&{w}\in L^2 (0,T;V),
\end{aligned}$$ solving the Cauchy problem for system –, supplemented with some initial datum $\chi^0 \in V$.
#### Problem $\mathbf{P}_{\delta,{\mu}}$.
In what follows, we approximate the initial datum $\chi_0 \in V$ in by a sequence $$\label{basta}
\{\chi_{0,\mu}\} \subset H^4(\Omega) \quad \text{with} \quad \chi_{0,\mu}
{\rightharpoonup}\chi_0 \ \ \text{in $V$} \ \ \text{and} \ \ \sup_{\mu>0}\|
\widehat{\phi}_{{\mu}}(\chi_{0,\mu})\|_{L^1(\Omega)}<+\infty$$ (for example, we can construct $\{ \chi_{0,\mu}\}$ by applying (twice) the elliptic regularization procedure developed in the proof of [@bcgg Prop. 2.6]).
For every $\delta,\, M, \, {\mu}>0$, we call $\mathbf{P}_{\delta,M,{\mu}}$ the initial and boundary value problem obtained by supplementing the PDE system – with the initial condition $$\label{app-init}
\chi(0)=\chi_{0,\mu} \quad \text{in $H^4(\Omega)$}.$$ In the following Section \[ss:a.1\], we will prove some further regularity of the approximate solutions. In this way, we will justify, on the level of the approximate Problem $\mathbf{P}_{\delta,M,{\mu}}$, the estimates formally performed in Section \[s:3.1\]. Hence, in Section \[ss:a.2\], we will develop the rigorous proof of Theorem \[th:1\] by relying on the aforementioned estimates and by passing to the limit in Problem $\mathbf{P}_{\delta,M, {\mu}}$, first as $\delta\searrow 0$ for $M,\,{\mu}>0$ fixed, then as $M \nearrow +\infty$ for ${\mu}>0$ fixed, and, finally, as ${\mu}\searrow 0$.
Furthermore, it would be possible to give a rigorous proof of Theorem \[th:2\] by passing to the limit in Problem $\mathbf{P}_{\delta,M,{\mu}}$ first as $M \nearrow +\infty$ for ${\mu}>0$ fixed, and then as ${\mu}\searrow 0$. However, we are not going to enter into the details of the latter procedure, which follows the very same lines as the one for Theorem \[th:1\].
In what follows, we denote by $C_{\delta,M,{\mu}}$ various constants (which can differ from occurrence to occurrence, even in the same line), depending on the parameters $\delta$, $M$, and ${\mu}$, and such that $C_{\delta,M,{\mu}} \nearrow
+\infty$ as either $\delta \searrow 0$, or $M \nearrow +\infty$, or ${\mu}\searrow 0$. The symbols $C_{\delta,\mu}$, $C_{M,\mu}$, and $C_{\mu}$ have an analogous meaning.
Enhanced regularity estimates on the approximate problem {#ss:a.1}
--------------------------------------------------------
#### First estimate.
We note that ${w}\in L^2 (0,T;V)$ and that, since $\phi_{\mu}$ is a Lipschitz continuous function, ${\chi}\in L^\infty(0,T;V)$ (cf. ) implies $\phi_{\mu}({\chi}) \in
L^\infty(0,T;V)$. Thus, by comparison in , we have $\delta \partial_t {\chi}+
A{\chi}\in L^2 (0,T;V)$. Hence, testing by $A(\partial_t {\chi})$ and using the fact that ${\chi}(0)= \chi_{0,{\mu}} \in Z$, we deduce the estimate $$\label{f1}
\|\nabla \partial_t {\chi}\|_{L^2 (0,T;H)}
+ \| A {\chi}\|_{L^\infty (0,T;H)}
\leq C_{\delta,{\mu}},$$ whence $$\label{f1-bis}
{\chi}\in L^\infty (0,T;Z) \cap H^1 (0,T;V).$$
#### Second estimate.
Since $\alpha_M$ is Lipschitz continuous and $w \in L^2(0,T;V)$, we have $\alpha_M({w}) \in
L^2(0,T;V)$. Estimate and a comparison in yield a bound for $A(\alpha_M({w}))$ in $L^2 (0,T;V)$, whence $$\alpha_M(w) \in L^2(0,T;H^3(\Omega)) \subset L^2(0,T;W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)).$$ Recalling and using the fact that $w=\rho_M (\alpha_M(w))$, we readily deduce the estimate $$\label{regosig4}
\|{w}\|_{L^2(0,T;W^{1,\infty}(\Omega))} \leq C_{\delta,M,{\mu}}.$$
#### Third estimate.
Using a parabolic regularity argument in and relying on regularity for the approximate initial datum $\chi_{0,{\mu}}$, we deduce that $$\label{cf-later}
\| \partial_t {\chi}\|_{L^2 (0,T;W^{1,3+\epsilon}(\Omega))} + \| A
{\chi}\|_{L^2 (0,T;W^{1,3+\epsilon}(\Omega))} \leq C_{\delta,M,\mu},$$ where $\epsilon>0$ is a suitable number. More precisely, since $\chi_{0,\mu}\in H^4(\Omega)\subset W^{3,6}(\Omega)$, the above formula holds for any $\epsilon\in(0,3]$ (cf. inequality below for a justification). Thus, by interpolation, we obtain that $\nabla {\chi}$ belongs to $ H^{1/2}
(0,T; W^{1,3+\epsilon}(\Omega))$ and, recalling the continuous embedding $W^{1,3+\epsilon}(\Omega) \subset L^\infty (\Omega)$, we conclude that $$\label{regosig5}
\| \nabla{\chi}\|_{L^\infty (0,T;L^\infty(\Omega))} \leq
C_{\delta,M,{\mu}}.$$
#### Fourth estimate.
Notice that, for almost all $t \in (0,T)$, the function $\nabla(|{w}(t)|^p {w}(t))= (p+1)|{w}(t)|^p \nabla {w}(t)$ belongs to $L^2(\Omega)$, thanks to and . Hence, for a.a. $t \in (0,T)$, we can test by $|{w}(t)|^p {w}(t)$, which yields $$\label{f3}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega} & |{w}(t)|^{p+2} \\ & = \int_{\Omega} \nabla
{\chi}(t) \cdot \nabla(|{w}(t)|^p {w}(t)) + \int_{\Omega}
\phi_{\mu}({\chi}(t)) |{w}(t)|^p {w}(t) + \delta \int_{\Omega}
\partial_t {\chi}(t) |{w}(t)|^p {w}(t)
\\ &
\begin{aligned}
= (p+1)\int_{\Omega} |{w}(t)|^p \nabla {\chi}(t) \cdot \nabla
{w}(t) & + \int_{\Omega} \phi_{\mu}({\chi}(t)) |{w}(t)|^p
{w}(t) \\ & - \delta(p+1) \int_{\Omega}
\alpha_M'({w}(t))|{w}(t)|^p | \nabla {w}(t)|^2,
\end{aligned}
\end{aligned}$$ the second equality following from equation . We estimate the second term on the right-hand side of the above equality by using the bound for $\phi_{\mu}({\chi})$ in $L^\infty (0,T; L^\infty (\Omega))$, due to and the Lipschitz continuity of $\phi_{\mu}$. We deal with the first integral term as follows: $$\label{e:f2}
\begin{aligned}
\left|\int_{\Omega} |{w}(t)|^p \nabla {\chi}(t) \cdot \nabla {w}(t) \right|
& \le \big\| |{w}(t)|^{p/2}\nabla {w}(t)\big\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\big\| |{w}(t)|^{p/2} \big\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \big\|\nabla {\chi}(t)\big\|_{L^\infty}
\\ & \le \varrho {\int_\Omega}|w(t)|^p |\nabla w(t)|^2
+ C_{\delta,M,\mu} \int_{\Omega}| w(t) |^p
\end{aligned}$$ for some suitable positive constant $\varrho$, where we have also used . Now, recalling , we estimate the last summand on the right-hand side of by $$-\delta(p+1) \int_{\Omega} \alpha_M'({w}(t))|{w}(t)|^p | \nabla
{w}(t)|^2 \leq -\delta(p+1)C_1 \int_{\Omega} |{w}(t)|^p |\nabla
{w}(t)|^2,$$ and we move the above term to the left-hand side of . Then, we combine the latter inequality with , in which we choose $\varrho=\frac{\delta (p+1)C_1}{4}$. We thus obtain, for a.a. $t \in (0,T)$, $$\label{co31}
\int_{\Omega} |{w}(t)|^{p+2}
+\frac34\delta(p+1)C_1 \int_{\Omega} |{w}(t)|^p |\nabla {w}(t)|^2
\le C_{\delta,M,{\mu}} \left(\int_{\Omega}|{w}(t)|^{p+1} + \int_{\Omega}| w(t)
|^p\right)\,.$$ Thus, we finally infer that $$\label{regosig6}
w \in L^\infty(0,T;L^p(\Omega)) \quad \text{for all $p\in[1,\infty)$,}$$ whence, by the Lipschitz continuity of $\alpha_M$, $$\label{regosig7}
\alpha_M(w) \in L^\infty(0,T;L^p(\Omega)) \quad \text{for all $p\in[1,+\infty)$.}$$
Rigorous proof of Theorem \[th:1\] {#ss:a.2}
----------------------------------
Within this section, for all $\delta,\,{\mu}>0$, we will denote by $\{({\chi_{\delta,M,{\mu}}},{w_{\delta,M,{\mu}}})\}_{\delta,M,{\mu}}$ the family of solutions to Problem $\mathbf{P}_{\delta,M,{\mu}}$.
. For fixed ${\mu},M>0 $, we pass to the limit in Problem $\mathbf{P}_{\delta,{\mu}}$ as $\delta\searrow
0$. We then perform the same calculations as in Section \[s:3.1\] (cf. –, , –). Also relying on –, we conclude that $$\label{ff1}
\begin{aligned}
& \exists\, C>0\,: \ \ \forall\, \delta,\, M, \, \mu>0 \quad
\|{\chi_{\delta,M,{\mu}}}\|_{L^\infty (0,T;V)} + \| {w_{\delta,M,{\mu}}}\|_{L^2 (0,T;V)}
+ \| \widehat{\phi}_{\mu}({\chi_{\delta,M,{\mu}}})\|_{L^\infty (0,T;L^1 (\Omega))} \\
& \mbox{}~~~~~~~~~~
+ \delta^{1/2} \| \partial_t {\chi_{\delta,M,{\mu}}}\|_{L^2 (0,T;L^2(\Omega))}
+ \| (\alpha_M'({w_{\delta,M,{\mu}}}))^{1/2} \nabla {w_{\delta,M,{\mu}}}\|_{L^2 (0,T;L^2(\Omega))}
\leq C.
\end{aligned}$$ Recalling the definition of $\phi_{\mu}$ and its Lipschitz continuity, we also have $$\label{ff1-bis}
\begin{aligned}
\exists\, C_\mu>0\,: \ \ \forall\, \delta,\, M>0\quad
\| \phi_{\mu}({\chi_{\delta,M,{\mu}}})\|_{L^\infty (0,T;V)\cap L^\infty (0,T;L^\infty
(\Omega))} \leq C_\mu.
\end{aligned}$$ In the same way, estimate for ${w_{\delta,M,{\mu}}}$ and the Lipschitz continuity of $\alpha_M$ yield $$\label{est-intermediate}
\exists\, C_{M}>0\,: \ \ \forall\, \delta,\, {\mu}>0 \quad
\|\alpha_M({w_{\delta,M,{\mu}}})\|_{L^2 (0,T;V)} \leq C_{M}.$$ Next, a comparison in and the maximal parabolic regularity result from [@hieber-pruss] yield $$\label{hieber-pruss} c(\delta)\int_0^T \| \partial_t {\chi_{\delta,M,{\mu}}}\|_{L^6
(\Omega)}^2 + \int_0^T \| A {\chi_{\delta,M,{\mu}}}\|_{L^6 (\Omega)}^2 \leq C
\int_0^T \| \ell_{\delta,M,{\mu}}\|_{L^6 (\Omega)}^2,$$ for some $c(\delta)$ such that $c(\delta)\to 0$ as $\delta \to 0$, where we have set $$\ell_{\delta,M,{\mu}} = {w_{\delta,M,{\mu}}}-\phi_{\mu}({\chi_{\delta,M,{\mu}}}) -A\chi_{0,{\mu}}.$$ In view of estimates for ${w_{\delta,M,{\mu}}}$, for $\phi_{\mu}({\chi_{\delta,M,{\mu}}})$ in $L^\infty (0,T;V)$, and for $\{\chi_{0,{\mu}}\}$, we conclude that $$\| \ell_{\delta,M,{\mu}} \|_{L^2 (0,T;L^6(\Omega))} \leq C_\mu.$$ Therefore, gives $$\label{inghippo}
\exists\, C_\mu>0\,: \ \ \forall\, \delta,\, M>0 \quad \|{\chi_{\delta,M,{\mu}}}\|_{L^2
(0,T;W^{2,6}(\Omega))} \leq C_{\mu}.$$ On the other hand, estimate and a comparison in imply $$\label{est-chit} \exists\, C_{M}>0\,: \ \ \forall\, \delta, \, {\mu}>0\quad
\|\partial_t {\chi_{\delta,M,{\mu}}}\|_{L^2 (0,T;V')} \leq C_{M}.$$ On behalf of the above estimates and arguing in the very same way as in Section \[s:3.2\], we see that, for every fixed $M>0$ and $\mu>0$, there exist a sequence $\delta_k \searrow 0$ (for notational simplicity, we do not highlight its dependence on the parameters $M$ and $\mu$) and functions $(\chi_{M,{\mu}},w_{M,{\mu}},
\bar{\alpha}_{M,{\mu}})$ such that the sequence $\{(\chi_{\delta_k,M,\mu},w_{\delta_k,M,\mu}) \}$ converges to $(\chi_{M,{\mu}},w_{M,{\mu}})$, as $k \to +\infty$, in the sense specified by –, , as well as $$\begin{aligned}
& \partial_t \chi_{\delta_k,M,\mu} {\rightharpoonup}\partial_t \chi_{M,{\mu}} \quad
\text{in $L^2 (0,T;V')$,}\\
& \delta_k^{1/2} \partial_t \chi_{\delta_k,M,\mu} {\rightharpoonup}0 \quad
\text{in $L^2(0,T;H)$,}\\
& \alpha_M(w_{\delta_k,M,\mu}) {\rightharpoonup}\bar{\alpha}_{M,{\mu}} \quad
\text{in $L^2 (0,T;V)$.}
\end{aligned}$$ Next, arguing similarly to the (formal) proof of Theorem \[th:1\], we conclude that $$\label{post}
\phi_{\mu}(\chi_{\delta_k,M,\mu}) \to \phi_{\mu}(\chi_{M,{\mu}}) \quad
\text{in $L^2 (0,T;H)$.}$$ Finally, we use in the very same way as in Section \[s:3.2\] to infer $$\bar{\alpha}_{M,{\mu}} =\alpha_M (w_{M,{\mu}})$$ and $$\alpha_M(w_{\delta_k,M,\mu}) \to \alpha_M (w_{M,{\mu}}) \quad
\text{in $L^2 (0,T;H)$.}$$ Therefore, we conclude that the pair $(\chi_{M,{\mu}},w_{M,{\mu}})$ is a solution to the PDE system $$\begin{aligned}
& \label{1-var-better-mu}
\chi_t + A (\alpha_M(w)) =0 \qquad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega \times (0,T)\,,\\
&
\label{2-var-better-mu} A\chi + \phi_{{\mu}}(\chi)
= w \qquad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega \times (0,T)\,,\end{aligned}$$ supplemented with the initial condition .\
. We now take the limit $M\nearrow +\infty$ in (the Cauchy problem for) –. Estimates and hold for the sequence of solutions $\{(\chi_{M,{\mu}},w_{M,{\mu}})\}_M$ as well. Furthermore, using a lower-semicontinuity argument, we also deduce from that $$\label{bor} \|\chi_{M,{\mu}}\|_{L^2 (0,T;W^{2,6}(\Omega))}\leq
C_\mu\quad \text{for all $M>0.$}$$
Now, we point out that entails $$\label{stima_g} \int_0^T \int_{\Omega} \alpha_M'(w_{M,{\mu}})|\nabla
w_{M,{\mu}} |^2 \leq C \quad \text{for all $M>0$}.$$ Let us denote by $\mathcal{T}_M$ the truncation operator at level $M$ and define $$\label{def-taum} \tau_M:=\mathcal{T}_M(w_{M,{\mu}} ):= \left\{
\begin{array}{lll} -M &\text{if } w_{M,{\mu}} <-M,
\\
w_{M,{\mu}} &\text{if } |w_{M,{\mu}}| \leq M,
\\
M & \text{if } w_{M,{\mu}} > M,
\end{array}
\right. \qquad \text{a.e.}\ t\in \Omega \times (0,T)$$ (to simplify, we omit the index $\mu$ in the notation for $\tau_M$). For later use, we also introduce ${\text{for a.a.}}\ t \in (0,T)$ the sets $$\label{def-om} \begin{cases} \mathcal{A}_M:= \left\{(x,t)\in \Omega
\times (0,T)\, : \ |w_{M,{\mu}}(x,t)| \leq M \right\},
\\
\mathcal{O}_M:= \left\{(x,t)\in \Omega \times (0,T)\, : \
|w_{M,{\mu}}(x,t)|> M \right\},
\\
\mathcal{O}_M^t:= \left\{x\in \Omega\, : \ (x,t) \in \mathcal{O}_M
\right\}.
\end{cases}$$ From , we also infer $$\int_0^T \int_{\Omega} \alpha'(\tau_M)|\nabla \tau_M |^2 \leq C
\quad \text{for all $M>0$},$$ whence, in view of , $$\label{stima_h} \| |\tau_M|^p\, \nabla \tau_M \|_{L^2 (0,T;H)} \leq
C
\quad \text{for all $M>0$}.$$ Now, in order to reproduce estimates – in the present approximate setting, we test by $|\tau_{M}(t)|^p
\tau_{M}(t)$ for a.e. $t \in (0,T)$. Clearly, $$\int_{\Omega} w_{M,{\mu}}(t)|\tau_{M}(t)|^p \tau_{M}(t)
\ge\int_{\Omega} | \tau_{M}(t)|^{p+2},$$ so that we have (cf. also ) $$\label{stima_j}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega} | \tau_{M}(t)|^{p+2}
& \le (p+1)\int_{\Omega} | \tau_{M}(t)|^p \,\nabla \chi_{M}(t) \cdot \nabla \tau_{M}(t)
+ \int_{\Omega} \phi_{\mu}(\chi_{M,{\mu}}(t))|\tau_{M}(t)|^p \tau_{M}(t)\\
& \leq (p+1) \| | \tau_{M}(t) |^p \,\nabla \tau_{M}(t) \|_H
\| \nabla \chi_{M}(t)\|_H
+ C_\mu \int_{\Omega} | \tau_M(t)|^{p+1} \\
& \leq C \||\tau_{M}(t)|^p \,\nabla \tau_{M}(t) \|_{H}
+ \frac12 \int_{\Omega} | \tau_M (t)|^{p+2}
+ C_\mu,
\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality follows from estimate and the last one from and Young’s inequality. Therefore, combining and , we find an estimate for $\|
\tau_M\|_{L^{p+2}(\Omega)}^{p+2}$ in $L^2 (0,T)$ with some constant $C_\mu>0$ which is independent of $M>0$. On behalf of –, from the latter bound, we infer (recall that $|\cdot|$ also denotes the Lebesgue measure) $$\label{stima_m}
\begin{aligned}
C_\mu \geq \int_{0}^T \left( \int_{\mathcal{O}_M^t} |M|^{p+2}\, {\mathrm{d}}x\right)^2 \, {\mathrm{d}}t = M^{2p+4} \int_0^T |\mathcal{O}_M^t|^2 \, {\mathrm{d}}t
\geq \frac{ M^{2p+4}}{T}|\mathcal{O}_M|^2 \quad \text{for all
$M>0$},
\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality is a direct consequence of Jensen’s inequality. Next, we apply the nonlinear Poincaré inequality to $|\tau_M|^p \tau_M$, thus obtaining (cf. ) $$\||\tau_M|^p \tau_M \|_{V} \leq K \left( \| \nabla
(|\tau_M|^{p} \tau_M) \|_{H} + \left|
{m}(\tau_M)\right|^{p+1}\right)\,.$$ In view of and of the definition of $\tau_M$, we find an estimate for $|\tau_M|^p \tau_M $ in $L^2 (0,T;V)$, again with some constant $C_{\mu}$ which is independent of $M>0$. Hence, using the fact that $V \subset L^6 (\Omega)$ and the growth condition for $\alpha$, we conclude that $$\label{stima_l} \| \alpha(\tau_M)\|_{L^{\rho_p}(0,T; L^{\kappa_p}
(\Omega))} \leq C_\mu \quad \text{for all $M>0$}$$ (where the indexes $\rho_p$ and $\kappa_p$ are as in : in particular, $1<\rho_p<2$). Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^T \int_{\Omega} |\alpha_M (w_{M,{\mu}})|^{\rho_p} & \leq
\iint_{\mathcal{A}_M} |\alpha (\tau_{M})|^{\rho_p} + 2^{\rho_p-1}
\iint_{\mathcal{O}_M}|\alpha(M)|^{\rho_p}
+ 2^{\rho_p-1} C_1^{\rho_p}
\iint_{\mathcal{O}_M}| w_{M,{\mu}} - M|^{\rho_p}\\
& \leq
2^{\rho_p-1} \int_0^T \int_{\Omega} |\alpha(\tau_M)|^{\rho_p}+
C\| w_{M,{\mu}}\|_{L^{\rho_p}(0,T; L^{\rho_p}(\Omega))}^{\rho_p} +
CM^{\rho_p} |\mathcal{O}_M| \\
& \leq C_\mu + C + C \frac{M^{\rho_p}}{M^{p+2}},
\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality follows from the very definition of $\alpha_M$, the second one from trivial calculations, and the last one from estimates for $w_{M,{\mu}}$, for $|\mathcal{O}_M|$, and for $\alpha(\tau_M)$. Note that, since $\rho_p<2$, we have $M^{\rho_p}/ M^{p+2} \to 0 $ as $M \to +\infty$.
Altogether, we find $$\label{stima_n} \|\alpha_M (w_{M,{\mu}})\|_{L^{\rho_p}(0,T;
L^{\rho_p}(\Omega))} \leq C_\mu \quad \text{for all $M>0$,}$$ which yields, by comparison in , $$\label{stima_p} \|
\partial_t \chi_{M,{\mu}} \|_{L^{\rho_p} (0,T;W^{-2,\rho_p}(\Omega))}
\leq C_\mu \quad \text{for all $M>0$,}$$ $W^{-2,\rho_p}(\Omega)$ denoting here the standard negative order Sobolev space.
Collecting estimates , , , and –, we then argue in the same way as in Section \[s:3.2\]. Thus, we conclude that there exist a subsequence $M_k \nearrow +\infty$ as $k \to +\infty$ (whose dependence on the index $\mu>0$ is not highlighted) and functions $(\chi_{\mu},w_{\mu})$ fulfilling – such that the functions $(\chi_{M_k,{\mu}}, w_{M_k,{\mu}})$ converge, as $k \to +\infty,$ to $(\chi_{\mu},w_{\mu})$ in the same sense as in - and , while, in place of , we only have $${\partial_t}\chi_{M_k,{\mu}}
{\rightharpoonup}{\partial_t}\chi_{{\mu}} \quad
\text{in \ $L^{\rho_p} (0,T;W^{-2,\rho_p}(\Omega))$,}$$ which is, anyway, sufficient for what follows. Furthermore, there exists some $\bar{\alpha}_\mu \in L^{\rho_p}(0,T;
L^{\rho_p}(\Omega))$ such that $$\alpha_M (w_{M_k,{\mu}}) {\rightharpoonup}\bar{\alpha}_\mu \quad \text{in
$L^{\rho_p}(0,T; L^{\rho_p}(\Omega))$.}$$ Again, we prove that $$\label{post-2}
\phi_{\mu}(\chi_{M_k,\mu}) \to \phi_{\mu}(\chi_{{\mu}}) \quad
\text{in $L^2 (0,T;H)$}$$ and, proceeding as in Section \[s:3.2\], with we show that $\bar{\alpha}_\mu =\alpha(w_\mu)$ and $$\alpha_{M_k}(w_{M_k,\mu}) \to \alpha(w_{\mu}) \qquad \text{in $L^1
(0,T; L^1 (\Omega))$.}$$ Having this, we conclude that the pair $(\chi_{\mu},w_{\mu})$ is solution to the PDE system $$\begin{aligned}
& \label{1-var-better-mu-bis}
\chi_t + A (\alpha(w)) =0 \qquad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega \times (0,T)\,,\\
&
\label{2-var-better-mu-bis} A\chi + \phi_{{\mu}}(\chi)
= w \qquad {\text{a.e.\ in}}\ \Omega \times (0,T)\,,\end{aligned}$$ supplemented with the initial condition .
. Finally, we take the limit $\mu\searrow 0$ in (the Cauchy problem for) –. Estimate , with $\alpha_M$ replaced by $\alpha$, holds for the sequence $\{(\chi_{\mu},w_{\mu})\}_{\mu}$ for a constant $C>0$ which is *independent* of the parameter $\mu>0$.
Furthermore, using the fact that system – has the same structure as –, we argue as in – and conclude that $$\exists\, C>0 \ \ \forall\, \mu>0\, : \quad \|\chi_{{\mu}}\|_{L^2
(0,T;W^{2,6}(\Omega))} +
\| \phi_{\mu}(\chi_{\mu})\|_{L^2 (0,T; L^6(\Omega))} \leq C.$$ From the bound for $(\alpha'(w_{\mu}))^{1/2} \nabla
w_{\mu}$ in $ L^2(0,T;H)$ (which follows from by applying once more Ioffe’s theorem), developing the very same calculations as throughout –, we find $$\label{giulio11}
\begin{aligned}
\exists\, C>0 \ \ \forall\, \mu>0\,: \quad \|
\partial_t \chi_{\mu}\|_{L^{\eta_{p\sigma}}} (0,T;
{\mathcal{W}^{-2,{\kappa_p}}(\Omega)}) & +
\| \alpha(w_{\mu}) \|_{L^{\eta_{p\sigma}} (0,T; L^{\kappa_p}
(\Omega))} \\ & + \| \phi_{\mu}(\chi_{\mu}) \|_{L^{\sigma q_\sigma} (0,T;L^{6}(\Omega))} \leq
C
\end{aligned}$$ (where the indexes $\eta_{p\sigma}$ and $q_\sigma$ are as in and , respectively).
Thanks to the above estimates, we conclude that there exist a vanishing sequence ${\mu}_k \searrow 0$ and functions $(\chi,w)$ satisfying – such that $(\chi_{{\mu}_k}, w_{{\mu}_k})$ converges to $(\chi,w)$ in the topologies of –. We then pass to the limit as $k \to +\infty$ in and, also in view of , infer that $\chi$ complies with the initial condition . Furthermore, we deduce from the strong convergence of $\chi_{\mu_k}$ to $\chi$ in $L^2
(0,T;H)$ that $\chi_{\mu_k} \to \chi$ almost everywhere in $\Omega
\times (0,T)$. Using the uniform convergence of $\{\phi_{\mu_k}\}$ to $\phi$, we infer that $$\phi_{\mu_k} (\chi_{\mu_k}(x,t)) \to \phi(\chi(x,t)) \quad {{\text{for a.a.}}}\, (x,t)
\in \Omega \times (0,T).$$ Then, taking into account the uniform integrability of $\{ \phi_{\mu}(\chi_{\mu_k})\}$ in $L^2 (0,T;H)$ (which follows from , noting that $\sigma q_\sigma>2$), in view of Theorem \[t:ds\] we obtain $$\label{step-fundamental}
\phi_{\mu_k}(\chi_{\mu_k}) \to
\phi(\chi) \qquad \text{in $L^2 (0,T;H)$.}$$ Then, we again argue as in Section \[s:3.2\] and use to prove that $$\alpha(w_{\mu_k}) \to \alpha(w) \qquad \text{in $L^1 (0,T; L^1
(\Omega))$.}$$ Having this, we conclude that the pair $(\chi,w)$ is solution to Problem \[p:1\], which finishes the proof.
[99]{}
A.V. Babin and M.I. Vishik: *Attractors of evolution equations*. Translated and revised from the 1989 Russian original by Babin. Studies in Mathematics and its Applications, 25. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1992.
J.M. Ball: Continuity properties and global attractors of generalized semiflows and the Navier-Stokes equations. *J. Nonlinear Sci.*, **7** (1997), 475–502.
V. Barbu: . Noordhoff, Leyden, 1976.
V. Barbu, P. Colli, G. Gilardi, and M. Grasselli: Existence, uniqueness, and long-time behaviour for a nonlinear Volterra integrodifferential equation. , **13** (2000), 1233–1262.
H. Brézis: . North Holland Math. Studies, 5. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1973.
: . , **9** (1961), [795–801]{}.
: . , **2** (1958), [258–267]{}.
N. Dunford and J.T. Schwartz: . Interscience Publishers, New York, 1958.
: . .
M. E. Gurtin: Generalized Ginzburg-Landau and Cahn-Hilliard equations based on a microforce balance. *Phys. D*, **92** (1996), [178–192]{}.
M. Hieber and J. Prüss: Heat kernels and maximal $L^p$-$L^q$ estimates for parabolic evolution equations. *Comm. Partial Differential Equations*, **22** (1997), 1647–1669.
A.D. Ioffe: On lower semicontinuity of integral functionals. I. *SIAM J. Control Optimization*, **15** (1977), 521–538.
J. Málek and D. Pražák: Large time behavior via the method of $l$-trajectories. *J. Differential Equations*, **181** (2002), 243–279.
A. Miranville and S. Zelik: Robust exponential attractors for Cahn-Hilliard type equations with singular potentials. *Math. Methods Appl. Sci.*, [**27**]{} (2004), 545–582.
: *Attractors for dissipative partial differential equations in bounded and unbounded domains*. .
: *The Cahn-Hilliard equation*. .
E. Rocca and G. Schimperna: Universal attractor for some singular phase transition systems. *Phys. D*, [**192**]{} (2004), 279–307.
R. Rossi: On two classes of generalized viscous Cahn-Hilliard equations. *Commun. Pure Appl. Anal.*, [**4**]{} (2005), 405–430.
R. Rossi: Global attractor for the weak solutions of a class of viscous Cahn-Hilliard equations. In: *Dissipative Phase Transitions*, pp. 247–268. Series on Advances in Mathematics for Applied Sciences, Vol. 71, World Sci. Publ., Hackensack, NJ, 2006.
R. Rossi, A. Segatti, and U. Stefanelli: Attractors for gradient flows of non convex functionals and applications to quasistationary phase field models. *Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.*, [**187**]{} (2008), 91–135.
G. Schimperna: Global attractors for Cahn-Hilliard equations with nonconstant mobility. *Nonlinearity*, **20** (2007), 2365–2387.
A. Segatti: On the hyperbolic relaxation of the Cahn-Hilliard equation in 3D: approximation and long time behaviour. *Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.*, **17** (2007), 411–437.
J. Simon: Compact sets in the space [$L^p(0,T;B)$]{}. *Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4)*, [**146**]{} (1987), 65–96.
: *Infinite-dimensional dynamical systems in mechanics and physics*, .
[^1]: *Dipartimento di Matematica “F. Brioschi”, Politecnico di Milano. Via Bonardi, 9. I–20133 Milano, Italy. Email: [[email protected]]{}*
[^2]: *Laboratoire de Mathématiques et Applications–SP2MI, Université de Poitiers. Boulevard Marie et Pierre Curie–Téléport 2. F–86962 Chasseneuil Futuroscope Cedex, France. Email: [[email protected]]{}*
[^3]: *Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Brescia. Via Valotti 9. I–25133 Brescia, Italy.* E-mail: [[email protected]]{}
[^4]: *Dipartimento di Matematica “F.Casorati”, Università di Pavia. Via Ferrata, 1. I–27100 Pavia, Italy. Email: [[email protected]]{}*
[^5]: All authors have been supported by the [project *Programma Galileo, Università Italo-Francese/Projet Galilée “Modelli matematici in scienza dei materiali/Modèles mathématiques en science des matériaux”.*]{} This paper was initiated during a stay of M.G., R.R., and G.S. in the *Laboratoire de Mathématiques et Applications* (Université de Poitiers), whose hospitality is gratefully acknowledged.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study relativistic magnetohydrodynamics with longitudinal boost invariance in the presence of chiral magnetic effects and finite electric conductivity. With initial magnetic fields parallel or anti-parallel to electric fields, we derive the analytic solutions of electromagnetic fields and the chiral number and energy density in an expansion of several parameters determined by initial conditions. The numerical solutions show that such analytic solutions work well in weak fields or large chiral fluctuations. We also discuss the properties of electromagnetic fields in the laboratory frame.'
author:
- Irfan Siddique
- 'Ren-jie Wang'
- Shi Pu
- Qun Wang
bibliography:
- 'MHD.bib'
title: Anomalous magnetohydrodynamics with longitudinal boost invariance and chiral magnetic effect
---
Introduction
============
Recently some novel transport phenomena of chiral (massless) fermions in strong electromagnetic (EM) fields have been extensively studied in relativistic heavy ion collisions and condensed matter physics. One of them is the chiral magnetic effect (CME): an electric current can be induced by the strong magnetic field when the numbers of left and right handed fermions are not equal [@Vilenkin1980a; @Kharzeev:2007jp; @Fukushima:2008xe]. Similarly the strong magnetic field can also lead to the chiral separation effect (CSE) for the chiral charge current. These effects are associated with the chiral anomaly and can be described by chiral kinetic equations (CKE). The CKE are derived from various approaches, e.g. the path integral [@Stephanov:2012ki; @Chen:2013iga; @Chen:2014cla], the Hamiltonian approach [@Son:2012wh; @Son:2012zy], the quantum kinetic theory via Wigner functions [@Gao:2012ix; @Chen:2012ca; @Gao:2015zka; @Hidaka:2016yjf; @Hidaka:2017auj; @Gao:2017gfq; @Hidaka:2018mel; @Gao:2018wmr; @Huang:2018wdl], and the world-line formalism [@Mueller:2017arw; @Mueller:2017lzw]. The chiral separation can also be induced by an electric field, which is called the chiral electric separation effect (CESE) [@Huang:2013iia; @Pu:2014cwa; @Jiang:2014ura; @Pu:2014fva]. If the electric field is perpendicular to the magnetic field, a Hall current for chiral fermions is expected, which is called chiral Hall separation effect (CHSE) [@Pu:2014fva]. The chiral particle production in strong EM fields are found to be directly connected to the Schwinger mechanism [@Fukushima:2010vw; @Warringa:2012bq], and similar calculation has been done analytically via the world-line formalism [@Copinger:2018ftr] and Wigner functions [@Sheng:2018jwf]. Recent reviews about chiral transport phenomena can be found in Ref. [@Bzdak:2012ia; @Fukushima:2012vr; @Kharzeev:2013ffa; @Kharzeev:2015kna].
The chiral transport phenomena are expected to have observables in relativistic heavy ion collisions in which very strong magnetic fields of the order $B\sim10^{18}\,\mathrm{G}$ are produced [@Bzdak:2011yy; @Deng:2012pc; @Roy:2015coa; @Li:2016tel]. At the very early stage of the quark-gluon plasma (QGP), the topological fluctuations in non-Abelian gauge fields give rise to the imbalance of chirality from event to event (event-by-event). Such an imbalance of chirality may lead to the charge separation with respect to the reaction plane in heavy ion collisions. The STAR collaboration have observed the charge separation in Au+Au collisions [@Abelev2009; @Abelev2010]. However, due to the huge backgrounds from collective flows [@Khachatryan:2016got; @Sirunyan:2017quh] it is a challenge to extract the weak CME signal from the overwhelming backgroud. It is expected that the ongoing isobar collision experiment at STAR may shed light on the CME signal (see e.g. Ref. [@Skokov:2016yrj] for discussions on isobar collisions).
In order to extract the CME signal, we need the precise simulation of the QGP evolution in the time-evolving EM field. One approach is through the simulation of the CKE. Very recently, the boost invariant formulation of the CKE has been done with the chiral circular displacement introduced [@Ebihara:2017suq]. The CKE has been solved numerically in heavy ion collisions [@Sun:2016nig; @Huang:2017tsq]. Another approach is the classical statistical simulation based on solving the coupled equations of Yang-Mills and Dirac applied to heavy ion collisions [@Mace:2016svc; @Mace:2016shq; @Berges:2017igc]. Besides the relativistic hydrodynamic is a widely-used model in relativistic heavy ion collisions.
The relativistic hydrodynamic model is one of the main approaches to the QGP evolution [@Romatschke2007; @Luzum2008; @Song2008b; @Song:2008si; @Schenke:2011bn; @Roy:2012jb; @Niemi:2012ry]. A natural extension of the hydrodynamic model in the presence of the magnetic field is the magento-hydrodynamics (MHD), which is hydrodynamics coupled with Maxwell’s equations. The ideal MHD equations with longitudinal boost invariance and a transverse magnetic field has been calculated [@Pu:2016ayh; @Roy:2015kma], where the magnetic field decays as $\sim1/\tau$ with $\tau$ being the proper time, much slower than in vacuum [@Kharzeev:2007jp]. The magnetization effect has also been systematically studied [@Pu:2016ayh]. Later the calculation has been extended to 2+1 dimensions [@Pu:2016bxy; @Pu:2016rdq]. There is an enhancement of the elliptic flow $v_{2}$ of $\pi^{-}$ from the external magnetic field [@Roy:2017yvg]. Recently the MHD with the longitudinal boost invariance has been extended to include the finite conductivity in the Gubser flow [@Shokri:2018qcu]. Readers may look at Ref. [@Inghirami:2016iru] for recent numerical simulations of the ideal MHD.
In this work, we will consider the relativistic MHD in the presence of the CME and finite conductivity. Usually the numerical simulationsof MHD with the CME could be very unstable because of chirality instability [@Akamatsu2013]. Therefore stable analytic solutions in some special cases are very important for providing a test of numerical simulations and a simple physical picture for such a complicated process. As a first attempt, we will consider the MHD with the longitudinal boost invariance. To avoid the acceleration of the fluid by the EM field, we will assume an electric charge neutral fluid. We then search for the EM fields that can keep the Bjorken fluid velocity unchanged. It is very similar to the case of the force-free magnetic field discussed in classical electrodynamics [@Chandrasekhar285; @Woltjer489]. To solve the coupled equations of the anomalous conservation equation and Maxwell’s equations, we assume that the terms proportional to the anomaly constant (proportional to the Planck constant $\hbar$) are perturbations, this is equivalent to an expansion in $\hbar$. We will compare our approximate analytic solutions with the numerical results. Finally we compute the EM field in the laboratory frame and discuss the coupling between the EM field and the chiral current.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In Sec. \[sec:MHD-with-CME\], we give a brief review for the relativistic MHD with the CME. In Sec. \[sec:Longitudinal-boost-invariant\], we assume the form of the fluid velocity in longitudinal boost invariance. We choose a configuration of the EM field that is orthogonal to the fluid velocity. In Sec. \[subsec:For-EoS-1\] and \[subsec:For-EoS-2\], we solve Maxwell’s equations coupled with the anomalous conservation equation for the chiral charge. We obtain the approximate analytic solutions for two different equations of state. We compare our approximate analytic solutions with numerical ones. In Sec. \[subsec:Discussion-and-physical\], we compute the EM field in the laboratory frame to show the consistence with previous results. Finally we make a summary of our results in Sec. \[sec:Summary-and-conclusion\].
Throughout this work, we will use the metric $g_{\mu\nu}=\mathrm{diag}\{+,-,-,-\}$, thus, the fluid velocity satisfies $u^{\mu}u_{\mu}=1$, and the orthogonal projector to the fluid four-velocity is $\Delta^{\mu\nu}=g^{\mu\nu}-u^{\mu}u^{\nu}$. We also choose Levi-Civita tensor satisfying $\epsilon^{0123}=-\epsilon_{0123}=+1$ and $\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}=-2!(g_{\rho}^{\alpha}g_{\sigma}^{\beta}-g_{\sigma}^{\alpha}g_{\rho}^{\beta})$.
Anomalous magnetohydrodynamics {#sec:MHD-with-CME}
==============================
In this section, we will give a brief preview to the relativistic MHD with CME which is called anomalous magnetohydrodynamics. The MHD equations consist of conservation equations and Maxwell’s equations (see, e.g., Ref. [@Caldarelli:2008ze; @Gedalin:PRE1995; @Huang:2009ue; @Roy:2015kma; @Pu:2016ayh; @Pu:2016bxy; @Pu:2016rdq] for details). The energy-momentum conservation equation reads $$\partial_{\mu}T^{\mu\nu}=0,\label{eq:EMT_01}$$ where $T^{\mu\nu}$is the energy momentum tensor including the contributions from the fluid and the EM fields $$T^{\mu\nu}=T_{F}^{\mu\nu}+T_{EM}^{\mu\nu}.\label{eq:total-t}$$ The fluid part has the usual form $$T_{F}^{\mu\nu}=\varepsilon u^{\mu}u^{\nu}\text{\textminus}(p+\Pi)\Delta^{\mu\nu}+\pi^{\mu\nu},$$ where $\varepsilon$ and $p$ are the energy density and pressure respectively, $u^{\mu}=\gamma(1,\mathbf{v})$ is the fluid velocity satisfying $u^{\mu}u_{\mu}=1$, $\Delta^{\mu\nu}=g^{\mu\nu}-u^{\mu}u^{\nu}$ is the projector, and $\Pi$ and $\pi^{\mu\nu}$ are bulk viscous pressure and shear viscous tensor respectively. For simplicity, we will neglect viscous effects in this paper, i.e. $\Pi=\pi^{\mu\nu}=0$. The EM field part of the energy-momentum tensor reads $$T_{EM}^{\mu\nu}=-F^{\mu\lambda}F_{\;\lambda}^{\nu}+\frac{1}{4}g^{\mu\nu}F^{\rho\sigma}F_{\rho\sigma}.\label{eq:EM_tensor_01}$$ One can introduce the four-vector form of the electric and magnetic fields in terms of the fluid velocity $$E^{\mu}=F^{\mu\nu}u_{\nu},\;B^{\mu}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}u_{\nu}F_{\alpha\beta},\label{eq:EB_def01}$$ which satisfy $u^{\mu}E_{\mu}=0$ and $u^{\mu}B_{\mu}=0$ meaning that both $E^{\mu}$ and $B^{\mu}$ are space-like. Then, the EM field strength tensor can be put into the form $$F^{\mu\nu}=E^{\mu}u^{\nu}-E^{\nu}u^{\mu}+\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}u_{\alpha}B_{\beta},\label{eq:F_01}$$ Inserting the above formula into Eq. (\[eq:EM\_tensor\_01\]), we obtain the complete form of the energy-momentum tensor from Eq. (\[eq:total-t\]) $$\begin{aligned}
T^{\mu\nu} & = & (\varepsilon+p+E^{2}+B^{2})u^{\mu}u^{\nu}-(p+\frac{1}{2}E^{2}+\frac{1}{2}B^{2})g^{\mu\nu}\nonumber \\
& & -E^{\mu}E^{\nu}-B^{\mu}B^{\nu}-u^{\mu}\epsilon^{\nu\lambda\alpha\beta}E_{\lambda}B_{\alpha}u_{\beta}-u^{\nu}\epsilon^{\mu\lambda\alpha\beta}E_{\lambda}B_{\alpha}u_{\beta},\label{eq:totEMtensor_01}\end{aligned}$$ where $E$ and $B$ are defined by $$E^{\mu}E_{\mu}=\text{\textminus}E^{2},\;B^{\mu}B_{\mu}=\text{\textminus}B^{2}.$$
The conservations equations are $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{\mu}j_{e}^{\mu} & = & 0,\nonumber \\
\partial_{\mu}j_{5}^{\mu} & = & -e^{2}CE\cdot B,\label{eq:currents_con_01}\end{aligned}$$ where $j_{e}^{\mu}$ is the electric charge current and $j_{5}^{\mu}$ is the chiral (axial) charge current. Note that the chiral anomaly term appears in the second line of Eq. (\[eq:currents\_con\_01\]) with $C=1/(2\pi^{2})$. These currents can be decomposed into three parts
$$\begin{aligned}
j_{e}^{\mu} & = & n_{e}u^{\mu}+\sigma E^{\mu}+\xi B^{\mu},\nonumber \\
j_{5}^{\mu} & = & n_{5}u^{\mu}+\sigma_{5}E^{\mu}+\xi_{5}B^{\mu},\label{eq:current_02}\end{aligned}$$
where $n_{e}$ and $n_{5}$ are the electric and chiral charge density respectively, $\sigma$ and $\sigma_{5}$ are the electric and chiral electric conductivity respectively [@Huang:2013iia; @Pu:2014cwa; @Pu:2014fva], and $\xi$ and $\xi_{5}$ are associated with the CME and CESE [@Fukushima:2008xe; @Gao:2012ix; @Chen:2012ca] which are given by $$\xi=eC\mu_{5},\;\xi_{5}=eC\mu_{e}.\label{eq:CME_coefficient_01}$$ For simplicity, we will neglect all other dissipative effects in $j_{e}^{\mu}$ and $j_{5}^{\mu}$ such as the heat conducting flow. The chiral electric conductivity $\sigma_{5}$ is usually parametrized as $\sigma_{5}\propto\mu_{e}\mu_{5}$ in the small $\mu_{e}$ and $\mu_{5}$ limit [@Huang:2013iia; @Pu:2014cwa; @Pu:2014fva].
Maxwell’s equations can be put into the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{\mu}F^{\mu\nu} & = & j_{e}^{\nu},\label{eq:Maxwell_01a}\\
\partial_{\mu}(\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta}) & = & 0.\label{eq:Maxwell_01b}\end{aligned}$$
To close the system of equations, we need to choose the equations of state (EoS) for the thermodynamic quantities. In the dense limit with high chemical potentials, we use $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon & = & c_{s}^{-2}p,\nonumber \\
n_{e} & = & a\mu_{e}(\mu_{e}^{2}+3\mu_{5}^{2}),\nonumber \\
n_{5} & = & a\mu_{5}(\mu_{5}^{2}+3\mu_{e}^{2}),\label{eq:eos_01}\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ is a dimensionless constant and $c_{s}$ is the speed of sound also taken as a constant. On the other hand, in the hot limit with high temperatures, we use $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon & = & c_{s}^{-2}p,\nonumber \\
n_{e} & = & a\mu_{e}T^{2},\nonumber \\
n_{5} & = & a\mu_{5}T^{2},\label{eq:eos_02}\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ is again a dimensionless constant. Note that the value of $a$ in Eq. (\[eq:eos\_02\]) is different from that in Eq. (\[eq:eos\_01\]). For the ideal fluid, we have $a=1/(3\pi^{2})$ and $a=1/3$ for Eq. (\[eq:eos\_01\]) and (\[eq:eos\_02\]) respectively [@Pu:2011vr; @Gao:2012ix].
Usually the electric field would accelerate charged particles and the charged fluid. To avoid such a problem, we simply set the chemical potential for electric charge vanishing, $\mu_{e}=0$, which also leads to $n_{e}=\sigma_{5}=\xi_{5}=0$. Such a condition means the fluid is neutral: the number of positively charged particles is the same as that of negatively charged particles. Actually we look for a special configuration of EM fields coupled with the media, very similar to the force-free case in classical electrodynamics. In Sec. \[subsec:Discussion-and-physical\], we will discuss the details and check the consistence of this assumption.
Here are the whole system of equations we are going to solve: conservation equations (\[eq:EMT\_01\], \[eq:currents\_con\_01\]), Maxwell’s equations (\[eq:Maxwell\_01a\], \[eq:Maxwell\_01b\]), constitutive equations (\[eq:totEMtensor\_01\], \[eq:F\_01\], \[eq:current\_02\]), and equations of state (\[eq:eos\_01\],\[eq:eos\_02\]).
Equations with longitudinal boost invariance {#sec:Longitudinal-boost-invariant}
============================================
We assume that the fluid has longitudinal boost invariance. It is convenient to introduce the Milne coordinates $z=\tau\sinh\eta$ and $t=\tau\cosh\eta$, with $\tau=\left(t^{2}-z^{2}\right)^{1/2}$ being the proper time and $\eta=\frac{1}{2}\ln[(t+z)/(t-z)]$ being the space-time rapidity. The fluid velocity with longitudinal boost invariance can be written as [@Bjorken:1982qr], $$u^{\mu}=\left(\cosh\eta,0,0,\sinh\eta\right)=\gamma(1,0,0,z/t),\label{eq:Bjokren_velocity_01}$$ where $\gamma=\cosh\eta$ is the Lorentz contraction factor.
For simplicity we neglect the EM field in the longitudinal direction, so the general form of the EM field satisfying $u\cdot E=u\cdot B=0$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
E^{\mu} & = & \left(0,E\text{\ensuremath{\cos}}\zeta,E\sin\zeta,0\right),\nonumber \\
B^{\mu} & = & \left(0,B\text{\ensuremath{\cos}}\varphi,B\sin\varphi,0\right),\label{eq:em-lbi}\end{aligned}$$
where $\zeta$ and $\varphi$ are the azimuthal angle of the electric and magnetic field in the transverse plane respectively. To search for possible analytic solutions, we assume that $E^{\mu}$ and $B^{\mu}$ will always be in the transverse plane and that $E,B,\zeta,\varphi$ are only functions of $\tau$. We can further simplify the probelm by assuming that $E^{\mu}$ and $B^{\mu}$ are parallel or anti-parallel. Without loss of generality, the EM field can be put in the $y$ direction $$E^{\mu}=(0,0,\chi E(\tau),0),\;B^{\mu}=(0,0,B(\tau),0),\label{eq:EB_02}$$ where $\chi=\pm1$. We will check the self-consistence of these assumptions after we find the solution in Sec. \[subsec:Discussion-and-physical\]. Note that the authors of Ref. [@Shokri:2017xxn] have found another possible configuration of the EM fields in the absence of the chiral magnetic effect, in which the direction of the electric and magnetic field depends on $\eta$. As this configuration is irrelevant to the heavy ion collisions, we will not consider it in this paper.
By projecting the energy-momentum conservation equation (\[eq:EMT\_01\]) onto the spatial direction, $\Delta_{\mu\alpha}\partial_{\nu}T^{\mu\nu}=0$, we obtain the acceleration of the fluid velocity $$\begin{aligned}
(u\cdot\partial)u_{\alpha} & = & \frac{1}{(\varepsilon+p+E^{2}+B^{2})}[\Delta_{\mu}^{\nu}\partial_{\nu}(p+\frac{1}{2}E^{2}+\frac{1}{2}B^{2})+\Delta_{\mu\alpha}(E\cdot\partial)E^{\mu}+E_{\alpha}(\partial\cdot E)\nonumber \\
& & +\Delta_{\mu\alpha}(B\cdot\partial)B^{\mu}+B_{\alpha}(\partial\cdot B)+\epsilon^{\nu\lambda\rho\sigma}E_{\lambda}B_{\rho}u_{\sigma}(\partial_{\nu}u_{\alpha})+(\partial\cdot u)\epsilon_{\alpha\lambda\rho\sigma}E^{\lambda}B^{\rho}u^{\sigma}\nonumber \\
& & +\Delta_{\mu\alpha}(u\cdot\partial)\epsilon^{\mu\lambda\rho\sigma}E_{\lambda}B_{\rho}u_{\sigma}].\label{eq:Du_01}\end{aligned}$$ According to our assumption that the electric and magnetic field are constant in transverse coordinates $(x,y)$, we have $(E\cdot\partial)E^{\mu}=(\partial\cdot E)=(B\cdot\partial)B^{\mu}=(\partial\cdot B)=0$. Also, if $p$, $E^{\mu}$ and $B^{\mu}$ are only the functions of $\tau$, the first term inside the square brackets are vanishing. So we obtain the non-acceleration of the fluid velocity $$(u\cdot\partial)u_{\alpha}=0,\label{eq:non-acc}$$ which means that the fluid velocity always takes the value in Eq. (\[eq:Bjokren\_velocity\_01\]). This is consistent to the previous assumption that the fluid is charge neutral.
The energy conservation equation can be obtained by a contraction of $u_{\mu}$ with Eq. (\[eq:EMT\_01\]) or $u_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}T^{\mu\nu}=0$, $$\begin{aligned}
& & (u\cdot\partial)(\varepsilon+\frac{1}{2}E^{2}+\frac{1}{2}B^{2})+(\varepsilon+p+E^{2}+B^{2})(\partial\cdot u)\nonumber \\
& = & u_{\mu}(E\cdot\partial)E^{\mu}+u_{\mu}(B\cdot\partial)B^{\mu}+\epsilon^{\nu\lambda\alpha\beta}\partial_{\nu}(E_{\lambda}B_{\alpha}u_{\beta})\nonumber \\
& & +u_{\mu}(u\cdot\partial)\epsilon^{\mu\lambda\alpha\beta}E_{\lambda}B_{\alpha}u_{\beta}.\end{aligned}$$ With Eq. (\[eq:EB\_02\]), the above equation is reduced to $$(u\cdot\partial)(\varepsilon+\frac{1}{2}E^{2}+\frac{1}{2}B^{2})+(\varepsilon+p+E^{2}+B^{2})(\partial\cdot u)=0.\label{eq:energy_density_02}$$
Now we look at Maxwell’s equations. Inserting Eq. (\[eq:EB\_02\]) for the EM fields into Eq. (\[eq:Maxwell\_01a\]) yields for $\nu=y$ $$\frac{d}{d\tau}E+\frac{1}{\tau}E+\sigma E+\chi\xi B=0,\label{eq:Maxwell_02a}$$ where we have used $d/d\tau\equiv(u\cdot\partial)$. For other indices $\nu=t,x,z$, we obtain identities using $\mu_{e}=0$ and $n_{e}=0$. Similarly, from Eq. (\[eq:Maxwell\_01b\]), we obtain for $\nu=y$ $$\frac{d}{d\tau}B+\frac{B}{\tau}=0.\label{eq:Maxwell_02b}$$ For other indices $\nu=t,x,z$, we obtain identities using $\mu_{e}=0$ and $n_{e}=0$.
Using the simplified Maxwell’s equations (\[eq:Maxwell\_02a\]) and (\[eq:Maxwell\_02b\]), we can rewrite Eq. (\[eq:energy\_density\_02\]) into a compact form $$\frac{d}{d\tau}\varepsilon+(\varepsilon+p)\frac{1}{\tau}-\sigma E^{2}-\chi\xi EB=0.\label{eq:energy_density_03}$$ This equation can also be derived by rewritten Eq. (\[eq:EMT\_01\]) as $$\partial_{\mu}T_{F}^{\mu\nu}=-\partial_{\mu}T_{EM}^{\mu\nu}=F^{\nu\lambda}j_{e\lambda},\label{eq:EM_con_02}$$ Contracting the above equation with $u_{\nu}$ yields $u_{\nu}\partial_{\mu}T_{F}^{\mu\nu}=-E^{\lambda}j_{e\lambda}$, which is consistent with Eq. (\[eq:energy\_density\_03\]).
From Eq. (\[eq:currents\_con\_01\]) and using $\mu_{e}=0$, the (anomalous) conservation equation of the chiral charge can be reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\tau}n_{5}+\frac{n_{5}}{\tau} & = & e^{2}C\chi EB.\label{eq:conserved_current_02}\end{aligned}$$ The conservation equation for $j_{e}^{\mu}$ is automatically satisfied with $\mu_{e}=0$ and $E^{\mu},B^{\mu}$ taking the form of Eq. (\[eq:EB\_02\]).
Before we end this section, we make some remarks about the simplified equations with longitudinal boost invariance. To enforce the fluid velocity not accelerated, the EM field are assumed to take the form as Eq. (\[eq:EB\_02\]). Using Maxwell’s equations the energy conservation equation $u_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}T^{\mu\nu}=0$ is reduced to Eq. (\[eq:energy\_density\_03\]). The momentum conservation equation $\Delta_{\mu\alpha}\partial_{\nu}T^{\mu\nu}=0$ is reduced to Eq. (\[eq:non-acc\]) meaning that the fluid velocity always takes value in (\[eq:Bjokren\_velocity\_01\]). Maxwell’s equations (\[eq:Maxwell\_01a\], \[eq:Maxwell\_01b\]) are simplified to Eqs. (\[eq:Maxwell\_02a\], \[eq:Maxwell\_02b\]). The chiral charge conservation equation in Eq. (\[eq:currents\_con\_01\]) is simplified to Eq. (\[eq:conserved\_current\_02\]).
Analytic solutions {#sec:Approximate-analytic-solutions}
==================
We will use the non-conserved charges method [@Csorgo:2003rt; @Shokri:2017xxn] to solve Eqs. (\[eq:Maxwell\_02a\], \[eq:Maxwell\_02b\], \[eq:energy\_density\_03\], \[eq:conserved\_current\_02\]) with the EoS (\[eq:eos\_01\]) or (\[eq:eos\_02\]).
The non-conserved charges method is to solve the equation for $f(\tau)$ in the following form $$\frac{d}{d\tau}f(\tau)+m\frac{f(\tau)}{\tau}=f(\tau)\frac{d}{d\tau}\lambda(\tau),\label{eq:noncharge_01}$$ where $m$ is a constant and $\lambda(\tau)$ is a known function. The general solution is $$f(\tau)=f(\tau_{0})\exp\left[\lambda(\tau)-\lambda(\tau_{0})\right]\left(\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\right)^{m},\label{eq:general_form_01}$$ where $\tau_{0}$ is an initial proper time and $f(\tau_{0})$ is determined by an initial value at $\tau_{0}$. In this paper we will rewrite Eqs. (\[eq:Maxwell\_02a\], \[eq:Maxwell\_02b\], \[eq:energy\_density\_03\], \[eq:conserved\_current\_02\]) into the form of Eq. (\[eq:noncharge\_01\]) and obtain the solutions in the form of Eq. (\[eq:general\_form\_01\]).
Note that generally $f$ can also be a function of rapidity $\eta$ [@Csorgo:2003rt; @Shokri:2017xxn]. However, in this paper we focus on the central rapidity region in heavy ion collisions which implies $\eta\simeq0$ with longitudinal boost invariance, therefore we will not consider the rapidity dependence.
From Eq. (\[eq:Maxwell\_02b\]), we immediately obtain $$\begin{aligned}
B(\tau) & = & B_{0}\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau},\label{eq:B_03}\end{aligned}$$ where $B_{0}=B(\tau_{0})$ is the initial value of the magnetic field. We see that the proper time behavior of the magnetic field seems to be the same as the case without CME [@Pu:2016ayh; @Roy:2015kma; @Pu:2016bxy]. But we will show in Sec. \[subsec:Discussion-and-physical\] the contribution from the CME and finite conductivity to the EM field appear in the Lab frame.
EoS (\[eq:eos\_01\]) {#subsec:For-EoS-1}
---------------------
For the EoS (\[eq:eos\_01\]), we will solve Eq. (\[eq:Maxwell\_02a\]) with Eq. (\[eq:conserved\_current\_02\]) to obtain $n_{5}(\tau)$ and $E(\tau)$. Then we insert $n_{5}(\tau)$ and $E(\tau)$ into Eq. (\[eq:energy\_density\_03\]) to obtain the energy-density $\varepsilon(\tau)$.
We need to put Eqs. (\[eq:Maxwell\_02a\], \[eq:conserved\_current\_02\]) into the form of Eq. (\[eq:noncharge\_01\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\tau}E+\frac{E}{\tau} & = & E\frac{d}{d\tau}\mathcal{E},\nonumber \\
\frac{d}{d\tau}n_{5}+\frac{n_{5}}{\tau} & = & n_{5}\frac{d}{d\tau}\mathcal{N},\label{eq:EN_04}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\tau}\mathcal{E} & = & -\sigma-\chi\xi\frac{B}{E},\nonumber \\
\frac{d}{d\tau}\mathcal{N} & = & \frac{e^{2}C\chi EB}{n_{5}},\label{eq:EN_03}\end{aligned}$$ and $\xi$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:CME\_coefficient\_01\]) and depends on $n_{5}$ through the EoS (\[eq:eos\_01\]). Following Eq. (\[eq:general\_form\_01\]), the formal solutions are in the form $$\begin{aligned}
n_{5}(\tau) & = & n_{5,0}\exp\left[\mathcal{N}(\tau)-\mathcal{N}(\tau_{0})\right]\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau},\nonumber \\
E(\tau) & = & E_{0}\exp\left[\mathcal{E}(\tau)-\mathcal{E}(\tau_{0})\right]\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau},\label{eq:nE_00}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{5,0}=n_{5}(\tau_{0})$ and $E_{0}=E(\tau_{0})$. Inserting the above $n_{5}(\tau)$ and $E(\tau)$ as well as $B(\tau)$ in Eq. (\[eq:B\_03\]) into Eq. (\[eq:EN\_03\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\tau}x & = & -\sigma x-\frac{a_{1}}{\tau_{0}}\left(\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\right)^{1/3}y^{1/3},\nonumber \\
\frac{d}{d\tau}y & = & a_{2}\frac{x}{\tau},\label{eq:xy_01}\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the new variables $$\begin{aligned}
x(\tau) & = & \exp\left[\mathcal{E}(\tau)-\mathcal{E}(\tau_{0})\right],\nonumber \\
y(\tau) & = & \exp\left[\mathcal{N}(\tau)-\mathcal{N}(\tau_{0})\right],\end{aligned}$$ with $x(\tau_{0})=y(\tau_{0})=1$, and $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ are dimensionless constants determined by the initial conditions $$\begin{aligned}
a_{1} & = & eC\chi\left(\frac{n_{5,0}}{a}\right)^{1/3}\frac{B_{0}}{E_{0}}\tau_{0},\nonumber \\
a_{2} & = & \frac{e^{2}C\chi E_{0}B_{0}\tau_{0}}{n_{5,0}}.\end{aligned}$$ Instead of solving Eqs. (\[eq:Maxwell\_02a\], \[eq:conserved\_current\_02\]) or Eq. (\[eq:EN\_04\]), now we only need to solve Eq. (\[eq:conserved\_current\_02\]) with the initial condition $x(\tau_{0})=y(\tau_{0})=1$. We see that both $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ are linearly proportional to the anomaly constant $C$ which is linearly proportional to the Planck constant. This means $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ are of quantum nature.
Now we try to solve Eq. (\[eq:xy\_01\]) under some approximations. We can rewrite Eq. (\[eq:xy\_01\]) into an integral form $$\begin{aligned}
x(\tau) & = & e^{-\sigma(\tau-\tau_{0})}-\frac{a_{1}}{\tau_{0}}e^{-\sigma\tau}\int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau}d\tau^{\prime}e^{\sigma\tau^{\prime}}\left(\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau^{\prime}}\right)^{1/3}y^{1/3}(\tau^{\prime}),\nonumber \\
y(\tau) & = & 1+a_{2}\int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau}d\tau^{\prime}\frac{x(\tau^{\prime})}{\tau^{\prime}}.\label{eq:x-y-tau}\end{aligned}$$ Since $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ terms are quantum corrections as $a_{1},a_{2}\propto\hbar$, we can deal with these terms as perturbations to the classical terms, so Eq. (\[eq:xy\_01\]) or (\[eq:x-y-tau\]) can be solved order by order in powers of $\hbar$.
To the linear order in $\hbar$, we have the solutions for $x(\tau)$ and $y(\tau)$
$$\begin{aligned}
x(\tau) & = & e^{-\sigma(\tau-\tau_{0})}-\frac{a_{1}}{\tau_{0}^{2/3}}e^{-\sigma\tau}[\tau_{0}^{2/3}\textrm{E}_{1/3}(-\sigma\tau_{0})-\tau^{2/3}\textrm{E}_{1/3}(-\sigma\tau)],\\
y(\tau) & = & 1+a_{2}\left[e^{\sigma\tau_{0}}-a_{1}\textrm{E}_{1/3}(-\sigma\tau_{0})\right][\textrm{E}_{1}(\sigma\tau_{0})-\textrm{E}_{1}(\sigma\tau)],\end{aligned}$$
where $\textrm{E}_{n}(z)\equiv\int_{1}^{\infty}dtt^{-n}e^{-zt}$ is the generated exponential integral. Then we obtain the solutions for $E(\tau)$ and $n_{5}(\tau)$ $$\begin{aligned}
E(\tau) & = & E_{0}\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\left\{ e^{-\sigma(\tau-\tau_{0})}-\frac{a_{1}}{\tau_{0}^{2/3}}e^{-\sigma\tau}[\tau_{0}^{2/3}\textrm{E}_{1/3}(-\sigma\tau_{0})-\tau^{2/3}\textrm{E}_{1/3}(-\sigma\tau)]\right\} ,\nonumber \\
n_{5}(\tau) & = & n_{5,0}\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\left\{ 1+a_{2}e^{\sigma\tau_{0}}[\textrm{E}_{1}(\sigma\tau_{0})-\textrm{E}_{1}(\sigma\tau)]\right\} .\label{eq:EN_A_01}\end{aligned}$$ At early proper time, $\tau\rightarrow\tau_{0}$, we can expand $\textrm{E}_{n}(\tau)$ near $\tau_{0}$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
E(\tau) & \simeq & E_{0}\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\left[e^{-\sigma(\tau-\tau_{0})}-\frac{a_{1}}{\tau_{0}}(\tau-\tau_{0})+a_{1}\frac{1+3\tau_{0}\sigma}{6\tau_{0}^{2}}(\tau-\tau_{0})^{2}\right],\nonumber \\
n_{5}(\tau) & \simeq & n_{5,0}\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\left\{ 1+a_{2}\frac{\tau-\tau_{0}}{\tau_{0}}-a_{2}\frac{1+\sigma\tau_{0}}{2\tau_{0}^{2}}(\tau-\tau_{0})^{2}\right\} .\end{aligned}$$ Finally the energy density and the pressure can be solved by using the solutions for $\mu_{5},E,B$. From Eq. (\[eq:energy\_density\_03\]), we obtain the energy density $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon(\tau) & = & \varepsilon_{0}\left(\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\right)^{1+c_{s}^{2}}(1+\Delta\varepsilon),\nonumber \\
\Delta\varepsilon(\tau) & = & \frac{1}{\varepsilon_{0}}\int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau}d\tau^{\prime}\left(\frac{\tau^{\prime}}{\tau_{0}}\right)^{1+c_{s}^{2}}\left[\sigma E^{2}(\tau^{\prime})+\chi\xi(\tau^{\prime})E(\tau^{\prime})B(\tau^{\prime})\right].\label{eq:end_01}\end{aligned}$$
![The normalized electric field $E/E_{0}$ and chiral charge density $n_{5}/n_{5,0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xy\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{2}=\pm0.2$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. In the last row, we fix $(a_{1},a_{2})=\pm(0.05,0.02)$ and change the values of $\sigma/\tau_{0}$. \[fig:EN\_n\]](ENa1 "fig:")![The normalized electric field $E/E_{0}$ and chiral charge density $n_{5}/n_{5,0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xy\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{2}=\pm0.2$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. In the last row, we fix $(a_{1},a_{2})=\pm(0.05,0.02)$ and change the values of $\sigma/\tau_{0}$. \[fig:EN\_n\]](NEa1 "fig:")
![The normalized electric field $E/E_{0}$ and chiral charge density $n_{5}/n_{5,0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xy\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{2}=\pm0.2$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. In the last row, we fix $(a_{1},a_{2})=\pm(0.05,0.02)$ and change the values of $\sigma/\tau_{0}$. \[fig:EN\_n\]](ENa2 "fig:")![The normalized electric field $E/E_{0}$ and chiral charge density $n_{5}/n_{5,0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xy\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{2}=\pm0.2$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. In the last row, we fix $(a_{1},a_{2})=\pm(0.05,0.02)$ and change the values of $\sigma/\tau_{0}$. \[fig:EN\_n\]](NEa2 "fig:")
![The normalized electric field $E/E_{0}$ and chiral charge density $n_{5}/n_{5,0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xy\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{2}=\pm0.2$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. In the last row, we fix $(a_{1},a_{2})=\pm(0.05,0.02)$ and change the values of $\sigma/\tau_{0}$. \[fig:EN\_n\]](ENsigma "fig:")![The normalized electric field $E/E_{0}$ and chiral charge density $n_{5}/n_{5,0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xy\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{2}=\pm0.2$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. In the last row, we fix $(a_{1},a_{2})=\pm(0.05,0.02)$ and change the values of $\sigma/\tau_{0}$. \[fig:EN\_n\]](NEsigma "fig:")
We can also solve Eq. (\[eq:xy\_01\]) numerically. We choose the initial proper time $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$. The values of the electric conductivity vary in different situations. The lattice QCD calculations give $\sigma\sim5.8T/T_{c}\textrm{ MeV}$ [@Aarts:2007wj; @Ding:2010ga; @Tuchin:2013ie], while in holographic QCD models it takes the value $\sigma\sim20-30\textrm{ MeV}$ for $T=200\textrm{ MeV}$ [@Pu:2014cwa; @Pu:2014fva]. For $\sigma$ in the weakly coupled QGP at finite temperature and chemical potential, see, e.g. Ref. [@Chen:2013tra]. In our numerical calculation, we choose $\sigma\sim5-30\textrm{ MeV}\simeq0.04-0.25\tau_{0}$.
![The energy density correction $\Delta\varepsilon$ ($\times100$) as functions the proper time $\tau$. The parameters are set to $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, $E_{0}/\epsilon_{0}=0.1$, $B_{0}/\epsilon_{0}=0.2$, $\mu_{5,0}/\tau_{0}=1$, and $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$. The solid lines are numerical solutions of Eq. (\[eq:xy\_01\]) and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]). In the left panel, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$ and change the values of $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$. In the right panel, we fix $(a_{1},a_{2})=\pm(0.05,0.02)$ and change the values of $\sigma/\tau_{0}$. \[fig:end\_n\]](enda1a2 "fig:")![The energy density correction $\Delta\varepsilon$ ($\times100$) as functions the proper time $\tau$. The parameters are set to $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, $E_{0}/\epsilon_{0}=0.1$, $B_{0}/\epsilon_{0}=0.2$, $\mu_{5,0}/\tau_{0}=1$, and $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$. The solid lines are numerical solutions of Eq. (\[eq:xy\_01\]) and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]). In the left panel, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$ and change the values of $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$. In the right panel, we fix $(a_{1},a_{2})=\pm(0.05,0.02)$ and change the values of $\sigma/\tau_{0}$. \[fig:end\_n\]](endsigma "fig:")
In Fig. \[fig:EN\_n\], we plot the normalized electric field $E/E_{0}$ and chiral charge density $n_{5}/n_{5,0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. The solid lines are the numerical results from Eqs. (\[eq:xy\_01\]), while the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]). Note that the approximate analytic solution for $E(\tau)$ is independent of $a_{2}$ and $n_{5}(\tau)$ independent of $a_{1}$ and $\sigma$. From these results, we see that the approximation works very well for small $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$. For positive $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$, $E$ decay faster as $a_{1}$ increases, while for negative $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$, $E$ decay slower as $|a_{1}|$ increases. For positive $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$, $n_{5}$ decays slower as $a_{2}$ grows, while for negative $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$, $n_{5}$ decays faster as $|a_{2}|$ grows. Such behaviors are obvious in the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]).
We observe that for large positive $a_{1}$ or large $\sigma$ with positive $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$, $E/E_{0}$ can be negative at late proper time. It means that the electric field flips its sign at the late time. From Eq. (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]), one can see that a very large $a_{1}$ in the second term may dominate and make $E/E_{0}$ negative. Since $a_{1}$ is proportional to the initial chiral charge density, such a behavior may come from the competition between the anomalous conservation equation $\partial_{\mu}j_{5}^{\mu}=-CE\cdot B$ and Maxwell’s equations.
One may expect that $n_{5}$ may have oscillation with time because it can be converted from the magnetic helicity and vice versa [@Akamatsu2013]. However, since the medium is expanding, the possible oscillation of $n_{5}$ is outperformed by its decay $n_{5}/n_{5,0}\sim\tau_{0}/\tau$.
In Fig. \[fig:end\_n\], we show the results of $\Delta\varepsilon$ in Eq. (\[eq:end\_01\]) which is amplified by a factor 100. The solid lines are numerical results from Eq. (\[eq:xy\_01\]), while the dashed lines are given by the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]). Even with 100 times amplification of the difference, we see that the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]) still works well. For both positive and negative $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$, $\Delta\varepsilon$ are positive because the first term dominates over the second one inside the square brackets in Eq. (\[eq:end\_01\]).
EoS (\[eq:eos\_02\]) {#subsec:For-EoS-2}
--------------------
For EoS (\[eq:eos\_02\]), the equations for the energy density $\varepsilon(\tau)$, $E(\tau)$ and $n_{5}(\tau)$ are coupled together. We need to rewrite Eqs. (\[eq:energy\_density\_03\], \[eq:Maxwell\_02a\], \[eq:conserved\_current\_02\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\tau}\varepsilon+(1+c_{s}^{2})\varepsilon & = & \varepsilon\frac{d}{d\tau}\mathcal{L},\nonumber \\
\frac{d}{d\tau}E+\frac{E}{\tau} & = & E\frac{d}{d\tau}\mathcal{E},\nonumber \\
\frac{d}{d\tau}n_{5}+\frac{n_{5}}{\tau} & = & n_{5}\frac{d}{d\tau}\mathcal{N},\label{eq:EN_04-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\tau}\mathcal{L} & = & \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\sigma E^{2}+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}eC\chi\mu_{5}EB,\nonumber \\
\frac{d}{d\tau}\mathcal{E} & = & -\sigma-eC\chi\mu_{5}\frac{B}{E},\nonumber \\
\frac{d}{d\tau}\mathcal{N} & = & \frac{e^{2}C\chi EB}{n_{5}}.\label{eq:EN_03-1}\end{aligned}$$ With the help of Eq. (\[eq:general\_form\_01\]), the solutions are, $$\varepsilon(\tau)=\varepsilon_{0}\left(\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\right)^{1+c_{s}^{2}}\exp\left[\mathcal{L}(\tau)-\mathcal{L}(\tau_{0})\right],$$ and $n_{5}(\tau)$ and $E(\tau)$ are similar to Eq. (\[eq:nE\_00\]).
From the EoS (\[eq:eos\_02\]), one can express all thermodynamic quantities as functions of $T$ and $\mu_{5}$. Since the critical temperature $T_{c}\sim200\textrm{ MeV}$ is much larger than the chiral chemical potential in relativistic heavy ion collisions, i.e. $\mu_{5}\ll T$, all terms proportional to $\mu_{5}$ in the thermodynamic relations are negligible. As a consequence, we obtain $$\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{0}\left(\frac{T}{T_{0}}\right)^{1+c_{s}^{-2}}+\mathcal{O}(\mu_{5}^{2}/T^{2}),$$ where $\varepsilon_{0}=\varepsilon(\tau_{0})$ and $T_{0}=T(\tau_{0})$. By introducing, $$\begin{aligned}
x(\tau) & = & \exp\left[\mathcal{E}(\tau)-\mathcal{E}(\tau_{0})\right],\nonumber \\
y(\tau) & = & \exp\left[\mathcal{N}(\tau)-\mathcal{N}(\tau_{0})\right],\nonumber \\
z(\tau) & = & \exp\left[\mathcal{L}(\tau)-\mathcal{L}(\tau_{0})\right],\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[eq:EN\_03-1\]) is reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\tau}x & = & -\sigma x-\frac{a_{1}}{\tau_{0}}y(\tau)\left(\frac{\tau}{\tau_{0}}\right)^{-1+2c_{s}^{2}}z^{-2c_{s}^{2}/(1+c_{s}^{2})},\nonumber \\
\frac{d}{d\tau}y & = & a_{2}\frac{x(\tau)}{\tau},\nonumber \\
\frac{d}{d\tau}z & = & \sigma\frac{E_{0}^{2}}{\varepsilon_{0}}\left(\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\right)^{1-c_{s}^{2}}x^{2}(\tau)+\frac{a_{3}}{\tau_{0}}\left(\frac{\tau}{\tau_{0}}\right)^{-2+3c_{s}^{2}}x(\tau)y(\tau)z^{-2c_{s}^{2}/(1+c_{s}^{2})},\label{eq:xyz_01}\end{aligned}$$ where $x(\tau_{0})=y(\tau_{0})=z(\tau_{0})=1$, and $a_{1}$, $a_{2}$ and $a_{3}$ are dimensionless constants determined by the initial conditions $$\begin{aligned}
a_{1} & = & eC\chi\frac{B_{0}n_{5,0}}{aT_{0}^{2}E_{0}}\tau_{0},\nonumber \\
a_{2} & = & \frac{e^{2}C\chi E_{0}B_{0}}{n_{5,0}}\tau_{0},\nonumber \\
a_{3} & = & \frac{eC\chi}{a}\frac{n_{5,0}E_{0}B_{0}}{\varepsilon_{0}T_{0}^{2}}\tau_{0}.\end{aligned}$$ These dimensionless constants are all linearly proportional to $\hbar$ through the anomaly constant $C$, which means they are of quantum nature. So we can deal with the terms proportional to $a_{1},$ $a_{2}$ and $a_{3}$ in Eq.(\[eq:xyz\_01\]) as perturbations to the classical terms, and Eq. (\[eq:xyz\_01\]) can be solved order by order in powers of $\hbar$.
![The normalized electric field $E/E_{0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$ and $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}=0.1$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xyz\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:sol\_02\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1,$ $a_{2}=\pm0.2$, $a_{3}=\pm0.10$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. In the last row, we fix $(a_{1},a_{2})=\pm(0.05,0.02)$ and change the values of $\sigma/\tau_{0}$. \[fig:ET\]](ETa1 "fig:")![The normalized electric field $E/E_{0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$ and $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}=0.1$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xyz\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:sol\_02\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1,$ $a_{2}=\pm0.2$, $a_{3}=\pm0.10$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. In the last row, we fix $(a_{1},a_{2})=\pm(0.05,0.02)$ and change the values of $\sigma/\tau_{0}$. \[fig:ET\]](ETa2 "fig:")
![The normalized electric field $E/E_{0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$ and $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}=0.1$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xyz\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:sol\_02\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1,$ $a_{2}=\pm0.2$, $a_{3}=\pm0.10$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. In the last row, we fix $(a_{1},a_{2})=\pm(0.05,0.02)$ and change the values of $\sigma/\tau_{0}$. \[fig:ET\]](ETa3 "fig:")![The normalized electric field $E/E_{0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$ and $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}=0.1$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xyz\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:sol\_02\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1,$ $a_{2}=\pm0.2$, $a_{3}=\pm0.10$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. In the last row, we fix $(a_{1},a_{2})=\pm(0.05,0.02)$ and change the values of $\sigma/\tau_{0}$. \[fig:ET\]](ETsigma "fig:")
To the linear order in $\hbar$, we have the solutions for $x(\tau)$, $y(\tau)$ and $z(\tau)$
$$\begin{aligned}
x(\tau) & = & e^{-\sigma(\tau-\tau_{0})}-\frac{a_{1}}{\tau_{0}}e^{-\sigma\tau}\int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau}d\tau^{\prime}e^{\sigma\tau^{\prime}}\left(\frac{\tau^{\prime}}{\tau_{0}}\right)^{-1+2c_{s}^{2}}[z_{0}(\tau^{\prime})]^{-2c_{s}^{2}/(1+c_{s}^{2})},\nonumber \\
y(\tau) & = & 1+a_{2}e^{\sigma\tau_{0}}[\textrm{E}_{1}(\sigma\tau_{0})-\textrm{E}_{1}(\sigma\tau)],\nonumber \\
z(\tau) & = & z_{0}(\tau)+\frac{a_{3}}{\tau_{0}}\int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau}d\tau^{\prime}\left(\frac{\tau^{\prime}}{\tau_{0}}\right)^{-2+3c_{s}^{2}}e^{-\sigma(\tau^{\prime}-\tau_{0})}[z_{0}(\tau^{\prime})]^{-2c_{s}^{2}/(1+c_{s}^{2})},\end{aligned}$$
where $$z_{0}(\tau)=1+\sigma\frac{E_{0}^{2}}{\varepsilon_{0}}e^{2\sigma\tau_{0}}[\tau_{0}\textrm{E}_{1-c_{s}^{2}}(2\sigma\tau_{0})-\tau\left(\frac{\tau}{\tau_{0}}\right)^{c_{s}^{2}-1}\textrm{E}_{1-c_{s}^{2}}(2\sigma\tau^{\prime})].$$ We can further simplify the integration in $x(\tau)$ and $z(\tau)$. Since initial energy density $\varepsilon_{0}$ is much larger than the initial energy of the EM fields $\varepsilon_{0}\gg B_{0}^{2},E_{0}^{2},E_{0}B_{0}$ (see, e.g., Ref. [@Roy:2015coa] for the values of $B_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}$ in the event-by-event simulation of relativistic heavy ion collisions), we can further simplify the integration in $x(\tau)$ and $z(\tau)$ in the linear order in $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
x(\tau) & = & e^{-\sigma(\tau-\tau_{0})}-\frac{a_{1}}{\tau_{0}}e^{-\sigma\tau}[\tau_{0}\textrm{E}_{1-2c_{s}^{2}}(-\sigma\tau_{0})-\tau\left(\frac{\tau}{\tau_{0}}\right)^{-1+2c_{s}^{2}}\textrm{E}_{1-2c_{s}^{2}}(-\sigma\tau)]+\mathcal{O}(a_{i}^{2},a_{i}E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}),\nonumber \\
z(\tau) & = & 1+\sigma\frac{E_{0}^{2}}{\varepsilon_{0}}e^{2\sigma\tau_{0}}[\tau_{0}\textrm{E}_{1-c_{s}^{2}}(2\sigma\tau_{0})-\tau\left(\frac{\tau}{\tau_{0}}\right)^{c_{s}^{2}-1}\textrm{E}_{1-c_{s}^{2}}(2\sigma\tau)]\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{a_{3}}{\tau_{0}}e^{\sigma\tau_{0}}[\tau_{0}\textrm{E}_{2-3c_{s}^{2}}(\sigma\tau_{0})-\tau\left(\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\right)^{2-3c_{s}^{2}}\textrm{E}_{2-3c_{s}^{2}}(\sigma\tau)]+\mathcal{O}(a_{i}^{2},a_{i}E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}).\end{aligned}$$
![The normalized electric field $n_{5}/n_{5,0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$ and $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}=0.1$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xyz\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:sol\_02\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1,$ $a_{2}=\pm0.2$, $a_{3}=\pm0.10$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. \[fig:NT\_1\]](NTa1 "fig:")![The normalized electric field $n_{5}/n_{5,0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$ and $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}=0.1$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xyz\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:sol\_02\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1,$ $a_{2}=\pm0.2$, $a_{3}=\pm0.10$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. \[fig:NT\_1\]](NTa2 "fig:")
![The normalized electric field $n_{5}/n_{5,0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$ and $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}=0.1$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xyz\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:sol\_02\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1,$ $a_{2}=\pm0.2$, $a_{3}=\pm0.10$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. \[fig:NT\_1\]](NTa3 "fig:")![The normalized electric field $n_{5}/n_{5,0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$ and $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}=0.1$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xyz\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:sol\_02\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1,$ $a_{2}=\pm0.2$, $a_{3}=\pm0.10$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. \[fig:NT\_1\]](NTsigma "fig:")
![The normalized electric field $\varepsilon/\varepsilon_{0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$ and $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}=0.1$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xyz\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:sol\_02\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1,$ $a_{2}=\pm0.2$, $a_{3}=\pm0.10$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. \[fig:endT\_1\]](endTa1 "fig:")![The normalized electric field $\varepsilon/\varepsilon_{0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$ and $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}=0.1$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xyz\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:sol\_02\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1,$ $a_{2}=\pm0.2$, $a_{3}=\pm0.10$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. \[fig:endT\_1\]](endTa2 "fig:")
![The normalized electric field $\varepsilon/\varepsilon_{0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$ and $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}=0.1$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xyz\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:sol\_02\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1,$ $a_{2}=\pm0.2$, $a_{3}=\pm0.10$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. \[fig:endT\_1\]](endTa3 "fig:") ![The normalized electric field $\varepsilon/\varepsilon_{0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We have chosen $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$ and $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}=0.1$. The solid lines are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:xyz\_01\]) numerically and the dashed lines are from the approximate analytic solution (\[eq:sol\_02\]). In the first row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1,$ $a_{2}=\pm0.2$, $a_{3}=\pm0.10$ and change the values of $a_{1}$. In the second row, we fix $\sigma/\tau_{0}=0.1$, $a_{1}=\pm0.5$ and change the values of $a_{2}$. \[fig:endT\_1\]](endTsigma "fig:")
Then we obtain the solutions for $E(\tau)$ , $n_{5}(\tau)$ and $\varepsilon(\tau)$ in the linear order in $\hbar$ and $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}$ $$\begin{aligned}
E(\tau) & = & E_{0}\left(\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\right)\left\{ e^{-\sigma(\tau-\tau_{0})}-a_{1}e^{-\sigma\tau}[\textrm{E}_{1-2c_{s}^{2}}(-\sigma\tau_{0})-\left(\frac{\tau}{\tau_{0}}\right)^{2c_{s}^{2}}\textrm{E}_{1-2c_{s}^{2}}(-\sigma\tau)]\right\} ,\nonumber \\
n_{5}(\tau) & = & n_{5,0}\left(\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\right)\left\{ 1+a_{2}e^{\sigma\tau_{0}}[\textrm{E}_{1}(\sigma\tau_{0})-\textrm{E}_{1}(\sigma\tau)]\right\} ,\nonumber \\
\varepsilon(\tau) & = & \epsilon_{0}\left(\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\right)^{1+c_{s}^{2}}\left\{ 1+\sigma\frac{E_{0}^{2}}{\varepsilon_{0}}e^{2\sigma\tau_{0}}[\tau_{0}\textrm{E}_{1-c_{s}^{2}}(2\sigma\tau_{0})-\tau\left(\frac{\tau}{\tau_{0}}\right)^{c_{s}^{2}-1}\textrm{E}_{1-c_{s}^{2}}(2\sigma\tau^{\prime})]\right.\nonumber \\
& & \left.+\frac{a_{3}}{\tau_{0}}e^{\sigma\tau_{0}}[\tau_{0}\textrm{E}_{2-3c_{s}^{2}}(\sigma\tau_{0})-\tau\left(\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\right)^{2-3c_{s}^{2}}\textrm{E}_{2-3c_{s}^{2}}(\sigma\tau)]\right\} .\label{eq:sol_02}\end{aligned}$$ In the leading order, we see $E(\tau)\sim\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}x(\tau)\sim\frac{1}{\tau}e^{-\sigma\tau}$, i.e. the electric field decays in the conducting medium [@Shokri:2017xxn]. In the leading order, $y(\tau)\sim1$ means $n_{5}\sim\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}$. We also see that when $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$, the analytic solutions of $E(\tau)$ and $n_{5}(\tau)$ have the same form as in Eq. (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]) in previous subsection.
In Figs. \[fig:ET\], \[fig:NT\_1\], \[fig:endT\_1\], we plot the normalized $E/E_{0}$, $n_{5}/n_{5,0}$ and $\varepsilon/\varepsilon_{0}$ as functions of the proper time $\tau$. We choose the $\tau_{0}=0.6\textrm{ fm/c}$, the speed of sound $c_{s}^{2}=1/3$ and $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}=0.1$. The solid lines in those figures are the numerical results from Eqs. (\[eq:xyz\_01\]), while the dashed lines are from approximate analytic solutions (\[eq:sol\_02\]). We see that the approximation works very well for small $a_{i}$.
In Fig. \[fig:ET\], we find $E/E_{0}$ is almost independent of $a_{2}$ and $a_{3}$, as expected in Eq. (\[eq:sol\_02\]). The $E/E_{0}$ decays rapidly as $a_{1}$ or $\sigma$ grows. Similar to the cases in Subsec. \[subsec:For-EoS-1\], $E/E_{0}$ can be negative at the late proper time. Such a behavior may come from the competition between the anomalous conservation equation $\partial_{\mu}j_{5}^{\mu}=-CE\cdot B$ and Maxwell’s equations.
In Fig. \[fig:NT\_1\], the numerical results show that $n_{5}$ is almost independent of $a_{1}$ and $a_{3}$ in small $a_{i}$ cases as expected in Eq. (\[eq:sol\_02\]). The $n_{5}$ decays slowly as $a_{2}$ increases and the decay behavior of $n_{5}$ is also not sensitive to variation of $\sigma$.
In Fig. \[fig:endT\_1\], we find that the time evolution of $\varepsilon(\tau)$ seems to be insensitive to $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$. Because $E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}\ll1$, the contribution from the second term in Eq. (\[eq:sol\_02\]) which is proportional to $\sigma E_{0}^{2}/\varepsilon_{0}$ is negligible. Interestingly, the energy density decays slower as $a_{3}$ grows. As shown in Fig. \[fig:endT\_1\], for a large value of $a_{3}$, e.g. $a_{3}=3.0$, the energy density even increases at early time. That is because the fluid gain the energy from the EM fields, i.e. the $a_{3}$ term in Eq. (\[eq:sol\_02\]) dominates. Similar behavior is also found in the ideal MHD with a background magnetic field [@Pu:2016ayh; @Roy:2015kma].
We make some remarks here. From analytic solutions (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\]) and (\[eq:sol\_02\]), we conclude that the CME and chiral anomaly as quantum corrections play a role to the time evolution of the electric field $E(\tau)$, the chiral charge density $n_{5}(\tau)$ and the energy density $\varepsilon(\tau)$. With an initial magnetic field parallel to the electric field (with $\chi=1$) and all $a_{i}$ ($i=1,2,3$) are positive, $E(\tau)$/$n_{5}(\tau)$ decay faster/slower than the cases without CME. If the initial magnetic field is anti-parallel to the electric field (with $\chi=-1$) and all $a_{i}$ are negative, $E(\tau)$/$n_{5}(\tau)$ decay slower/faster than the cases without CME. This behavior is consistent with the anomalous conservation equation $\partial_{\mu}j_{5}^{\mu}=-CE^{\mu}B_{\mu}=C\chi E(\tau)B(\tau)$ combined with Maxwell’s equations. For example, if $\chi=+1$, we have $\partial_{\tau}(n_{5}\tau)=C\tau\chi E(\tau)B(\tau)>0$, implying that $n_{5}(\tau)$ decays slower than the case $C=0$. From Eq (\[eq:Maxwell\_02a\]), we have $\partial_{\tau}[E\tau\exp(\sigma\tau)]=-\tau\chi\xi B(\tau)<0$, i.e. $E(\tau)$ decays faster than the case $C=0$. Such a behavior is due to that the chiral charge density is converted from the magnetic helicity. For $\chi=-1,$ the magnetic helicity will be converted from the chiral charge density so the behavior is opposite. The numerical results in Figs. \[fig:EN\_n\], \[fig:end\_n\], \[fig:ET\], \[fig:NT\_1\] and \[fig:endT\_1\] are consistent with the above observation.
Discussions {#subsec:Discussion-and-physical}
-----------
In Subsec. \[subsec:For-EoS-1\] and \[subsec:For-EoS-2\], we have obtained the approximate analytic solutions in two types of EoS. From Eq.(\[eq:B\_03\]), the proper time behavior of the magnetic field seems to be the same as the case without CME and finite conductivity, i.e. in an ideal MHD [@Pu:2016ayh; @Roy:2015kma; @Pu:2016bxy]. It seems to be counter-intuitive and inconsistent with the Maxwell’s equations. Our explanation is as follows. The $E^{\mu}$ and $B^{\mu}$ defined in the four vector form of EM fields in Eq. (\[eq:EB\_def01\]) are the fields in the co-moving frame of the fluid. The $B(\tau)$ in Eq.(\[eq:B\_03\]) is the length of the magnetic field three vector $\mathbf{B}$. To show the explicit contribution from CME and finite conductivity to each component of $\mathbf{B}$, we will compute EM fields three vector in the laboratory frame.
From Eq. (\[eq:EM\_tensor\_01\]), we observe that the EM field strength tensor $F^{\mu\nu}$ as well as the energy-momentum tensor $T^{\mu\nu}$ and fluid velocity $u^{\mu}$ is measured in the laboratory frame. According to the standard definitions of EM fields through the field strength tensor $F^{\mu\nu}$, i.e. $$\mathbf{E}_{L}^{i}=F^{i0},\;\mathbf{B}_{L}^{i}=-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ijk}F^{jk},$$ we can get the EM fields in the lab frame $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{E}_{L} & = & (\gamma v^{z}B(\tau),\;\chi\gamma E(\tau),\;0),\nonumber \\
\mathbf{B}_{L} & = & (-\gamma v^{z}\chi E(\tau),\;\gamma B(\tau),\;0),\label{eq:EB_lab}\end{aligned}$$ where in this subsection, we will use the lower index $L$ for the EM fields in the laboratory frame and $E(\tau)$ and $B(\tau)$ are the functions solved in previous Subsec. \[sec:Approximate-analytic-solutions\]. We find that in the lab frame $\mathbf{B}_{L}^{x}$ and $\mathbf{E}_{L}^{y}$ depend on the finite conductivity $\sigma$ and CME coefficient $\xi$ through $E(\tau)$.
Next, we will check the self-consistence of Maxwell’s equations. We will prove that the CME and finite conducting current will not generate the EM fields in the $z$ direction, i.e. $\mathbf{E}_{L}^{z}$ and $\mathbf{B}_{L}^{z}$ are always vanishing. From $$\nabla\times\mathbf{E}_{L}=-\partial_{t}\mathbf{B}_{L},$$ we observe that with Eq. (\[eq:EB\_lab\]) the $\partial_{t}\mathbf{B}_{L}^{z}=0$ and $\partial_{y}\mathbf{E}_{L}^{z}=-\partial_{t}\mathbf{B}_{L}^{x}+\partial_{z}\mathbf{E}_{L}^{y}=0$ are automatically satisfied. With the solution (\[eq:B\_03\]), we can also obtain that $\partial_{x}\mathbf{E}_{L}^{z}=\partial_{t}\mathbf{B}_{L}^{y}+\partial_{z}\mathbf{E}_{L}^{x}=0$.
Similarly from $$\nabla\cdot\mathbf{E}_{L}=n_{e},\;\nabla\cdot\mathbf{B}_{L}=0,$$ and Eq.(\[eq:EB\_lab\]), we can also obtain that $\partial_{z}\mathbf{E}_{L}^{z}=-\partial_{x}\mathbf{E}_{L}^{x}-\partial_{y}\mathbf{E}_{L}^{y}=0$ with $n_{e}=0$, and $\partial_{z}\mathbf{B}_{L}^{z}=-\partial_{x}\mathbf{B}_{L}^{x}-\partial_{y}\mathbf{B}_{L}^{y}=0$.
We will focus on the last equation $$\nabla\times\mathbf{B}_{L}=\mathbf{j}_{e}+\partial_{t}\mathbf{E}_{L}.$$ Different with the charge current in a static conductor, the charge current $\mathbf{j}_{e}$ of a relativistic fluid includes two parts. The part parallel to the fluid velocity $u^{\mu}$ read $$\mathbf{j}_{e,\parallel}=\sigma\mathbf{E}_{L,\parallel}+\xi\mathbf{B}_{L,\parallel},\label{eq:j_par_01}$$ and the other part perpendicular to the fluid velocity is given by $$\mathbf{j}_{e,\perp}=\sigma\gamma(\mathbf{E}_{L}+\mathbf{v}\times\mathbf{B}_{L})_{\perp}+\xi\gamma(\mathbf{B}_{L}-\mathbf{v}\times\mathbf{E}_{L})_{\perp},\label{eq:j_pend_01}$$ with $\mathbf{v}$ being the three vector of fluid velocity, i.e, $u^{\mu}=\gamma(1,\mathbf{v})$. In our case, since the fluid moves alone the $z$ direction, the charge current is given by $$\mathbf{j}_{e}=\left[\gamma(\mathbf{E}_{L}^{y}+v^{z}\mathbf{B}_{L}^{x})+\xi\gamma(\mathbf{B}_{L}^{y}-v^{z}\mathbf{E}_{L}^{x})\right]\mathbf{e}_{y}.$$ With Eq. (\[eq:EB\_lab\]), we find that $\partial_{y}\mathbf{B}_{L}^{z}=\partial_{t}\mathbf{E}_{L}^{x}+\partial_{z}\mathbf{B}_{L}^{y}=0$ and $\partial_{t}\mathbf{E}_{L}^{z}=0$. The space derivative of magnetic field in the $z$ direction is $$\partial_{x}\mathbf{B}_{L}^{z}=\partial_{z}\mathbf{B}_{L}^{x}-\sigma\gamma(\mathbf{E}_{L}^{y}+v^{z}\mathbf{B}_{L}^{x})-\xi\gamma(\mathbf{B}_{L}^{y}-v^{z}\mathbf{E}_{L}^{x})-\partial_{t}\mathbf{E}_{L}^{y},\label{eq:dBz_01}$$ where the left-handed-side of above equation equals to the right-handed-side of Eq. (\[eq:Maxwell\_02a\]). Thus, inserting our solutions in Eqs. (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\], \[eq:sol\_02\]) yields $\partial_{x}\mathbf{B}_{L}^{z}=0$.
Since both time and space derivatives of $\mathbf{E}_{L}^{z}$ and $\mathbf{B}_{L}^{z}$ vanish and initial $\mathbf{E}_{L}^{z}$ or $\mathbf{B}_{L}^{z}$ are chosen to be vanishing, we can conclude that in our setup the CME and conducting current will not generate EM fields in the $z$ direction in the lab frame. While only the space-time derivatives of EM fields in the transverse direction, e.g.$\mathbf{B}_{L}^{x}$ and $\mathbf{E}_{L}^{y}$, are non-vanishing. This is quite different with the case of a static media, in which the CME current can induce a circular magnetic field [@Akamatsu2013].
Thirdly, we will discuss the Bjorken fluid velocity. Usually, we can consider the right-handed-side of Eq. (\[eq:EM\_con\_02\]), as the covariant form of Lorentz force acting on the fluid. In the lab frame, we can rewrite it as $$F^{\nu\lambda}j_{e\lambda}=(j_{e,0}\mathbf{E}_{L},\;\mathbf{j}_{e}\times\mathbf{B}_{L}).$$ Since we have chosen the $\mu_{e}=0$, the electric field will not accelerate the fluid, i.e. the zeroth component $j_{e,0}\mathbf{E}_{L}=0$. The other component $\mathbf{j}_{e}\times\mathbf{B}_{L}$ is the Lorentz force driving by the magnetic field, where $\mathbf{j}_{e}$ is given by Eqs. (\[eq:j\_par\_01\], \[eq:j\_pend\_01\]). In our case, the EM fields with Lorentz force $\mathbf{j}_{e}\times\mathbf{B}_{L}$ is analogy to the so-called the force free fields (e.g. also see the discussion in the classical electrodynamics [@Chandrasekhar285; @Woltjer489] and recent studies in Ref. [@Hong:2012; @Xia:2016any]). Through Eqs. (\[eq:Du\_01\], \[eq:energy\_density\_03\]), we have already shown that the EM fields in our setup will not modify the fluid velocity.
At last, we will check the consistence of (anomalous) current conservation equations. Since Eqs. (\[eq:EN\_A\_01\], \[eq:sol\_02\]) are the solutions of anomalous current equation $\partial_{\mu}j_{5}^{\mu}=-CE\cdot B$, the anomalous current equation should be satisfied. Because EM fields are independent on $x,y$, the charge current conservation equation reduces to $\partial_{\mu}j_{e}^{\mu}=\partial_{t}j_{e,0}+\nabla\cdot\mathbf{j}_{e}=\partial_{z}\mathbf{j}_{e,z}$, with $\mathbf{j}_{e,z}=\mathbf{j}_{e,\parallel}=\sigma\mathbf{E}_{L,z}+\xi\mathbf{B}_{L,z}=0$. We can conclude that the (anomalous) current conservation equations are satisfied.
Before we end this section, we make some remarks here. We have computed the EM fields in the lab frame and found our solutions satisfy the Maxwell’s equations. In our setup, the CME and electric conducting current will not generate the EM fileds in $z$ direction in lab frame. It is quite different with the case in a static media. We have also shown the Lorentz force will not accelerate the fluid. At last, we have checked the self-consistence of (anomalous) current conservation equations.
Summary and conclusions {#sec:Summary-and-conclusion}
=======================
We have solved MHD equations with longitudinal boost invariance and transverse EM fields in the presence of the CME and finite electric conductivity. The MHD equations involve the energy-momentum, the electric charge and chiral charge (anomalous) conservation equations coupled with Maxwell’s equations. We consider two types of EoS corresponding to the large chiral chemical potential and the high temperature cases respectively. For further simplification, we consider the electric charge neutral fluid and set the electric charge density $n_{e}$ and its corresponding chemical potential $\mu_{e}$ vanish.
We assume the Bjorken form of the fluid velocity in the longitudinal direction. To keep the fluid velocity unchanged, we obtain the four-vector form of the electric and magnetic field which are orthogonal to the fluid velocity. To solve the MHD equations, we treat the terms with the anomaly constant which is proportional to the Planck constant $\hbar$ as perturbations. This is equivalent to an expansion in $\hbar$. Then we apply the non-conserved charge method to obtain the approximate analytic solutions. The comparison of the analytic solutions with the exact numerical results shows good agreement.
Finally we compute the EM field in three-vector form in the lab frame and show the contributions from the electric conductivity and the CME. According to Maxwell’s equations, in our setup, the CME and electrically conducting current only modify the EM fields in the transverse direction in the lab frame. The electric and magnetic field in the z-direction does not grow with time and space. The Lorentz force only changes the time evolution of thermodynamic quantities and does not accelerate the fluid.
Our results can provide a future test of complete numerical simulations of the MHD with the CME. Since the polarization of chiral fermions in the strong magnetic field is different from the ordinary magnetization which is called chiral Barnett effect [@Fukushima:2018osn], the current method can be applied to study the magnetization effect in the future.
S.P. would like to thank Masoud Shokri for helpful discussions. QW is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant No. 11535012 and No. 11890713, the 973 program under Grant No. 2015CB856902, and the Key Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences under the Grant No. XDPB09. SP is supported by One Thousand Talent Program for Young Scholars. IS is supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and The World Academy of Sciences (CAS-TWAS) Scholarship.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We investigate the dynamical properties of the two-bosons quantum walk in system with different degrees of coherence, where the effect of the coherence on the two-bosons quantum walk can be naturally introduced. A general analytical expression of the two-bosons correlation function for both pure states and mixed states is given. We propose a possible two-photon quantum-walk scheme with a mixed initial state and find that the two-photon correlation function and the average distance between two photons can be influenced by either the initial photon distribution, or the relative phase, or the degree of coherence. The propagation features of our numerical results can be explained by our analytical two-photon correlation function.
Keywords: two-particle quantum walk, degree of coherence, two-photon correlation function, pure state, mixed state
author:
- 'Li-Hua Lu$^1$, Shan Zhu and You-Quan Li$^{1,2}$'
title: 'The role of coherence on two-particle quantum walks'
---
Introduction
============
As the quantum mechanical counterparts of the classical random walk [@Ahar], the quantum random walk has been increasingly receiving attentions because of their potential applications range from quantum information to simulation of physical phenomena. For example, the quantum walk offers an advanced tool for building quantum algorithm [@Moh; @Shen; @Sal] that is shown to be of the primitive for universal quantum computations [@und; @Lov; @chi; @and]. We know that the quantum walk include two main classes that are discrete-time quantum walk and continuous-time quantum walk [@Jwa; @Far]. The continuous-time quantum walk can evolve continuously with time through tunneling between neighbors sites and does not require quantum coin to generate superposition of states. This means the continuous-time quantum walk can be implemented via a constant tunneling of quantum particles in several possible lattice sites. So far, the quantum walks of single particles have been studied in experiments by using either classical waves [@peret], single photons [@Sch; @broo], or single atoms [@Kars; @Wei]. Additionally, quantum walks of two correlated photons trapped in waveguide lattices were also studied in experiments [@Yar; @Alberto].
Note that many-particle quantum walks can exhibit more fascinating quantum features in contrast to single-particle quantum walks. The reason is that single-particle quantum walks can be exactly mapped to classical wave phenomena [@Knight] but for quantum walks of more than one indistinguishable particle, the classical theory can not provide sufficient descriptions. In Ref. [@omar] , the authors theoretically studied the discrete-time quantum walk of two particles and demonstrated the distinctly nonclassical correlations. Meanwhile, the effect of interactions between particles on quantum walk of two indistinguishable particles was theoretically studied in Ref. [@lahini; @Qin], where the system was assumed to be completely coherent and the influence of the degree of coherence was not studied. We know that except for the interaction between particles, the other factors, [[*e.g.*]{}]{}, the initial states, the quantum-walk parameters and the degree of coherence of the system, can also affect the features of two-particle quantum walks. Especially, we know that the major challenge to experimentally realize quantum walks of correlated particles is to find a low-decoherence system that can preserves the nonclassical features of quantum walks [@Alberto], which implies that the influence of the degree of coherence of the system on two-particle quantum walks is important. Then it is worthwhile to investigate the properties of two-particle quantum walks with attention to different degrees of coherence since the decoherence effects in quantum walks have potential algorithmic applications [@kendon].
In this paper, we propose a density matrix formulism to study the two-particle quantum walk where the degrees of coherence can be naturally introduced. With the help of Heisenberg equation of motion, we derive a general analytical expression of the two-particle correlation function. As a concrete example, we propose a possible two-photon quantum-walk scheme with a mixed initial state to exhibit the quantum features of the two-particle quantum walk via the two-particle correlation and the average distance between the two particles. Our result exhibits that the propagation of the two particles depends not only on the initial distribution of the two particles but also on the relative phase and the degree of coherence of the system. Such a propagation feature can be explained by our analytical two-particle correlation function. In the next section, we present the model and derive the analytical expression of the two-particle correlation. In Sec. \[sec:two-photon\], we propose a concrete scheme to show some dynamical features of two-particle quantum walks. Our main conclusions are summarized in Sec. \[sec:conc\].
A general formulation
======================
We consider a two-particle quantum walk in a one-dimensional lattice space. The propagation of the two particles is described by the evolution of the state of a tight-binding model, $$H=-\sum_{q}T_{q,q+1}(\hat{a}_q^\dagger\hat{a}_{q+1} + \mathrm{h.c.})
+\sum_q \beta_q\hat{a}_q^\dagger\hat{a}_q,$$ where the operators $a_{q}^\dag$ and $a_{q}$ create and annihilate a bosonic particle at site $q$, respectively. Here the parameter $T_{q,q+1}$ refers to the tunneling strength of particles between the nearest neighbor sites, and $$\beta_q=T_{q+1,q}+T_{q-1,q}.$$ Note that the above form of $\beta_q$ was picked to keep the probability conservation in the proposal of continuous-time quantum walk via decision tree [@Far] . Now more generally, the value of $\beta_q$ can be arbitrary due to the probability conservation is naturally satisfied in quantum mechanics. If the tunneling strength $T_{q,q+1}$ is a constant, $\beta_q$ will become a constant for the periodical boundary condition. In this case, the value of $\beta_q$ does not affect the dynamical properties of the quantum-walk system. Whereas, for the open boundary condition, the values of $\beta_q$ for the two boundary sites are different from that for the other sites. This can naturally introduce two defects to the quantum-walk system. Note that the effect of defects on single-particle quantum walks was studied in Ref. [@Li].
Since we consider a two-bosons system, the Fock bases describing the system are $$\label{eq:fockstate}
\ket{1}_q\ket{1}_r=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\delta_{q,r}}}\hat{a}_q^\dagger\hat{a}_r^\dagger\ket{\mathrm{vac}},$$ where $\delta_{q,r}$ denotes the Kronecker delta. Equation (\[eq:fockstate\]) represents a two-particle state with one on the $q$th site and the other one on the $r$th site. Note that $\ket{1}_q\ket{1}_r$ is regarded as identical to $\ket{1}_r\ket{1}_q$ for indistinguishable particles that we considered. Meanwhile, the two particles can be in the same site ([[*i.e.*]{}]{}, $q=r$) for bosonic particle that we considered. Thus the Hilbert space expanded by the aforementioned Fock bases is of $D=L(L+1)/2$ dimension. Here $L$ denotes the number of the sites. We know that the propagation of the two particles is determined not only by the property of the waveguide lattice but also by the two-particle input state. If the two particles are in a pure state at the initial time, the two-particle input state can be expressed as a wavefunction, namely, a coherent superposition of the Fock bases, $$\label{eq:purstates}
\ket{\psi}=\sum_{q,r}c_{q,r}\ket{1}_q\ket{1}_r,$$ where $\sum_{q,r}|c_{q,r}|^2=1$. However, if the two particles are in a mixed state at the initial time, the two-particle input state needs to be described by a density matrix rather than wavefunction. Such a density matrix is given by $$\label{eq:densitymatix}
\rho=\sum_{qr,q'r'}\rho_{qr,q'r'}\bigl(\ket{1}_q\ket{1}_r\bigr)\bigl(\bra{1}_{q'}\bra{1}_{r'}\bigr),$$ which is a $D\times D$ matrix. We know that $\textrm{Tr}\rho^2\leq(\textrm{Tr}\rho)^2$ where the equal sign holds only for pure states. In the following, we will focus on the two-particle quantum walk for the mixed input states.
Now we are in the position to study the propagation of the two particles with the help of Heisenberg equation of motion for the creation operators, namely, $$\label{eq:dye}
i\frac{\partial \hat{a}_q^\dagger}{\partial t}=\beta_q\hat{a}_q^\dagger+T_{q,q+1}\hat{a}_{q+1}^\dagger
+T_{q,q-1}\hat{a}_{q-1}^\dagger,$$ where we set $\hbar=1$ for simplicity in calculation. The creation operator $\hat{a}_q^\dagger$ at any time can be obtained with the help of Eq. (\[eq:dye\]), $$\label{eq:creation}
\hat{a}_q^\dagger(t)=\sum_r U_{q,r}(t)\hat{a}_r^\dagger(0),\quad
U(t)=e^{-iHt},$$ where $U_{q,r}(t)$ is the probability amplitude of a single particle transiting from the $q$th waveguide to the $r$th one. To exhibit the quantum behaviors of the two-particle quantum walk, let us firstly evaluate the two-particle correlation function $\Gamma_{k,l}(t)=\ave{\hat{a}_k^\dagger(t)\hat{a}_l^\dagger(t)\hat{a}_l(t)\hat{a}_k(t)}$ which manifests the probability that the two particles are coincident in the $k$th and the $l$th waveguide [@Yar; @Mattle]. Since the two-particle input state can be described by the density matrix given in Eq. (\[eq:densitymatix\]), the expectation value of any observable of the system can be calculated via $\ave{\hat{O}(t)}= \textrm{Tr}(\hat{O}(t)\rho)$. Then we obtain an expression of two-particle correlation function
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:twocorre}
&&\Gamma_{k,l}(t)=\sum_{q\neq r,q'\neq r'}\rho_{qr,q'r'}\Bigl(U_{kq'}U_{lr'}U_{lq}^*U_{kr}^*+U_{kq'}U_{lr'}U_{lr}^*U_{kq}^*
+U_{kr'}U_{lq'}U_{lq}^*U_{kr}^*+U_{kr'}U_{lq'}U_{lr}^*U_{kq}\Bigr)
\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{q,q'\neq r'}\sqrt{2}\rho_{qq,q'r'}\Bigl(U_{kq'}U_{lr'}U_{lq}^*U_{kq}^*+U_{kr'}U_{lq'}U_{lq}^*U_{kq}^*\Bigr)
+\sum_{q\neq r,q'}\sqrt{2}\rho_{qr,q'q'}\Bigl(U_{kq'}U_{lq'}U_{lq}^*U_{kr}^*+U_{kq'}U_{lq'}U_{lr}^*U_{kq}^*\Bigr)
\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{q,q'}2\rho_{qq,q'q'}U_{kq'}U_{lq'}U_{lq}^*U_{kq}^*,\end{aligned}$$
which presents a general form for either pure initial input states or mixed ones. One can obtain the two-particle correlation at any time as long as the density matrix corresponding to the input state is given. with the help of such an expression of two-particle correlation function, many dynamical features of two-particle quantum walk can be explained.
Two-photon quantum walk for a concrete input state {#sec:two-photon}
==================================================
In order to expose the quantum properties of two-particle quantum walks more clearly, we turn to a concrete example where the particles are assumed to be photons. We know that each beam can become two coherent beams after propagating through a grating [@sza] and the pure two-photon input states can be experimentally realized via injecting two coherent beams into waveguide lattice [@Yar]. Then we suppose that there are two incoherent light beams and the relation of their intensity is $\cos^2{\delta}$:$\sin^2{\delta}$. The two incoherent beams propagate through two gratings, respectively, and then simultaneously inject into the waveguide arrays. The two incoherent beams will create two pure two-photon states $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$, respectively [@Yar; @sza]. Because the initial two beams are not coherent, the initial state of the system needs to be described by the density matrix $$\rho=\cos^2\delta \ket{\psi_1}\bra{\psi_1}
+\sin^2\delta \ket{\psi_2}\bra{\psi_2}.$$
As an example, we take $\psi_1=\cos{\frac{\theta}{2}}\ket{2}_1+\sin{\frac{\theta}{2}}e^{i\phi}\ket{2}_0$ and $\psi_2=\ket{2}_1$, then the initial density matrix is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:exrho}
\rho = \rho_{00,11}\ket{2}_0\bra{2}_1 + \rho_{11,00}\ket{2}_1\bra{2}_0
+ \rho_{11,11}\ket{2}_1\bra{2}_1 + \rho_{00,00}\ket{2}_0\bra{2}_0\end{aligned}$$ with $\rho_{00,11}=\cos^2\delta\cos{\frac{\theta}{2}}\sin{\frac{\theta}{2}}e^{i\phi}$, $\rho_{11,00}=\rho_{00,11}^*$, $\rho_{11,11}=\cos^2\delta\cos^2{\frac{\theta}{2}}+\sin^2\delta$, and $\rho_{00,00}=\cos^2\delta\sin^2{\frac{\theta}{2}}$. Here $\ket{2}_q$ stands for $\ket{1}_q\ket{1}_q$ whose definition has been given in Eq. (\[eq:fockstate\]). We can find that the other matrix elements of $\rho$ are zeros except for the above four elements. Since the above four elements can be changed via $\delta$, $\theta$ and $\phi$, without losing the generality, we redefine them as $\rho_{00,00}=\alpha$, $\rho_{11,11}=1-\alpha$ and $\rho_{00,11}=\rho_{11,00}^*=e^{i\phi}\sqrt{\eta-1-4\alpha^2+4\alpha}/2$ with $0\leq\alpha\leq 1$. Here the parameter $\eta=2\textrm{Tr}(\rho^2)-1$ $(0\leq\eta\leq1)$ is introduced to characterize the degree of coherence [@lhlu]. We have $\eta=1$ when the system is in a pure state, otherwise $\eta<1$. With the help of Eq. (\[eq:twocorre\]), the two-photon correlation of the system for the mixed state shown in Eq. (\[eq:exrho\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:extwocre}
\Gamma_{q,r} = 2\gamma\textrm{Re}(e^{i\phi}U_{q0}U_{r0}U^*_{r1}U^*_{q1})
+2\alpha |U_{r0}U_{q0}|^2+2(1-\alpha)|U_{r1}U_{q1}|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma=\sqrt{\eta-1+4\alpha(1-\alpha)}$. This implies that the two-photon correlation depends not only on the initial probability distribution of the two photons but also on the degree of coherence and the relative phase of the system at the initial time. The first term in Eq. (\[eq:extwocre\]) is a coherent one that reveals well the quantum nature of two-photon quantum walk. Taking a pure initial state ([[*i.e.*]{}]{}, $\eta=1$) as an example, the two-photon correlation function (\[eq:extwocre\]) becomes $\Gamma=|\sqrt{2\alpha}e^{i\phi}U_{r0}U_{q0}+\sqrt{2(1-\alpha)}U_{r1}U_{q1}|^2$, which implies that the two-photon correlation can take place when the two photons from the 0th site propagate to the $q$th and the $r$th sites, respectively, or when the two photons from the 1th site to the $q$th and the $r$th sites, respectively. Due to the two photons are indistinguishable, the two paths can interfere, which is essentially the Hanbury Brown Twiss(HBT) interference [@Han].
Now we investigate the quantum features of a two-photon quantum walk by considering a waveguide arrays consisting of (2$l$+1) identical waveguides. In this case, the tunneling strengths between nearest-neighbor arrays are all the same, [[*i.e.*]{}]{}, $T_{q,r}=C$ with $C$ being a constant, and $\beta_q$ becomes a constant $2C$ for the periodical boundary condition we considered. Then $U_{q,r}(t)$ becomes $e^{i2Ct}i^{q-r}J_{q-r}(2Ct)$ where $J_q$ is the $q$th order Bessel function [@Led; @Yariv]. With the help of Eq. (\[eq:extwocre\]), we can write out the two-photon correlation function in terms of Bessel functions.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:twocrebf}
\Gamma_{q,r}(\tau) =-2\gamma\cos{\phi} J_q(\tau)J_r(\tau)J_{r-1}(\tau)J_{q-1}(\tau)
+2\alpha [ J_q(\tau) J_r(\tau) ]^2
+2(1-\alpha)[ J_{r-1}(\tau) J_{q-1}(\tau) ]^2.\end{aligned}$$
where $\tau=2Ct$.
![(Color online) Two-photon correlation at time $t=4(1/C)$ for different initial conditions. The initial condition is (a) $\alpha=1$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=0$ (b) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0$, $\phi=0$ (c) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0.5$, $\phi=0$ (d) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=0$ (e) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0.5$, $\phi=\pi$, and (f) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=\pi$. []{data-label="fig:tcou"}](twocra.eps "fig:"){width="48mm"}(a) ![(Color online) Two-photon correlation at time $t=4(1/C)$ for different initial conditions. The initial condition is (a) $\alpha=1$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=0$ (b) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0$, $\phi=0$ (c) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0.5$, $\phi=0$ (d) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=0$ (e) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0.5$, $\phi=\pi$, and (f) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=\pi$. []{data-label="fig:tcou"}](twocrb.eps "fig:"){width="48mm"}(b) ![(Color online) Two-photon correlation at time $t=4(1/C)$ for different initial conditions. The initial condition is (a) $\alpha=1$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=0$ (b) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0$, $\phi=0$ (c) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0.5$, $\phi=0$ (d) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=0$ (e) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0.5$, $\phi=\pi$, and (f) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=\pi$. []{data-label="fig:tcou"}](twocrc.eps "fig:"){width="48mm"}(c) ![(Color online) Two-photon correlation at time $t=4(1/C)$ for different initial conditions. The initial condition is (a) $\alpha=1$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=0$ (b) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0$, $\phi=0$ (c) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0.5$, $\phi=0$ (d) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=0$ (e) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0.5$, $\phi=\pi$, and (f) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=\pi$. []{data-label="fig:tcou"}](twocrd.eps "fig:"){width="48mm"}(d) ![(Color online) Two-photon correlation at time $t=4(1/C)$ for different initial conditions. The initial condition is (a) $\alpha=1$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=0$ (b) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0$, $\phi=0$ (c) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0.5$, $\phi=0$ (d) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=0$ (e) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0.5$, $\phi=\pi$, and (f) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=\pi$. []{data-label="fig:tcou"}](twocre.eps "fig:"){width="48mm"}(e) ![(Color online) Two-photon correlation at time $t=4(1/C)$ for different initial conditions. The initial condition is (a) $\alpha=1$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=0$ (b) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0$, $\phi=0$ (c) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0.5$, $\phi=0$ (d) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=0$ (e) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=0.5$, $\phi=\pi$, and (f) $\alpha=0.5$, $\eta=1$, $\phi=\pi$. []{data-label="fig:tcou"}](twocrf.eps "fig:"){width="48mm"}(f)
In Fig. \[fig:tcou\], we plotted the two-photon correlation matrix at time $t=4({1}/{C})$ for different initial conditions, where $1/C$ is the unit of time ([[*i.e.*]{}]{}, the time $t$ is in the unit of the inverse of tunneling strength). We can see that each particle can be found on either side of origin after propagation, which is reflected in the four symmetric peaks in Fig. \[fig:tcou\] (a). For this case ([[*i.e.*]{}]{}, $\alpha=1$ and $\eta=1$), the system is in a pure state and Eq. (\[eq:extwocre\]) becomes $\Gamma_{q,r}=2|U_{r0}U_{q0}|^2$ which is the same as the result in Ref. [@Yar]. Such a correlation function is just a product of the two classical probability distribution, so there is no interference and the photons propagate in the ballistic direction. From Fig. \[fig:tcou\] (b), we can find that just like Fig. \[fig:tcou\] (a), the two photons also favor to localize at the four corners of the correlation map. The reason is that there is no interference because the system is completely incoherent, which is confirmed by that the coherent term in Eq. (\[eq:extwocre\]) vanishes in the case of $\eta=0$. Whereas, with the increase of the degree of coherence, the coherent term emerges in the two-photon correlation function $\Gamma_{q,r}$, so the $\Gamma_{q,r}$ exhibits the properties of interference. Due to the existence of the Hanbury Brown-Twiss (HBT) interference, two local maximums emerge in the off-diagonal regions of the correlation matrix (see Fig. \[fig:tcou\] (c) and (d)). That implies that the two photons favor to far from each other which is in contrast to the case of Fig. \[fig:tcou\] (e) and (f) where except the initial relative phase $\phi$, the other parameters are the same as those in Fig. \[fig:tcou\] (c) and (d), respectively. This is reasonable because the coherent term in Eq. (\[eq:twocrebf\]) is in proportion to $\cos{\phi}$ for the periodical waveguide lattice we considered. Additionally, comparing the values of the maximums in Fig. \[fig:tcou\] (c) and (d), it is easy to find that the larger the degree of coherence is, the more distinct the interference effect of the system will be.
![(Color online) The time evolution of the distance between two photons for different initial conditions. The parameters are $\alpha=0.5$, and $\eta=1$ (left panel), $\eta=0.5$ (right panel).[]{data-label="fig:distanceevo"}](distanceevolution.eps){width="100mm"}
![(Color online) The dependence of the distance between two photons at time $t=4(1/C)$ on the degree of coherence (left panel) and the initial relative phase (right panel). The parameter is $\alpha=0.5$.[]{data-label="fig:distance"}](distanceetaphi.eps){width="100mm"}
To exhibit the propagation properties of the two photons, we also calculate the average distance between the two photons, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:distance}
\displaystyle d&=&-2\gamma \cos{\phi}\sum_{q>r}(q-r)J_q(\tau)J_r(\tau)J_{r-1}(\tau)J_{q-1}(\tau)\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{q>r}(q-r)\Bigl(2\alpha [ J_q(\tau) J_r(\tau) ]^2
+2(1-\alpha)[ J_{r-1}(\tau) J_{q-1}(\tau) ]^2\Bigr).
\end{aligned}$$ Here the first term is a coherence one that is affected by the degree of coherence of the system due to $\gamma=\sqrt{\eta-1+4\alpha(1-\alpha)}$. We plot the time evolution of the distance between the two photons in Fig. \[fig:distanceevo\], we can see that the distance between two photons is affected not only by the relative phase but also by the degree of coherence. In Fig. \[fig:distance\], we plot the dependence of the distance $d$ at time $t=4(1/C)$ on the degree of coherence and the initial relative phase. From the left panel of this figure, we can see that the distance between two photons becomes larger with the increase of the degree of coherence when $\phi=0$, which is contrast to the case of $\phi=\pi$. The reason for this phenomenon is that the HBT interference makes the two photons far from each when $0\leq\phi<\pi/2$, which can be confirmed by Fig. \[fig:tcou\] (c) and (d) where there are two maximums in the off-diagonal regions. Therefore, the distance between the two photons becomes larger with the increase of the degree of coherence due to the fact that the increase of the degree of coherence makes the interference effect more significant. Whereas, the case of $\pi/2\leq\phi<\pi$ is in contrast to that of $0\leq\phi<\pi/2$ because the two photons favor to stay together when $\pi/2\leq\phi<\pi$, which can be confirmed by Fig. \[fig:tcou\] (e) and (f). Note that when $\phi=\pi/2$, the interference term in the two-photon correlation function becomes zeros, so the degree of coherence does not affect the distance between two particles (see the dot-symbol line in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:distance\]). The right panel of Fig. \[fig:distance\] exhibits that the relative phase of the system at the initial time can affect the distance between two photons in the case of $\eta>0$ but such an effect vanishes in the case of $\eta=0$. That is reasonable because the distance between two photons is in proportion to $\cos{\phi}\sqrt{\eta-1-4\alpha^2+4\alpha}$ which can be found in Eq. (\[eq:distance\]). Additionally, we calculate the von Neumann entropy to show the evolution of the entanglement of the system. We split the system into two halves, $L$ and $R$, in the center of the system, and build the reduced density matrix $\rho_L$ of the subsystem $L$ at any time [@Schach]. Then we can calculate the von Neumann entropy of $\rho_L$ as $$S=-\sum_i\lambda_i\log_2\lambda_i,$$ where $\lambda_i$ are the non-zero eigenvalues of the matrix $\rho_L$. In Fig. \[fig:von\], we plot the time evolution of the von Neumann entropy of the left half of the system for different initial conditions.
![(Color online) The time evolution of the von Neumann entropy of the set of sites on the left part of the system. The parameters are $\eta=1$, $\phi=0$, and $L=15$.[]{data-label="fig:von"}](voentropy.eps){width="80mm"}
conclusion {#sec:conc}
==========
We proposed a density matrix formulism to study the properties of two-particle quantum walks where the effect of coherence was introduced naturally. We gave the general analytical expression of the two-particle correlation function which is correct for systems in both mixed states and pure states. We suggested a possible two-photon scheme to exhibit the more fascinating quantum features of two-particle random walks with mixed initial states. For such a concrete scheme, we calculated the two-photon correlation and the average distance between the two photons. The corresponding results manifested that the propagation of the two photons depends not only on the initial distribution of the two photons but also on the relative phase and the degree of coherence of the system. Such propagation features of the two photons were explained with the help of the analytical expression of the two-particle correlation function we obtained.
The work is supported by the NBRP of China (2014CB921201), the NSFC (11104244 and 11274272, 11434008), and by the Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities.
[99]{} Y. Aharonov, L. Davidovich, and N. Zagury: “Quantum random walks” Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 48, (1993), PP. 1687. M. Mohseni, P. Rebentrost, S. Lloyd, and A. Aspuru-Guzik: “Environment-assisted quantum walks in photosynthetic energy transfer”, J. Chem. Phys., Vol. 129, (2008), PP. 174106. N. Shenvi, J. Kempe, and R.B. Whaley: “Quantum random-walk search algorithm”, Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 67, (2003), PP. 052307. S. E. Venegas-Andraca: “Quantum walks: a comprehensive review ”, Quantum Information Processing, Vol. 11, (2012), PP. 1015.
M. S. Underwood and D.L. Feder: “Universal quantum computation by discontinuous quantum walk”, Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 82, (2010), PP. 042304. N.B. Lovett, S. Cooper, M. Everitt, M. Trevers, and V. Kendon: “Universal quantum computation using the discrete-time quantum walk”, Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 81, (2010), PP. 042330.
A.M. Childs: “Universal Computation by Quantum Walk”, Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 102, (2009), PP. 180501. A. M. Childs, D. Gosset, Z. Webb: “Universal Computation by Multiparticle Quantum Walk ”, Science, Vol. 339, (2013), PP. 791.
J. Watrous: “Quantum simulations of classical random walks and undirected graph connectivity”, Journal of computer and system sciences, Vol. 62, (2001), PP. 376. E. Farhi and S. Gutmann: “Quantum computation and decision trees”, Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 58, (1998), PP. 915. H. B. Perets, Y. Lahini, F. Pozzi, M. Sorel, R. Morandotti, and Y. Silberberg: “Realization of Quantum Walks with Negligible Decoherence in Waveguide Lattices”, Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 100, (2008), PP. 170506. A. Schreiber, K. N. Cassemiro, V. Potoček, A. Gábris, P. J. Mosley, E. Andersson, I. Jex, and Ch. Silberhorn: “Photons Walking the Line: A Quantum Walk with Adjustable Coin Operations”, Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 104, (2010), PP. 050502. M. A. Broome, A. Fedrizzi, B. P. Lanyon, I. Kassal, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and A. G. White: “Discrete Single-Photon Quantum Walks with Tunable Decoherence”, Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 104, (2010), PP. 153602. M. Karski,L. Förster, J. M. Choi, A. Steffen, W. Alt, D. Meschede, A. Widera: “Quantum Walk in Position Space with Single Optically Trapped Atoms ”, Science, Vol. 325, (2009), PP. 174. C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, J. F. Sherson, M. Cheneau, P. Schauss, T. Fukuhara, I. Bloch, S. Kuhr: “ Single-spin addressing in an atomic Mott insulator ”, Nature, Vol. 471, (2011), PP. 319. Y. Bromberg, Y. Lahini, R. Morandotti, and Y. Silberberg: “Quantum and Classical Correlations in Waveguide Lattices”, Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 102, (2009), PP. 253904.
A. Peruzzo, M. Lobino, J. C. F. Matthews, N. Matsuda, A. Politi, K. Poulios, X. Q. Zhou, Y. Lahini, N. Ismail, K. Wörhoff, Y. Bromberg, Y. Silberberg, M. G. Thompson, J. L. Obrien: “Quantum Walks of Correlated Photons ”, Science, Vol. 329,(2010), PP. 1500.
P. L. Knight, E. Roldan, J. E. Sipe: “Quantum walk on the line as an interference phenomenon”, Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 68, (2003), PP. 020301. Y. Omar, N. Paunkovic, L. Sheridan, S. Bose: “Quantum walk on a line with two entangled particles”, Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 74, (2006), PP. 042304.
Y. Lahini, M. Verbin, S. D. Huber, Y. Bromberg, R. Pugatch, and Y. Silberberg: “Quantum walk of two interacting bosons”, Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 86, (2012), PP. 011603.
X. Z. Qin, Y. G. Ke, X. W. Guan, Z. B. Li, N. Andrei, and C. H. Lee: “Quantum Walks of Two Interacting Particles in One Dimension”, Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 90, (2014), PP. 062301. V. Kendon:“Decoherence in quantum walks - A review”, Mathematical structures in computer science, Vol. 17, (2007), PP. 1169.
E. Farhi, and S. Gutmann:“Quantum computation and decision trees”, Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 58, (1997), PP. 915. Z. J. Li, J. A. Izaac, and J. B. Wang: “Position-defect-induced reflection, trapping, transmission, and resonance in quantum walks”, Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 87, (2013), PP. 012314.
K. Mattle, M. Michler, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, M. Zukowski: “Noncalssical statistics at multiport beam-splitters”, Appl. Phys. B, Vol. 60, (1995), PP. S111. F. Lederer, G. I. Stegeman, D. N. Christodoulides, G. Assanto, M. Segev, and Y. Silberberg: “Discrete solitons in optics”, Phys. Rep., Vol. 463, (2008), PP. 1. A. Yariv: *Quantum Electronics*, Wiley, New York, (1989). A. Szameit, F. Dreisow, H. Hartung, S. Nolte, A. Tunnermann, and F. Lederer: “Quasi-incoherent propagation in waveguide arrays”, Appl. Phys. Lett., Vol. 90, (2007), PP. 241113. L. H. Lu and Y. Q. Li: “Dynamics for partially coherent Bose-Einstein condensates in double wells”, Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 80, (2009), PP. 033619.
R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q. Twiss,“Correlation between photons in 2 coherent beams of light” Nature, Vol. 177, (1956), PP. 27.
J. Schachenmayer, B. P. Lanyon, C. F. Roos, and A. J. Daley, “Entanglement growth in quench dynamics with variable range interactions” Phys. Rev. X, Vol. 3, (2013), PP. 031015.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce invariants of graphs embedded in $S^3$ which are related to the Wu invariant and the Simon invariant. Then we use our invariants to prove that certain graphs are intrinsically chiral, and to obtain lower bounds for the minimal crossing number of particular embeddings of graphs in $S^3$.'
author:
- |
ERICA FLAPAN\
Department of MathematicsPomona CollegeClaremont, CA 91711, USA WILL FLETCHER\
Biophysics ProgramStanford UniversityStanford, CA 94305, USA
- |
RYO NIKKUNI\
Department of Mathematics, Tokyo Woman’s Christian University, 2-6-1 Zempukuji, Suginami-ku, Tokyo 167-8585, Japan
title: Reduced Wu and Generalized Simon Invariants for Spatial Graphs
---
Introduction
============
While there are numerous invariants for embeddings of graphs in $3$-manifolds, most have limited applications either because they are hard to compute or because they are only defined for particular types of graphs. For example, Thompson [@Tho] defined a powerful polynomial invariant for graphs embedded in arbitrary 3-manifolds, which can detect whether an embedding of a graph in $S^3$ is planar. However, computing Thompson’s invariant requires identifying topological features of a sequence of 3-manifolds, such as whether each manifold is compressible.
Yamada [@Ya] and Yokota [@Yo] introduced polynomial invariants for spatial graphs (i.e., graphs embedded in $S^3$). The Yamada polynomial is an ambient isotopy invariant for spatial graphs with vertices of degree at most 3. However, for other spatial graphs it is only a regular isotopy invariant. It is convenient to use because it can be computed using skein relations. Also, the Yamada polynomial can be used to detect whether a spatial graph with vertices of degree at most 3 is chiral (i.e., distinct from its mirror image). The Yokota polynomial is an ambient isotopy invariant for all spatial graphs that reduces to the Yamada polynomial for graphs with vertices of degree at most 3. However, the Yokota polynomial is more difficult to compute, and cannot be used to show that a spatial graph is chiral.
In a lecture in 1990, Jon Simon introduced an invariant of embeddings of the graphs $K_5$ and $K_{3,3}$ with labeled vertices in $S^3$. The Simon invariant is easy to compute from a projection of an embedding and has been useful in obtaining results about embeddings of non-planar graphs [@Huh; @Nikkuni; @2006a; @Nikkuni; @2006; @Nikkuni; @2009; @Nikkuni; @2009b; @Ohyama; @Shinjo; @Taniyama; @1994; @Taniyama; @1995]. In 1995, Taniyama [@Taniyama; @1995] showed that the Simon invariant is a special case of a cohomology invariant for all spatial graphs which had been introduced by Wu [@Wu; @1960; @Wu; @1965], and showed that the Wu invariant can be defined combinatorially from a graph projection. However, the Wu invariant is not always easy to compute, and (like the Simon invariant) depends on the choice of labeling of the vertices of a graph. For this reason, the role of the Wu invariant in distinguishing a spatial graph from its mirror image has been limited to showing that for any embedded non-planar graph $\Gamma$, there is no orientation reversing homeomorphism of $(S^3,\Gamma)$ that fixes every vertex of $\Gamma$ (see [@Nikkuni; @2006]). Without this restriction on the vertices, many non-planar graphs including $K_5$ and $K_{3,3}$ have achiral embeddings as shown in Figure \[achiral\].
![Achiral embeddings of $K_5$ and $K_{3,3}$.[]{data-label="achiral"}](achiral.eps){width="50.00000%"}
In this paper, we define numerical invariants that are obtained by reducing the Wu invariant and by generalizing the Simon invariant. We then use our invariants to prove that no matter how the complete graph $K_7$, the Möbius ladders $M_{2N+1}$, and the Heawood graph are embedded in $S^3$, there is no orientation reversing homeomorphism of $S^3$ which takes the embedded graph to itself. Finally, we show that our invariants can be used to give a lower bound on the minimal crossing number of embedded graphs.
Wu Invariants and Reduced Wu Invariants
=======================================
In 1960, Wu [@Wu; @1960] introduced an invariant as follows. Let $C_{2}(X)$ be the [*configuration space*]{} of ordered pairs of points from a topological space $X$, namely $$\begin{aligned}
C_{2}(X) = \left\{(x,y)\in X\times X~|~x\neq y\right\}. \end{aligned}$$ Let $\sigma$ be the involution of $C_{2}(X)$ given by $\sigma(x,y)=(y,x)$. The integral cohomology group of ${\rm
Ker}\left(1+\sigma_{\sharp}\right)$ denoted by $H^{*}\left(C_{2}(X),\sigma\right)$ is said to be the [*skew-symmetric integral cohomology group*]{} of the pair $\left(C_{2}(X),\sigma\right)$, where $\sigma_{\sharp}$ denotes the chain map induced by $\sigma$. Wu [@Wu; @1960] proved that $H^{2}(C_{2}({\mathbb R}^{3}),\sigma)\cong {\mathbb Z}$, and hence is generated by some element $\Sigma$. Let $f:G\to {\mathbb R}^{3}$ be a spatial embedding of a graph $G$ with labeled vertices and orientations on the edges. Then $f$ naturally induces an equivariant embedding $f\times f:C_{2}(G)\to C_{2}({\mathbb R}^{3})$ with respect to the action $\sigma$, and therefore induces a homomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
(f\times f)^{*}:H^{2}(C_{2}({\mathbb R}^{3}),\sigma)
\longrightarrow H^{2}(C_{2}(G),\sigma). \end{aligned}$$ The element $(f\times f)^{*}(\Sigma)$ is an ambient isotopy invariant known as the [*Wu invariant*]{}.
In order to explicitly calculate the Wu invariant, Taniyama [@Taniyama; @1995] developed the following combinatorial approach. Let $G$ be a graph with vertices labeled $v_{1},v_{2},\ldots,v_{m}$ and oriented edges labeled $e_{1},e_{2},\ldots,e_{n}$. For each pair of disjoint edges $e_{i}$ and $e_{j}$, we define a variable $E^{e_{i},e_{j}}=E^{e_{j},e_{i}}$; and for each edge $e_{i}$ and vertex $v_{s}$ which is disjoint from $e_i$, we define a variable $V^{e_{i},v_{s}}$. Let $Z(G)$ be the free ${\mathbb Z}$-module generated by the collection of $E^{e_{i},e_{j}}$’s. For each $V^{e_{i},v_{s}}$, let $\delta(V^{e_{i},v_{s}})$ be the element of $Z(G)$ given by the sum of all $E^{e_{i},e_{k}}$ such that $e_k$ is disjoint from $e_i$ and has initial vertex $v_s$, minus the sum of all $E^{e_{i},e_{k}}$ such that $e_k$ is disjoint from $e_i$ and has terminal vertex $v_s$. Thus
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta(V^{e_{i},v_{s}})
=
\sum_{\substack{
{I(k)=s}
\\ e_{i}\cap e_{k}=\emptyset
}
}E^{e_{i},e_{k}}
-
\sum_{\substack{
{T(l)=s}
\\ e_{i}\cap e_{l}=\emptyset
}
}E^{e_{i},e_{l}}, \end{aligned}$$
where $I(k)=s$ indicates that the initial vertex of $e_{k}$ is $v_{s}$, and $T(l)=s$ indicates that the terminal vertex of $e_{l}$ is $v_{s}$. Let $B(G)$ be the submodule of $Z(G)$ generated by the collection of $\delta(V^{e_{i},v_{s}})$’s. We let $L(G)$ denote the quotient module $Z(G) / B(G)$, and call it a [*linking module*]{} of $G$. Then $L(G)\cong H^{2}(C_{2}(G),\sigma)$.
Now let $f$ be an embedding of the labeled oriented graph $G$ in $S^3$. Fix a projection of $f(G)$ and let $\ell(f(e_{i}),f(e_{j}))=\ell(f(e_{j}),f(e_{i}))$ denote the sum of the signs of the crossings between $f(e_{i})$ and $f(e_{j})$. Taniyama [@Taniyama; @1995] showed that the equivalence class $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L}(f)=
\left[
\sum_{e_{i}\cap e_{j}=\emptyset}\ell(f(e_{i}),f(e_{j}))E^{e_{i},e_{j}}
\right]
\in L(G)\end{aligned}$$ coincides with $(f\times f)^{*}(\Sigma)$ through the isomorphism from $H^{2}(C_{2}(G),\sigma)$ to $L(G)$. Thus we may regard ${\mathcal L}(f)$ as the Wu invariant of $f$. Furthermore, $H^{2}(C_{2}(G),\sigma)$ is torsion free, namely $L(G)$ is a free ${\mathbb Z}$-module, and for an orientation-reversing self-homeomorphism $\Phi$ of $S^{3}$, it follows that ${\mathcal L}(\Phi\circ f)=-{\mathcal L}(f)$.
![The Wu invariants for embeddings of these graphs are given in Examples \[2K3\], \[K5\], and \[K33\].[]{data-label="2K3K5K33"}](2K3K5K33bis.eps){width="\textwidth"}
\[2K3\] [ Let $2K_{3}$ denote the graph consisting of two copies of $K_{3}$, labeled and oriented as illustrated in Figure \[2K3K5K33\], and let $f$ be a spatial embedding of $2K_{3}$. It was shown in [@Taniyama; @1995] that the linking module $L(2K_{3})=\langle [E^{e_{1},d_{1}}]\rangle \cong {\mathbb Z}$, and the Wu invariant of $f$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L}(f)
=\sum_{1\le i,j\le 3}\ell(f(e_{i}),f(d_{j}))[E^{e_{1},d_{1}}]
=2{\rm lk}(f)[E^{e_{1},d_{1}}], \end{aligned}$$ where ${\rm lk}(f)$ denotes the [*linking number*]{} of the pair of triangles in $S^{3}$. ]{}
\[K5\] [ Let $K_{5}$ denote the complete graph on five vertices, labeled and oriented as illustrated in Figure \[2K3K5K33\], and let $f$ be a spatial embedding of $K_{5}$. It was shown in [@Taniyama; @1995] that the linking module $L(K_{5})=\langle [E^{e_{1},e_{3}}]\rangle \cong {\mathbb Z}$ and the Wu invariant is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L}(f)
=\sum_{a\cap b=\emptyset}\varepsilon(a,b)\ell(f(a),f(b))[E^{e_{1},e_{3}}], \end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon(a,b)$ is defined by $\varepsilon(e_{i},e_{j})=1$, $\varepsilon(d_{i},d_{j})=-1$ and $\varepsilon(e_{i},d_{j})=-1$. ]{}
We work out the following example which it is given in [@Taniyama; @1995] without details.
\[K33\]
Let $K_{3,3}$ denote the complete bipartite graph, labeled and oriented as illustrated in Figure \[2K3K5K33\], and let $f$ be a spatial embedding of $K_{3,3}$. Then $Z(K_{3,3})$ is a free ${\mathbb Z}$-module generated by $$\begin{aligned}
&&E^{c_{1},c_{3}},E^{c_{2},c_{4}},E^{c_{3},c_{5}},E^{c_{4},c_{6}},E^{c_{5},c_{1}},E^{c_{6},c_{2}},E^{c_{1},c_{4}},E^{c_{2},c_{5}},E^{c_{3},c_{6}},\\
&&E^{b_{1},c_{2}},E^{b_{1},c_{5}},E^{b_{3},c_{4}},E^{b_{3},c_{1}},E^{b_{2},c_{3}},E^{b_{2},c_{6}},E^{b_{1},b_{2}},E^{b_{2},b_{3}},E^{b_{3},b_{1}}\end{aligned}$$ and $B(K_{3,3})$ is a submodule of $Z(K_{3,3})$ generated by $$\begin{aligned}
&&E^{b_{1},c_{2}}-E^{c_{6},c_{2}},\ E^{c_{1},c_{3}}-E^{c_{3},c_{6}},\ E^{c_{1},c_{4}}-E^{c_{4},c_{6}},\\
&&E^{c_{5},c_{1}}+E^{b_{1},c_{5}},\ E^{b_{3},c_{1}}+E^{b_{3},b_{1}},\ E^{b_{1},b_{2}}-E^{b_{2},c_{6}},\\
&&-E^{b_{2},c_{3}}-E^{c_{1},c_{3}},\ E^{c_{2},c_{4}}-E^{c_{1},c_{4}},\ E^{c_{2},c_{5}}-E^{c_{5},c_{1}},\\
&&E^{c_{6},c_{2}}-E^{b_{2},c_{6}},\ -E^{b_{2},b_{3}}-E^{b_{3},c_{1}},\ E^{b_{1},c_{2}}-E^{b_{1},b_{2}},\\
&&E^{b_{3},c_{4}}-E^{c_{2},c_{4}},\ E^{c_{3},c_{5}}-E^{c_{2},c_{5}},\ E^{c_{3},c_{6}}-E^{c_{6},c_{2}},\\
&&E^{c_{1},c_{3}}+E^{b_{3},c_{1}},\ E^{b_{2},c_{3}}+E^{b_{2},b_{3}},\ E^{b_{3},b_{1}}-E^{b_{1},c_{2}},\\
&&-E^{b_{1},c_{5}}-E^{c_{3},c_{5}},\ E^{c_{4},c_{6}}-E^{c_{3},c_{6}},\ E^{c_{1},c_{4}}-E^{c_{1},c_{3}},\\
&&E^{c_{2},c_{4}}-E^{b_{1},c_{2}},\ -E^{b_{1},b_{2}}-E^{b_{2},c_{3}},\ E^{b_{3},c_{4}}-E^{b_{3},b_{1}},\\
&&E^{b_{2},c_{6}}-E^{c_{4},c_{6}},\ E^{c_{5},c_{1}}-E^{c_{1},c_{4}},\ E^{c_{2},c_{5}}-E^{c_{2},c_{4}},\\
&&E^{c_{3},c_{5}}+E^{b_{2},c_{3}},\ E^{b_{1},c_{5}}+E^{b_{1},b_{2}},\ E^{b_{2},b_{3}}-E^{b_{3},c_{4}},\\
&&-E^{b_{3},c_{1}}-E^{c_{5},c_{1}},\ E^{c_{6},c_{2}}-E^{c_{2},c_{5}},\ E^{c_{3},c_{6}}-E^{c_{3},c_{5}},\\
&&E^{c_{4},c_{6}}-E^{d_{3},c_{4}},\ -E^{b_{3},b_{1}}-E^{b_{1},c_{5}},\ E^{b_{2},c_{6}}-E^{b_{2},b_{3}}. \end{aligned}$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& [E^{c_{1},c_{3}}]=[E^{c_{2},c_{4}}]=[E^{c_{3},c_{5}}]=[E^{c_{4},c_{6}}]=[E^{c_{5},c_{1}}]=[E^{c_{6},c_{2}}]\\
&=& [E^{c_{1},c_{4}}]=[E^{c_{2},c_{5}}]=[E^{c_{3},c_{6}}]=[E^{b_{1},b_{2}}]=[E^{b_{2},b_{3}}]=[E^{b_{3},b_{1}}]\\
&=& [E^{b_{1},c_{2}}]=[E^{b_{3},c_{4}}]=[E^{b_{2},c_{6}}]\\
&=& -[E^{b_{1},c_{5}}] = -[E^{b_{3},c_{1}}] = -[E^{b_{2},c_{3}}], \end{aligned}$$ Then the linking module $L(K_{3,3})=\langle [E^{c_{1},c_{3}}]\rangle \cong {\mathbb Z}$ and the Wu invariant is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L}(f)
=\sum_{a\cap b=\emptyset}\varepsilon(a,b)\ell(f(a),f(b))[E^{c_{1},c_{3}}], \end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon(a,b))$ is defined by $\varepsilon(c_{i},c_{j})=1$, $\varepsilon(b_{i},b_{j})=1$, and
$$\varepsilon(c_i,b_j) =
\begin{cases}
1 &\text{if } c_i \text{ and } b_j \text { are parallel in Figure~\ref{2K3K5K33}}
\\
-1 & \text{if } c_i \text{ and } b_j \text { are anti-parallel in Figure~\ref{2K3K5K33}}
\end{cases}$$
It was shown in [@Taniyama; @1995] that $L(G)=0$ if and only if $G$ is a planar graph which does not contain a pair of two disjoint cycles.
[ It was shown in [@N00] that if the graph $G$ is [*$3$-connected*]{}, then $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm rank}L(G)=\frac{1}{2}
\left\{
\beta_{1}(G)^{2}+\beta_{1}(G)+4|E(G)|-\sum_{v\in V(G)}\left({\rm deg}(v)\right)^{2}
\right\}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\beta_{1}(G)$ denotes the first Betti number of $G$ and ${\rm deg}(v)$ denotes the valency of a vertex $v$. For example, ${\rm rank}(L(K_{6}))=10$ and ${\rm rank}(L(K_{7}))=36$. ]{}
Let $f$ be a spatial embedding of an oriented graph $G$ with linking module $L(G)$ and Wu invariant ${\mathcal L}(f)\in L(G)$. Let $\varepsilon:L(G)\to {\mathbb Z}$ be a homomorphism. Then we call the integer $\varepsilon({\mathcal L}(f))$ the [**reduced Wu invariant of $f$ with respect to $\varepsilon$**]{} and denote it by $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$.
For a pair of disjoint edges $e_i$ and $e_j$, we denote $\varepsilon([E^{e_{i},e_{j}}])$ by $\varepsilon(e_i,e_j)$. Thus
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)=\varepsilon\left(\left[
\sum_{e_{i}\cap e_{j}=\emptyset}\ell(f(e_{i}),f(e_{j}))E^{e_{i},e_{j}}
\right]\right)=\sum_{e_{i}\cap e_{j}=\emptyset}\ell(f(e_{i}),f(e_{j}))\varepsilon(e_i,e_j).\end{aligned}$$
\[2K3\_2\] [ Consider $2K_{3}$, labeled and oriented as in Figure \[2K3K5K33\], and let $f$ be an embedding of $2K_{3}$ in $S^3$. Let $\varepsilon$ be the isomorphism from $L(2K_{3})$ to ${\mathbb Z}$ defined by $\varepsilon(e_{1},d_{1})=1$. Then by Example \[2K3\], we have $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)=2{\rm lk}(f)$. ]{}
\[K5K33\_2\] [ Let $G$ be $K_{5}$ or $K_{3,3}$ labeled and oriented as illustrated in Figure \[2K3K5K33\], and let $f$ be an embedding of $G$ in $S^3$. Let $\varepsilon$ be the isomorphism from $L(G)$ to ${\mathbb Z}$ defined by $\varepsilon(e_1,e_3)=1$ for $G=K_5$ and $\varepsilon(c_1, c_3)=1$ for $G=K_{3,3}$. Then it follows that $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)=\sum_{a\cap b=\emptyset}\varepsilon(a,b)\ell(f(a),f(b))$, where the value of $\varepsilon(a,b)$ for an arbitrary pair of edges is given in Example \[K5\] if $G=K_{5}$ and in Example \[K33\] if $G=K_{3,3}$. ]{}
\[K6gs\]
Consider $K_{6}$, labeled and oriented as in Figure \[K6Simon\], and let $f$ be an embedding of $K_{6}$ in $S^3$. For any pair of disjoint edges $a$ and $b$ in $K_6$, we define $\varepsilon(a,b)$ as follows:
$$\varepsilon(x_i,x_j) =
\begin{cases}
3 &\text{if } x_i \text{ and } x_j \text { are anti-parallel in Figure~\ref{K6Simon}}
\\
2 & \text{if } x_i \text{ and } x_j \text { are neither parallel nor anti-parallel in Figure~\ref{K6Simon}}
\end{cases}$$
$$\varepsilon(y_i,y_j) =
\begin{cases}
0 &\text{if } y_i \text{ and } y_j \text { are anti-parallel in Figure~\ref{K6Simon}}
\\
-1 & \text{if } y_i \text{ and } y_j \text { are neither parallel nor anti-parallel in Figure~\ref{K6Simon}}
\end{cases}$$
$$\varepsilon(x_i,z_j) =
\begin{cases} -1 & \text{if } x_i \text{ and } z_j \text { are anti-parallel in Figure~\ref{K6Simon}}
\\
1 &\text{if } x_i \text{ and } z_j \text { are parallel in Figure~\ref{K6Simon}}
\end{cases}$$
In addition, we define $\varepsilon(z_{i},z_{j})=1$, $\varepsilon(x_{i},y_{j})=-1$, and $\varepsilon(y_{i},z_{j})=0$. Then it can be checked that $\varepsilon$ gives a homomorphism from $L(K_{6})$ to ${\mathbb Z}$. It follows that $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)=\sum_{a\cap b=\emptyset}\varepsilon(a,b)\ell(f(a),f(b))$ is a reduced Wu invariant for $K_6$.
Generalized Simon Invariants {#GSI}
============================
Simon introduced the following function of embeddings $f$ of the graphs $K_5$ and $K_{3,3}$, labeled and oriented as in Figure \[2K3K5K33\]. Let
$$\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = \sum_{a\cap b=\emptyset} \varepsilon(a,b) \ell(f(a),f(b))$$
where $\varepsilon(a,b)$ is defined as $\varepsilon(e_{i},e_{j})=1$, and $\varepsilon(d_{i},d_{j})=\varepsilon(e_{i},d_{j})=-1$ for $K_5$; and $\varepsilon(a,b)$ is defined as $\varepsilon(c_{i},c_{j})=1$, $\varepsilon(b_{i},b_{j})=1$ $$\varepsilon(c_i,b_j) =
\begin{cases}
1 &\text{if } c_i \text{ and } b_j \text { are parallel in Figure~\ref{2K3K5K33}}
\\
-1 & \text{if } c_i \text{ and } b_j \text { are anti-parallel in Figure~\ref{2K3K5K33}}
\end{cases}$$ for $K_{3,3}$.
Simon then proved that for any projection of an embedding $f$ of the oriented labeled graphs $K_5$ and $K_{3,3}$, the value of $$\sum_{a,b \in G} \varepsilon(a,b) \ell(f(a),f(b))$$
is invariant under the five Reidemeister moves for spatial graphs given in Figure \[Figuremy5radmoves\]. This invariant is known as the [*Simon invariant*]{}.
![The Reidemeister moves for embedded graphs.[]{data-label="Figuremy5radmoves"}](my5radmoves.eps){width="60.00000%"}
By using Simon’s method we can create similar invariants for many other embedded graphs. In particular, let $G$ be an oriented graph and let $f$ be an embedding of $G$ in $S^3$. If we can define a function $\varepsilon(a,b)$ from the set of pairs of disjoint edges of $G$ to the integers such that for any projection of $f(G)$ the value of
$$\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = \sum_{a\cap b=\emptyset} \varepsilon(a,b) \ell(f(a),f(b))$$ is invariant under the five Reidemeister moves, then we say that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is a [*generalized Simon invariant of $f(G)$*]{}. If for every embedding $f$ of $G$, $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is a [*generalized Simon invariant of $f(G)$*]{}, then we say that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is a [*generalized Simon invariant of $G$.*]{}
Observe that the reduced Wu invariants given in Example \[K5K33\_2\] are identical to their Simon invariants. In fact, every reduced Wu invariant with respect to a given homomorphism $\varepsilon$ is a generalized Simon invariant with epsilon coefficients given by $\varepsilon(a,b)$. However, not every generalized Simon invariant is necessarily a reduced Wu invariant. In order to distinguish these two types of invariants, we use $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ to denote a reduced Wu invariant and $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ to denote a generalized Simon invariant.
We say that a graph embedded in ${S}^3$ is *achiral* if there is an orientation reversing homeomorphism of ${S}^3$ that takes the graph to itself setwise. Otherwise, we say the embedded graph is *chiral*. We say that an abstract graph is *intrinsically chiral* if every embedding of the graph in $S^3$ is chiral. Note that when we talk about chirality or achirality we are considering embedded graphs as subsets of $S^3$ disregarding any edge labels or orientations. For example, we saw in Figure \[achiral\] that $K_5$ and $K_{3,3}$ have achiral embeddings, although it was shown in [@Nikkuni; @2006] that no embedding of either of these graphs has an orientation reversing homeomorphism that preserves the edge labels and orientations given in Figure \[2K3K5K33\].
We now define generalized Simon invariants for some specific graphs and families of graphs, and use these invariants to prove that the graphs are intrinsically chiral.
The complete graph $K_7$ {#sec:K7 .unnumbered}
------------------------
Consider the complete graph $K_7$ with labeled edges as illustrated in Figure \[FigureK7\_labeled\]. We refer to the edges $x_1, x_2, ..., x_7$ as “outer edges” and the rest of the edges as “inner edges.” We refer to the Hamiltonian cycle $\overline{y_1 y_2 ... y_7}$ as the [*1-star*]{} since these edges skip over one vertex relative to the cycle $\overline{x_1x_2...x_7}$. Similarly, we refer to the Hamiltonian cycle $\overline{z_1 z_2 ... z_7}$ as the [*2-star*]{} since these edges skip over two vertices relative to the cycle $\overline{x_1x_2...x_7}$. For consistency, we also use the term [*0-star*]{} to refer to the Hamiltonian cycle $\overline{x_1x_2...x_7}$. We orient the edges around each of the stars as illustrated. Note that this classification of oriented edges is only dependent on our initial choice of an oriented 0-star.
![An illustration of the oriented $K_7$, with the 0-star in black, the 1-star in bold, and the 2-star in grey.[]{data-label="FigureK7_labeled"}](labeledK7.eps){width="35.00000%"}
We define the [*epsilon coefficient*]{} of a pair of disjoint edges by the function:
$$\varepsilon(x_i,x_j) = \varepsilon(y_i,y_j) = \varepsilon(z_i,z_j) = \varepsilon(x_i,z_j) = \varepsilon(y_i,z_j) = 1$$ $$\varepsilon(x_i,y_j) = -1.$$
Given an oriented 0-star and an embedding $f: K_7 \rightarrow {S}^3$ with a regular projection, we define the integer $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ by
$$\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = \sum_{a\cap b=\emptyset} \varepsilon(a,b) \ell(f(a),f(b)).$$
\[k7 invariant\] Consider $K_7$ with a fixed choice of an oriented $0$-star. Then for any embedding $f:K_7\to S^3$, the value of $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is an ambient isotopy invariant.
It is easy to check that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is invariant under the first four Reidemeister moves.
In order to show that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is invariant under the fifth move, we must show that the value is unchanged when any edge of $f(K_7)$ is pulled over or under a given vertex $v$. An example is illustrated in Figure \[FigureK7\_loopover\].
![$K_7$ with an edge pulled over a vertex.[]{data-label="FigureK7_loopover"}](K7_loopover.eps){width="55.00000%"}
Pulling a given edge $e$ over a vertex will generate six new crossings. In Figure \[FigureK7\_loopover\] the edge $x_4$ has new crossings with the edges $x_1$, $y_1$, $z_1$, $x_2$, $y_3$, and $z_4$. The crossings with edges pointed away from the vertex $v$ ($x_1$, $y_1$, $z_1$) will have an opposite sign compared to the crossings with edges pointed toward the vertex $v$ ($x_2$, $y_3$, $z_4$). Thus, the overall change in $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is found by adding the epsilon coefficients for the crossings of $x_4$ with $x_1$, $y_1$, and $z_1$ and subtracting the epsilon coefficients for the crossings of $x_4$ with $x_2$, $y_3$, and $z_4$. It is easy to check that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is unchanged in each case.
It follows from Lemma \[k7 invariant\], that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is a generalized Simon invariant.
[ One can check that the epsilon coefficients we have given for $K_7$ define a homomorphism from the free $\mathbb{Z}$-module $L(K_7)$ to $\mathbb{Z}$. Thus $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ also gives us a reduced Wu invariant for $K_7$.]{}
We now apply the generalized Simon invariant of $K_7$ to prove that $K_7$ is intrinsically chiral. This result was previously proven by Flapan and Weaver [@Flapan; @1992], but using the generalized Simon invariant allows us to give a simpler proof which can be generalized to apply to many other graphs. We begin with a lemma.
\[k7 odd\] For any embedding $f$ of $K_7$ in ${S}^3$, the generalized Simon invariant $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is an odd number.
Since any crossing change will change the signed crossing number between two edges by $\pm 2$, we only need to find an embedding $f$ where $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is odd. Consider an embedding of $K_7$ which has Figure \[FigureK7\_labeled\] as its projection with the intersections between edges replaced by crossings. Note that there are 35 crossings in this embedding of $K_7$: 14 crossings of the 2-star with itself, and 21 crossings between the 1-star and the 2-star. The epsilon coefficient for every one of these crossings is 1. Since there is an odd number of crossings, regardless of their signs, $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ must be odd. Because any crossing change will change $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ by an even number, it follows that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is odd for any embedding of $K_7$.
\[k7 chiral\] $K_7$ is intrinsically chiral.
For the sake of contradiction, suppose that for some embedding $f$ of $K_7$ there is an orientation reversing homeomorphism $h$ of the pair (${S}^3$, $f(K_7)$). Let $\alpha$ denote the automorphism of $K_7$ that is induced by $h$.
Let $J$ denote the set of Hamiltonian cycles in $f(K_7)$ with non-zero Arf invariant. Since any homeomorphism of ${S}^3$ preserves the Arf invariant of a knot, the homeomorphism $h$ permutes the elements of $J$. It follows from Conway and Gordon [@Conway; @1983] that $|J|$ must be odd, and hence there is an orbit $O$ in $J$ such that $|O| = n$ for some odd number $n$. Consequently, $h^n$ setwise fixes an element of $O$. Hence some Hamiltonian cycle $C$ with non-zero Arf invariant is setwise fixed by $h^n$. We now label and orient the edges of $K_7$ as in Figure \[FigureK7\_labeled\] so that $f$ takes the 0-star of $K_7$ to $C$. Since $h^n$ leaves $C$ setwise invariant, the automorphism $\alpha^ n$ (induced on $K_7$ by $h^n$) leaves the 0-star, 1-star, and 2-star all setwise invariant.
Fix a sphere of projection $P$ in $S^3$. Since $f\circ \alpha^n(K_7)$ and $f(K_7)$ are identical as subsets of $S^3$, their projections on $P$ are the same. Furthermore, if $\alpha^n$ preserves the orientation of the 0-star, then $\alpha^n$ preserves the orientation of the 1-star and 2-star and hence of every edge. Otherwise, $\alpha^n$ reverses the orientation of every edge. In either case, a given crossing in the projection has the same sign whether it is considered with orientations induced by $\alpha^n(K_7)$ or with orientations induced by $K_7$. Furthermore, since $\alpha^n$ leaves the 0-star, 1-star, and 2-star of $K_7$ setwise invariant, each crossing has the same epsilon coefficient, whether the crossing is considered in $f\circ \alpha^n(K_7)$ or in $f(K_7)$. It follows that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(h^n\circ f)=\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(\alpha^n\circ f)=\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$.
Let $\rho$ denote a reflection of $S^3$ which pointwise fixes the sphere of projection $P$. Using orientations induced by $K_7$, we see that the sign of every crossing in the projection of $\rho\circ f(K_7)$ on $P$ is the reverse of that of the corresponding crossing in the projection of $f(K_7)$. Using the oriented 0-star from $K_7$, it follows that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(\rho\circ f)=-\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$. On the other hand, since $n$ is odd $h^n$ is orientation reversing and is thus isotopic to $\rho$. Hence by Lemma \[k7 invariant\], $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(\rho\circ f)=\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(h^n\circ f)$. Consequently, $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(h^n\circ f)=-\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$. Thus $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)=0$, which contradicts Lemma \[k7 odd\]. Hence in fact, $K_7$ is intrinsically chiral.
\[K4n+3\] For every odd number $n$, the complete graph $K_{4n+3}$ is intrinsically chiral.
Suppose that for some embedding $f$ of $K_{4n+3}$ in $S^3$, there is an orientation reversing homeomorphism $h$ of (${S}^3$, $f(K_{4n+3})$). Even though in general the homeomorphism $h$ will not have finite order, the automorphism that $h$ induces on $K_{4n+3}$ does have finite order and its order can be expressed as $2^ab$ for some odd number $b$. Now $g=h^b$ is an orientation reversing homeomorphism of (${S}^3$, $f(K_{4n+3})$) which induces an automorphism of $K_{4n+3}$ of order $2^a$.
Observe that the number of $K_7$ subgraphs in $K_{4n+3}$ is
$$\frac{(4n+3)(4n+2)(4n+1)(4n)(4n-1)(4n-2)(4n-3)}{7!}$$ $$=\frac{(4n+3)(2n+1)(4n+1)(n)(4n-1)(2n-1)(4n-3)}{315}.$$
This number is odd, since $n$ is odd. Thus $g$ leaves invariant some $K_7$ subgraph. But this is impossible since by Theorem \[k7 chiral\], $K_7$ is intrinsically chiral.
Mobius ladders {#sec:mobius .unnumbered}
--------------
A Möbius ladder $M_n$ with $n$ rungs is the graph obtained from a circle with $2n$ vertices by adding an edge between every pair of antipodal vertices. Let $N\geq 2$, and consider the oriented labeled graph of $M_{2N+1}$ illustrated in Figure \[FigureM\_2N+1\] (note there is no vertex at the center of the circle). We denote the “outer edges” consecutively as $x_1, x_2, ..., x_{2(2N+1)}$, and the “inner edges” consecutively as $y_1, y_2, ..., y_{2N+1}$. Since $N \geq 2$, it follows from Simon [@S86] that there is no automorphism of $M_{2N+1}$ which takes an outer edge to an inner edge. Thus, the distinction between inner and outer edges does not depend on any particular labeling.
![An oriented $M_{2N+1}$.[]{data-label="FigureM_2N+1"}](M14_oriented3.eps){width="35.00000%"}
For any pair of edges $a$ and $b$, let the minimal outer edge distance $d(a,b)$ be defined as the minimum number of edges of any path between $a$ and $b$ using only outer edges (not counting $a$ and $b$). For $M_{2N+1}$, note that $d(x_i, x_j) \leq 2N$ for any $i, j$. We define the epsilon coefficient $\varepsilon(a,b)$ of a pair of disjoint edges $a$ and $b$ by:
$$\varepsilon(x_i,x_j) =
\begin{cases}
2 & \text{if } d(x_i,x_j) \text{ is odd and } d(x_i,x_j) \neq 2N-1\\
-1 & \text{if } d(x_i,x_j) = 2N\\
1 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$
$$\varepsilon(x_i,y_j) =
\begin{cases}
2 & \text{if } d(x_i,y_j) = 1\\
3 & \text{if } d(x_i,y_j) \geq 2
\end{cases}$$
$$\varepsilon(y_i,y_j) =
\begin{cases}
2 & \text{if } d(y_i,y_j) = 1\\
5 & \text{if } d(y_i,y_j) = 2\\
6 & \text{if } d(y_i,y_j) \geq 3.
\end{cases}$$
For any embedding $f: M_{2N+1} \rightarrow {S}^3$ with a regular projection, define:
$$\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = \sum_{a\cap b=\emptyset} \varepsilon(a,b) \ell(f(a),f(b)).$$
[ This definition of $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ does not reduce to the original Simon invariant for $N=1$.]{}
\[mobius invariant\] For $N \geq 2$ and any embedding $f$ of $M_{2N+1}$ in ${S}^3$, $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) $ is independent of labeling and orientation, and invariant under ambient isotopy of $f(M_{2N+1})$.
We first show that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) $ is independent of labeling and orientation. Since $N \geq 2$, it follows from Simon [@S86] that any automorphism of $M_{2N+1}$ with $N \geq 2$ takes the cycle of outer edges $\overline{x_1 x_2 ... x_{4N+2}}$ to itself, preserving the order of the edges $x_1, x_2, ..., x_{4N+2}$ and thus the edges $y_1, y_2, ..., y_{2N+1}$ as well. Thus any automorphism either preserves all the arrows in the orientation of $M_{2N+1}$, or reverses all the arrows. Reversing every arrow would have no effect on the signs of the crossings, so $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) $ is independent of labeling and orientation.
As before, it is easy to see that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) $ is invariant under the first four Reidemeister moves. We show that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) $ is unchanged under the fifth Reidemeister move. Without loss of generality, we may assume that an edge $e$ is pulled over a vertex $v$ and the adjacent outer edges point towards $v$ (see Figure \[FigureM\_2N+1\_loopover\]). Pulling $e$ over $v$ generates three new crossings: two with outer edges and one with an inner edge. We must determine the change in $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ as a result of of these added crossings.
![$M_{2N+1}$ with an edge $e$ pulled over a vertex $v$.[]{data-label="FigureM_2N+1_loopover"}](M14_oriented_loopover.eps){width="30.00000%"}
Below we compute the possibilities for this change $\Delta \widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$, and show that in all cases this value is zero. The crossings between the edge $e$ and the two outer edges have the same sign while the crossing of $e$ with an inner edge has the opposite sign. The epsilon coefficients for the crossings of $e$ with the two outer edges are given in parenthesis (with the edge whose minimal outer edge distance from $e$ is larger given first, and the edge closer to $e$ given second), while the epsilon coefficient of the crossing of $e$ with the inner edge is given afterward. For ease of notation, let $d(e,v)$ denote the minimum number of edges in any path between $e$ and $v$ using only outer edges and not counting $e$.
- $e$ is an outer edge
- If $d(e,v) = 1$, then\
$\Delta \widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = (2 + 0) - 2 = 0$
- If $d(e,v) = 2, 4, ..., 2N-2$, then\
$\Delta \widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = (1 + 2) - 3 = 0$
- If $d(e,v) = 3, 5, ..., 2N-3$, then\
$\Delta \widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = (2 + 1) - 3 = 0$
- If $d(e,v) = 2N-1$, then\
$\Delta \widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)= (1 + 1) - 2 = 0$
- If $d(e,v) = 2N$, then\
$\Delta \widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = (-1 + 1) - 0 = 0$.
- $e$ is an inner edge
- If $d(e,v) = 1$, then\
$\Delta L(f) = (2 + 0) - 2 = 0$
- If $d(e,v) = 2$, then\
$\Delta L(f) = (3 + 2) - 5 = 0$
- If $d(e,v) \geq 3$, then\
$\Delta L(f) = (3 + 3) - 6 = 0$.
Thus $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is invariant under the fifth Reidemeister move, and so it is invariant under ambient isotopy
It follows that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is a generalized Simon invariant for $M_{2N+1}$.
\[mobius odd\] For any $N \geq 2$ and any embedding $f$ of $M_{2N+1}$ in ${S}^3$, the generalized Simon invariant $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is an odd number.
Note that any crossing change of a projection of $f(M_{2N+1})$ will change the signed crossing number between the two edges by $\pm 2$. Thus any crossing change will alter $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ by an even number. Now consider the embedding $f$ of $M_{2N+1}$ shown in Figure \[FigureM2N1\_mobius\_embedding\_labeled\]. There is only one crossing, and it is between two outer edges with an outer edge distance of $2N$ (the maximum). The epsilon coefficient for this crossing is $-1$, which is multiplied by the crossing sign $-1$ so that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = (-1)(-1) = 1$ for this embedding. It follows that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is odd for any embedding of $M_{2N+1}$.
![An embedding of $M_{2N+1}$ with $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = 1$.[]{data-label="FigureM2N1_mobius_embedding_labeled"}](M2N1_mobius_embedding_labeled){width=".45\textwidth"}
\[mobius automorphism\] Let $N \geq 2$. If $\alpha$ is an automorphism of $M_{2N+1}$, then the epsilon coefficients of $M_{2N+1}$ and $\alpha(M_{2N+1})$ are the same, and $\alpha$ either preserves the orientation of every edge or reverses the orientation of every edge.
Let $\alpha \in$ Aut$(M_{2N+1})$. Since $N \geq 2$, it follows from Simon [@S86] that $\alpha$ takes the cycle $\overline{x_1 x_2 ... x_{4N+2}}$ to itself, preserving the order of the edges $x_1, x_2, ..., x_{4N+2}$ and thus preserving the order of the edges $y_1, y_2, ..., y_{2N+1}$ as well. Because the order of the outer edges is preserved, the outer edge distance is also preserved. The epsilon coefficients depend only on the outer edge distance and the distinction between inner and outer edges, so it follows that the epsilon coefficients of $M_{2N+1}$ and $\alpha(M_{2N+1})$ are the same.
Finally, we can see from Figure \[FigureM\_2N+1\] that $\alpha$ either preserves all or reverses all the orientations on edges.
To prove that $M_{2N+1}$ is intrinsically chiral, we will use the following Proposition whose proof is similar to that of Theorem \[k7 chiral\].
\[intrinsic chirality\] Let $G$ be an oriented graph with a generalized Simon invariant $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$. Suppose that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is odd for every embedding $f: G \rightarrow {S}^3$, and every automorphism of $G$ preserves the epsilon coefficients of $G$ and either preserves the orientation of every edge or reverses the orientation of every edge. Then $G$ is intrinsically chiral.
For the sake of contradiction, suppose that for some embedding $f$ of $G$, there is an orientation reversing homeomorphism $h$ of the pair (${S}^3$, $f(G)$). Let $\alpha$ denote the automorphism that $h$ induces on $G$.
Fix a sphere of projection $P$ in $S^3$. Since $f\circ \alpha(G)$ and $f(G)$ are identical as subsets of $S^3$, their projections on $P$ are the same. Also, since $\alpha$ either preserves all the edge orientations or reverses all the edge orientations, the sign of every crossing in the projection of the oriented embedded graph $h\circ f(G)$ is the same as it is in the projection of the oriented embedded graph $f(G)$. Furthermore, by hypothesis each crossing has the same epsilon coefficient, whether the crossing is considered in $f\circ \alpha(G)$ or in $f(G)$. It follows that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(h^\circ f)=\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(\alpha\circ f)=\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$.
Let $\rho$ denote a reflection of $S^3$ which pointwise fixes the sphere of projection $P$. Using orientations induced by $G$, the sign of every crossing in the projection of $\rho\circ f(G)$ is the reverse of that of the corresponding crossing in $f(G)$. It follows that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(\rho\circ f)=-\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$. On the other hand, since $h$ is orientation reversing it is isotopic to $\rho$. Hence by by definition of a generalized Simon invariant, $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(\rho\circ f)=\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(h\circ f)$. Consequently, $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(h\circ f)=-\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$. Thus $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)=0$, which contradicts our hypothesis that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is odd. Hence $G$ is intrinsically chiral.
Flapan [@Flapan; @1989] showed that $M_{2N+1}$ is intrinsically chiral. However, now that result follows as an immediate corollary of Lemmas \[mobius odd\], \[mobius automorphism\], and Proposition \[intrinsic chirality\].
\[mobius chiral\] $M_{2N+1}$ is intrinsically chiral for $N \geq 2$.
Nikkuni and Taniyama [@Nikkuni; @2009] showed that the Simon invariant provides restrictions on the symmetries of a given embedding of $K_5$ or $K_{3,3}$. For example, they proved that for both $K_5$ and $K_{3,3}$, the transposition of two vertices can be induced by a homeomorphism on an embedding $f$ only if the Simon invariant of the embedding is $\pm 1$. By contrast we have the following result for $M_{2N+1}$.
\[mobius symmetries\] Let $N\geq 2$. Then for any odd integer m, there is an embedding $f$ of $M_{2N+1}$ in ${S}^3$ with $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = m$ such that every automorphism of $M_{2N+1}$ is induced by a homeomorphism of $({S}^3$, $f(M_{2N+1}))$.
Let $m$ be an odd integer, and suppose that $|m| = 2k+1$. Since any automorphism of $M_{2N+1}$ takes the outer loop $x_1 x_2 ... x_{4N+2}$ to itself [@S86], the automorphism group Aut($M_{2N+1}$) is the dihedral group $D_{2(4N+2)}$. This group is generated by a rotation of the outer loop of order $4N + 2$ together with a reflection of the outer loop. Hence, it suffices to show there is an embedding $f: M_{2N+1} \rightarrow {S}^3$ with $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = m$ such that both of the generators of Aut($M_{2N+1}$) are induced by homeomorphisms of (${S}^3$, $f(M_{2N+1})$).
Consider the embedding of $f: M_{2N+1} \rightarrow {S}^3$ shown in Figure \[FigureM2N1vertaxis\]. There are $2k+1$ crossings between a pair of outer edges with an outer edge distance of $2N$. The epsilon coefficient for each of these crossings is $-1$. If $m > 0$, we embed $M_{2N+1}$ so that all the crossings have negative sign, otherwise embed $M_{2N+1}$ so that the crossings all have positive sign. Then $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = (-1)(-1)(2k+1) = 2k+1$ if $m > 0$, and $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = (-1)(+1)(2k+1) = -(2k+1)$ if $m < 0$. Since $|m| = 2k+1$, it follows that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = m$.
![An embedding of $M_{2N+1}$ with $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = 2k+1$ with a rotation of the outer loop of order $4N + 2$ together with a reflection of the outer loop.[]{data-label="FigureM2N1vertaxis"}](M2N1vertaxis2.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
By inspection of Figure \[FigureM2N1vertaxis\] we see that both generators of Aut($M_{2N+1}$) can be induced by homeomorphisms of (${S}^3$, $f(M_{2N+1})$).
Observe that $M_3=K_{3,3}$. Using our generalized Simon invariant for embeddings of $M_{2N+1}$ $(N \geq 2)$ and the original Simon invariant for embeddings of $M_3$, we now define a topological invariant for embedded Mobius ladders with an even number of rungs (at least 4). For the remainder of this section, we use $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ to refer to the Simon invariant if $f$ is an embedding of $M_3$ and to the generalized Simon invariant if $f$ is an embedding of $M_{2N+1}$ for $N \geq 2$.
Let $N \geq 2$ and let $f$ be an embedding of $M_{2N}$ in $S^3$. For each $i\leq 2N$, let $g_i:M_{2N} \rightarrow S^3$ be the embedding obtained from $f$ by omitting the rung $r_i$ and its vertices from $M_{2N}$. Note that since $N>1$ the rungs of $M_{2N}$ are setwise invariant under any automorphism [@S86]. Thus the definition of $g_i$ is unambiguous. When $N>2$, by Theorem \[mobius invariant\], the graph $M_{2N-1}$ has a well defined $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(g_i)$ independent of labeling and orientation. When $N = 2$, we label each $M_3$ subgraph such that the rungs and outer edges of $M_3$ are contained in the rungs and outer edges of $M_4$ respectively. Although there are two possible orientations for each embedded $M_3$ subgraph, one can be obtained from the other by reversing the orientation of all edges. This has no effect on the crossing signs (or epsilon coefficients). Thus we can unambiguously define:
$$T_\varepsilon(f) = \sum_{i\leq 2N} \widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(g_i).$$
Note that $T_\varepsilon(f)$ is defined on an embedding of the unoriented graph $M_{2N}$.
\[mobius\_even\] For $N\geq 2$ and any embedding $f$ of $M_{2N}$ in $S^3$, $T_\varepsilon(f)$ is invariant under ambient isotopy. Furthermore, if $T_\varepsilon(f) \neq 0$, then $f$ is a chiral embedding of $M_{2N}$.
By [@S86], the cycle of outer edges of $M_{2N}$ is unique. Each $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(g_i)$ is invariant under ambient isotopy by Theorem \[mobius invariant\] when $N>2$ and by the Simon invariant when $N=2$. Thus it follows that $T_\varepsilon(f)$ is also invariant under ambient isotopy.
Let $h$ denote an orientation reversing homeomorphism of $S^3$. Then $h$ will reverse the signs of all the crossings of $f(M_{2N})$ (and thus each $g_i(M_{2N-1})$). We now show that the automorphism that $h$ induces on each $M_{2N-1}$ preserves the epsilon coefficients. If $N\geq3$, then this follows directly from Lemma \[mobius automorphism\]. If instead $N=2$, then by Simon [@S86] the outer edges of $M_{2N}$ are setwise invariant under the automorphism that $h$ induces on $M_{2N}$, so $h$ preserves the distinction between inner and outer edges. As explained earlier, the edges in each $g_i(M_3)$ subgraph of $f(M_4)$ are labeled as inner or outer in order to match $f(M_4)$. It follows that $h$ also preserves the distinction between inner and outer edges for each $M_{3}$ subgraph. For $M_3$, the epsilon coefficients depend only on the distinction between inner and outer edges and on the relative orientation of edges (which is invariant under any automorphism), so the automorphism that $h$ induces on each $M_3$ subgraph preserves the epsilon coefficients.
Since the epsilon coefficients are preserved and the crossings signs are reversed, it follows that each $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(h\circ g_i) = - \widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(g_i)$ and so $T_\varepsilon(h(f)) = -T(f)$. If $T_\varepsilon(f) \neq 0$, then $T_\varepsilon(f) \neq -T_\varepsilon(f) = T_\varepsilon(h(f))$, and thus $f(M_{2N})$ is chiral.
For all $N \geq 2, m \geq 0$, the embedding $f$ of $M_{2N}$ shown in Figure \[Figurem2n\_chiral\] is chiral.
![An embedding of $M_{2N}$ with $2m+1$ crossings.[]{data-label="Figurem2n_chiral"}](m2n_chiral.eps){width=".4\textwidth"}
For all of the $f(M_{2N-1})$ subgraphs, the outer edge distance between the two crossed edges is $2N-2$, so the crossing sign and epsilon coefficient for each of the $2m+1$ crossings is the same. This epsilon coefficient is 1 for $M_3$ when $N=2$, and $-1$ for the generalized Simon invariant (if $N > 2$). Since all of the $2N$ subgraphs have the same epsilon coefficient and sign for each crossing, both of which are $\pm 1$, it follows that $T_\varepsilon(f) = (\pm 1)(\pm 1)(2N)(2m+1)$ for the embedding $f$ in Figure \[Figurem2n\_chiral\]. Since $N \geq 2$ and $m \geq 0$, this means $T_\varepsilon(f) \neq 0$ and thus the embedding is chiral by Theorem \[mobius\_even\].
The Heawood graph {#the-heawood-graph .unnumbered}
-----------------
Let $C_{14}$ denote the Heawood graph oriented and labeled as in Figure \[FigureHeawood\]. In particular, we refer to its “outer edges” consecutively by $x_1, x_2, ..., x_{14}$, and its “inner edges” consecutively by $y_1, y_2, ..., y_{7}$. We note that this classification of oriented edges is only dependent on the labeling of the edges in the Hamiltonian cycle $\overline{x_1x_2...x_{14}}$.
![An oriented Heawood graph.[]{data-label="FigureHeawood"}](HeawoodWill2.eps){width="40.00000%"}
For any pair of edges $a$ and $b$, let the minimal outer edge distance $d(a,b)$ be defined as the minimum number of edges in any path between $a$ and $b$ using only outer edges (not counting $a$ and $b$). For any $i, j$, note that $d(x_i, x_j) \leq 6$, $d(x_i, y_j) \leq 4$, and $d(y_i, y_j) \leq 2$.
We define the epsilon coefficient $\varepsilon(a,b)$ of a pair of disjoint edges by: $$\varepsilon(x_i,x_j) =
\begin{cases}
2 & \text{if } d(x_i,x_j) = 1 \text{ or } 4\\
-2 & \text{if } d(x_i,x_j) = 3 \text{ or } 5 \text{, and } x_i,x_j \text{ are connected by an edge}\\
-3 & \text{if } d(x_i,x_j) = 5 \text{, and } x_i,x_j \text{ are not connected by an edge}\\
5 & \text{if } d(x_i,x_j) = 6\\
1 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$
$$\varepsilon(x_i,y_j) =
\begin{cases}
2 & \text{if } d(x_i,y_j) = 1\\
3 & \text{if } d(x_i,y_j) = 2 \text{ or } 4\\
-1 & \text{if } d(x_i,y_j) = 3
\end{cases}$$
$$\varepsilon(y_i,y_j) =
\begin{cases}
2 & \text{if } d(y_i,y_j) = 1\\
5 & \text{if } d(y_i,y_j) = 2.
\end{cases}$$
For any embedding $f: C_{14} \rightarrow {S}^3$ with a regular projection, define $$\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f) = \sum_{a\cap b=\emptyset} \varepsilon(a,b) \ell(f(a),f(b)).$$
\[thm:Heawood\] For any embedding $f$ of $C_{14}$ in ${S}^3$, $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is invariant under any ambient isotopy leaving the cycle $\overline{x_1x_2...x_{14}}$ setwise invariant.
As demonstrated in the previous proofs, we need only to verify that $L$ is invariant under the fifth Reidemeister move. It suffices to show that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is unchanged when any of the 21 edges in the Heawood graph is pulled over a particular vertex. This is easy to check using the method shown in the proof of Theorem \[mobius invariant\].
It follows that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is a generalized Simon invariant of $C_{14}$.
\[thm:Heawood odd\] For any embedding $f$ of $C_{14}$ in ${S}^3$, the generalized Simon invariant $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is an odd number.
Since any crossing change will change the signed crossing number between the two edges by $\pm 2$, we only need to find an embedding $f$ where $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is odd. Consider an embedding of the Heawood graph which has Figure \[FigureHeawood\] as its projection with the intersections between edges replaced by crossings. The reader can check that regardless of the signs of the crossings, there are an odd number of crossings with odd epsilon coefficient. Hence $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ is an odd number.
The proof of the following lemma is left as an exercise.
\[Heawood automorphism\] Let $\alpha$ be an automorphism of $C_{14}$ that takes the Hamiltonian cycle $\overline{x_1x_2...x_{14}}$ to itself. Then corresponding epsilon coefficients of $C_{14}$ and $\alpha(C_{14})$ are equal, and $\alpha$ either preserves the orientation of every edge or reverses the orientation of every edge.
\[Heawood chiral\] The Heawood graph is intrinsically chiral.
Let $C_{14}$ denote the Heawood graph. Suppose that for some embedding $f$ of $C_{14}$ in $S^3$, there is an orientation reversing homeomorphism $h$ of $(S^3, f(C_{14}))$. It was shown by Nikkuni [@Nikkuni; @2012] that the mod 2 sum of the Arf invariants of all the 14-cycles and 12-cycles in an embedding of $C_{14}$ is 1. Thus $f(C_{14})$ either has an odd number of 14-cycles with Arf invariant 1 or an odd number of 12-cycles with Arf invariant 1. By arguing as in the proof of Corollary \[K4n+3\], without loss of generality we can assume that the order of the automorphism that $h$ induces on $C_{14}$ is a power of 2. It follows that $h$ either leaves some 14-cycle or some 12-cycle setwise invariant.
Suppose that $h$ leaves a 14-cycle setwise invariant. Label the edges of this 14-cycle consecutively as $\overline{x_1x_2...x_{14}}$. Then it follows from Lemma \[Heawood automorphism\], that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(h\circ f)=\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$. But since $h$ is orientation reversing we can argue as in the proof of Proposition \[intrinsic chirality\] that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(h\circ f)=-\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$, which is impossible since $L(f)$ is odd and hence non-zero.
Now suppose that $h$ leaves a 12-cycle $Z$ setwise invariant. As shown in Figure \[Figure12cycle\], $G$ has precisely three edges not in $Z$ which have both vertices in $Z$. Now $Z$ together with these three edges is a Möbius ladder $M_3$. However, it was shown in [@Flapan; @1989] that no embedding of $M_3$ in $S^3$ has an orientation reversing homeomorphism which takes the outer loop $Z$ to itself. Thus again we have a contradiction.
![A 12-cycle in the Heawood graph.[]{data-label="Figure12cycle"}](12cycle.eps){width="40.00000%"}
The subgraphs $2K_3$, $K_5$, and $K_{3,3}$ of a given graph
===========================================================
Shinjo and Taniyama [@Shinjo] proved that two embeddings $f$ and $g$ of a graph $G$ in $S^3$ are spatial-graph homologous if and only if for each $2K_3$ subgraph $H$ of $G$ the restriction maps $f |_H$ and $g|_H$ have the same linking number, and for each $K_5$ or $K_{3,3}$ subgraph $H$ of $G$ the restriction maps $f |_H$ and $g|_H$ have the same Simon invariant.
We now show that for any oriented graph $G$, any integer linear combination of the reduced Wu invariants of subgraphs of $G$ is itself a reduced Wu invariant for $G$.
\[linear\] Let $G$ be a graph with oriented edges, and let $G_{1},G_{2},\ldots,G_{k}$ denote subgraphs of $G$ with orientations inherited from $G$. For each $q\le k$, let $\varepsilon_{q}:L(G_{q})\to {\mathbb Z}$ be a homomorphism, and $i_{q}:G_{q}\to G$ be the inclusion map. Let $m_{1},m_{2},\ldots,m_{k}$ be integers and let $\varepsilon:L(G) \to {\mathbb Z}$ be the homomorphism given by $\varepsilon=\sum_{q=1}^{k}m_{q}\varepsilon_{q}\circ (i_{q}\times i_{q})^{*}$. Then for any embedding $f$ of $G$ in $S^{3}$, $\sum_{q=1}^{k}m_{q}\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon_{q}}(f|_{G_{q}})$ is the reduced Wu invariant given by $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$.
Observe that the embedding $(f\times f)\circ (i_{q}\times i_{q})$ is equivalent to the embedding $(f|_{G_{q}})\times (f|_{G_{q}}):C_{2}(G_{q})\to C_{2}({\mathbb R}^{3})$. Hence, by the definition of the Wu invariant, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)
&=& \varepsilon({\mathcal L}(f))\\
&=& \varepsilon((f\times f)^{*}(\Sigma)) \\
&=& \sum_{q=1}^{k}m_{q}\varepsilon_{q}\circ (i_{q}\times i_{q})^{*}\circ (f\times f)^{*}(\Sigma) \\
&=& \sum_{q=1}^{k}m_{q}\varepsilon_{q}\circ ((f\times f)\circ (i_{q}\times i_{q}))^{*}(\Sigma)\\
&=& \sum_{q=1}^{k}m_{q}\varepsilon_{q}\circ ((f|_{G_{q}})\times (f|_{G_{q}}))^{*}(\Sigma)\\
&=& \sum_{q=1}^{k}m_{q}\varepsilon_{q}({\mathcal L}(f|_{G_{q}})) \\
&=& \sum_{q=1}^{k}m_{q}\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon_{q}}(f|_{G_{q}}). \end{aligned}$$ Thus we have the result.
This theorem allows us to define new reduced Wu invariants, as we see from the following two examples.
\[ML\]
For $N\geq 2$, consider the oriented labeled graph of a Möbius ladder $M_{2N+1}$ illustrated in Figure \[Mobius\]. For $q=0,1,\ldots,2N$, let $G_{q}$ be the subgraph of $M_{2N+1}$ consisting of the outer cycle $\overline{x_1 x_2 ... x_{4N+2}}$ together with the three rungs $y_{q+1}$, $y_{q+2}$, and $y_{q+3}$ where the subscripts are considered mod $2N+1$ and the orientations are inherited from $M_{2N+1}$. Then each $G_{q}$ is homeomorphic to $K_{3,3}$. Thus each $L(G_{q})$ is generated by $[E^{x_{q+1},x_{q+2N+2}}]$. Let $\varepsilon_{q}$ be the homomorphism from $L(G_{q})$ to ${\mathbb Z}$ defined by $\varepsilon_{q}(x_{q+1},x_{q+2N+2})=1$. Let $f$ be an embedding of $M_{2N+1}$ in $S^3$. Then by Theorem \[linear\], $\tilde{\mathcal L}_\varepsilon(f)=\sum_{q=0}^{2N}\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon_{q}}(f|_{G_{q}})$ defines a reduced Wu invariant for $M_{2N+1}$.
Observe that this reduced Wu invariant is not equal to the generalized Simon invariant for $M_{2N+1}$ that we defined in Section \[GSI\]. However, this invariant has similar properties to those we proved for the generalized Simon invariant of $M_{2N+1}$. In particular, since each $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon_{q}}(f|_{G_{q}})$ is essentially the Simon invariant of $f|_{G_{q}}$ and therefore odd valued, it follows that $\tilde{\mathcal L}(f)$ is always odd. Moreover, we know from [@S86] that any automorphism of $M_{2N+1}$ that takes the outer cycle $\overline{x_1 x_2 ... x_{4N+2}}$ to itself. Thus any automorphism of $M_{2N+1}$ leaves $\left\{G_{0},G_{1},\ldots,G_{2N}\right\}$ setwise invariant. This implies that $\tilde{\mathcal L}(f)$ is independent of labeling.
[![An oriented $M_{2N+1}$ together with a $K_{3,3}$ subgraph. Note the subscripts on $x_i$ are considered mod $4N+2$ and those on $y_i$ are considered mod $2N+1$.[]{data-label="Mobius"}](M14_orientedWu.eps "fig:"){width="95.00000%"}]{}
\[Hea\]
Let $C_{14}$ be the Heawood graph as illustrated in Figure \[Heawood\]. For $q=0,1,\ldots,6$, let $G_{q}$ be the subgraph of $C_{14}$ as illustrated in Figure \[Heawood\], where the labels of vertices are considered mod 14. Note that each $G_{q}$ is homeomorphic to $K_{3,3}$. Thus each $L(G_{q})$ is generated by $[E^{x_{1},x_{8}}]$. Let $\varepsilon_{q}$ be the homomorphism from $L(G_{q})$ to ${\mathbb Z}$ defined by $\varepsilon_{q}(x_{1},x_{8})=1$. Let $f$ be an embedding of $C_{14}$ in $S^3$. Then by Theorem \[linear\], $\tilde{\mathcal L}_\varepsilon(f)=\sum_{q=0}^{6}\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon_{q}}(f|_{G_{q}})$ defines a reduced Wu invariant for $C_{14}$.
Again this reduced Wu invariant is not equal to the generalized Simon invariant for $C_{14}$ that we defined in Section \[GSI\], but has similar properties to those of the generalized Simon invariant. In particular, since each $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon_{q}}(f|_{G_{q}})$ is essentially the Simon invariant of $f|_{G_{q}}$ and therefore odd valued, it follows that $\tilde{\mathcal L}(f)$ is always odd. Moreover, let $\alpha$ be an automorphism of $C_{14}$ takes the outer cycle $\overline{x_1\dots x_{14}}$ to itself, and thus the edges $y_{1},y_{2},\ldots,y_{7}$ as well. Then $\alpha$ permutes $\left\{G_{0},G_{1},\ldots,G_{6}\right\}$ and reversing every arrow would have no effect on the signs of the crossings. This implies that $\tilde{\mathcal L}(f)$ is preserved under $\alpha$.
[![An oriented Heawood graph together with a $K_{3,3}$ subgraph.[]{data-label="Heawood"}](HeawoodWu.eps "fig:"){width="90.00000%"}]{}
Now we prove the converse of Theorem \[linear\]. In particular, we show that any reduced Wu invariant of a graph $G$ can be expressed as a linear combination of reduced Wu invariants of subgraphs $2K_3$, $K_5$, and $K_{3,3}$ of $G$.
\[reduced\] Let $G$ be a graph with oriented edges, and let $G_{1},G_{2},\ldots,G_{k}$ denote all of the $2K_{3}$, $K_{5}$, and $K_{3,3}$ subgraphs of $G$ with orientations inherited from $G$. For each $q\leq k$, let $\varepsilon_{q}:L(G_q)\to {\mathbb Z}$ be an isomorphism, and let $i_{q}:G_q\to G$ be the inclusion map. Then for any homomorphism $\varepsilon: L(G)\to {\mathbb Z}$, there exists integers $m\neq 0$ and $m_{1},m_{2},\ldots,m_{k}$ such that for any embedding $f$ of $G$ in $S^3$. $$\begin{aligned}
m\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)
=\sum_{q=1}^{k}m_{q}\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon_{q}}(f|_{G_{q}}). \end{aligned}$$
Consider the homomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi:L(G)\longrightarrow \bigoplus_{q=1}^{k}L(G_{q})\end{aligned}$$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(x)=((i_{1}\times i_{1})^{*}(x),(i_{2}\times i_{2})^{*}(x),\ldots,(i_{k}\times i_{k})^{*}(x))\end{aligned}$$ Shinjo and Taniyama [@Shinjo] proved that for any $x,y\in L(G)$, if $(i_{q}\times i_{q})^{*}(x)=(i_{q}\times i_{q})^{*}(y)$ for any $q=1,2,\ldots,k$ then $x=y$. This implies that $\varphi$ is injective. It follows that $\varphi$ also induces an injective linear map $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi:L(G)\otimes {\mathbb Q}\longrightarrow \bigoplus_{q=1}^{k}(L(G_{q})\otimes {\mathbb Q})\end{aligned}$$ and therefore its dual $$\begin{aligned}
{\varphi}^{\sharp}:{\rm Hom}\left(\bigoplus_{q=1}^{k}(L(G_{q})\otimes {\mathbb Q}),{\mathbb Q}\right)\longrightarrow {\rm Hom}(L(G)\otimes {\mathbb Q},{\mathbb Q})\end{aligned}$$ is surjective. We consider each $\varepsilon_{q}$ as a linear map from $\bigoplus_{q=1}^{k}(L(G_{q})\otimes {\mathbb Q})$ to ${\mathbb Q}$ in the usual way. Then because each $\varepsilon_{q}$ is an isomorphism, the linear forms $\varepsilon_{1}$, $\varepsilon_{2}$, …, $\varepsilon_{k}$ generate ${\rm Hom}\left(\bigoplus_{q=1}^{k}(L(G_{q})\otimes {\mathbb Q}),{\mathbb Q}\right)$. Thus, for any $u\in {\rm Hom}(L(G)\otimes {\mathbb Q},{\mathbb Q})$, there is a $u'\in {\rm Hom}\left(\bigoplus_{q=1}^{k}(L(G_{q})\otimes {\mathbb Q}),{\mathbb Q}\right)$ and rational numbers $r_{1},r_{2},\ldots,r_{k}$ such that $u'=\sum_{q=1}^{k}r_{q}\varepsilon_{q}$. Hence for an element $x$ in $L(G)\otimes {\mathbb Q}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
u(x)&=&{\varphi}^{\sharp}(u')(x)\\
&=&{\varphi}^{\sharp}\left(\sum_{q=1}^{k}r_{q}\varepsilon_{q}\right)(x)\\
&=& \sum_{q=1}^{k}r_{q}{\varphi}^{\sharp}(\varepsilon_{q})(x)\\
&=& \sum_{q=1}^{k}r_{q}\varepsilon_{q}(\varphi(x))\\
&=& \sum_{q=1}^{k}r_{q}\varepsilon_{q}\circ (i_{q}\times i_{q})^{*}(x). \end{aligned}$$ Now it follows that $\varepsilon_{1}\circ (i_{1}\times i_{1})^{*},\ \varepsilon_{2}\circ (i_{2}\times i_{2})^{*},\ \ldots,\ \varepsilon_{k}\circ (i_{k}\times i_{k})^{*}$ generate ${\rm Hom}(L(G)\otimes {\mathbb Q},{\mathbb Q})$. Hence, there are rational numbers $r_{1},r_{2},\ldots,r_{k}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)
= \sum_{q=1}^{k}r_{q}\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon_{q}}(f|_{G_{q}}). \end{aligned}$$ This implies the desired conclusion.
\[K6gs2\][Consider the oriented and labeled $K_6$ illustrated in Figure \[K6Simon3\]. Let $\varepsilon$ be the homomorphism from $L(K_{6})$ to ${\mathbb Z}$ given in Example \[K6gs\], and let $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)
$ be the corresponding reduced Wu invariant. For $q=1$,…, 6, let $G_{q}$ be the $K_{5}$ subgraphs illustrated in Figure \[K6Simon3\] where $q$ is considered mod 6. Observe that the orientations and labels on $G_q$ are inherited from those on $K_6$. Then for each $q$, the linking module $L(G_{q})$ is generated by $[E^{x_{1},x_{4}}]$. Let $\varepsilon_{q}$ be the isomorphism from $L(G_{q})$ to ${\mathbb Z}$ defined by $\varepsilon_{q}(x_{1},x_{4})=1$. Let $f$ be an embedding of $K_6$ in $S^3$. Then it’s not hard to check that: ]{} $$\begin{aligned}
2\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)
=\sum_{q=1}^{6}\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon_{q}}(f|_{G_{q}}). \end{aligned}$$
[![An oriented $K_6$ together with $K_5$ subgraphs.[]{data-label="K6Simon3"}](K6Simon3bis.eps "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}]{}
\[K7gs2\]
Consider the oriented and labeled $K_7$ illustrated in Figure \[FigureK7\_labeled\]. The epsilon coefficients which gave us the generalized Simon invariant for $K_7$ are $$\varepsilon(x_i,x_j) = \varepsilon(y_i,y_j) = \varepsilon(z_i,z_j) = \varepsilon(x_i,z_j) = \varepsilon(y_i,z_j) = 1$$ $$\varepsilon(x_i,y_j) = -1$$
These values of $\varepsilon(a,b)$ define a homomorphism $\varepsilon: L(K_{7})\to {\mathbb Z}$, which corresponds to a reduced Wu invariant $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$. For $q=1,2,\ldots,7$, let $G_{q},H_{q},F_{q}$ and $L_{q}$ be the subgraphs of $K_{7}$ illustrated in Figure \[K7Simon4\], where the subscripts are considered mod 7. Observe that the orientations on the subgraphs are inherited from those of $K_7$ in Figure \[FigureK7\_labeled\].
[![We consider these oriented subgraphs of $K_7$.[]{data-label="K7Simon4"}](K7Simon4bis.eps "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}]{}
Each $G_{q},H_{q}$, and $F_{q}$ is homeomorphic to $K_{3,3}$. Each $L(G_{q})$ is generated by $[E^{x_{1},x_{4}}]$, each $L(H_{q})$ is generated by $[E^{y_{1},y_{7}}]$ and each $L(F_{q})$ is generated by $[E^{z_{1},z_{3}}]$. On the other hand, each $J_{q}$ is homeomorphic to $2K_{3}$, and each $L(J_q)$ is generated by $[E^{x_{q+1},x_{q+4}}]$. Let $\varepsilon_{q}$ be the homomorphism from $L(G_{q})$ to ${\mathbb Z}$ defined by $\varepsilon_{q}(x_{1},x_{4})=1$. Let $\zeta_{q}$ be the homomorphism from $L(H_{q})$ to ${\mathbb Z}$ defined by $\zeta_{q}(y_{1},y_{7})=1$. Let $\eta_{q}$ be the homomorphism from $L(F_{q})$ to ${\mathbb Z}$ defined by $\eta_{q}(z_{1},z_{3})=1$. Let $\theta_{q}$ be the homomorphism from $L(J_{q})$ to ${\mathbb Z}$ defined by $\theta_{q}(x_{q+1},x_{q+4})=1$. Let $f$ be an embedding of $K_7$ in $S^3$. Then it is not hard to check that:
$$\begin{aligned}
3\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)
=\sum_{q=1}^{7}\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon_{q}}(f|_{G_{q}})
+\sum_{q=1}^{7}\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\zeta_{q}}(f|_{H_{q}})
+\sum_{q=1}^{7}\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\eta_{q}}(f|_{F_{q}})
-5\sum_{q=1}^{7}\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\theta_{q}}(f|_{J_{q}}). \end{aligned}$$
Minimal crossing number of a spatial graph
==========================================
Let $f$ be a spatial embedding of a graph $G$. The following theorem gives a lower bound for the minimal crossing number of any projection of $f$ up to isotopy.
\[cr\]Let $f$ be an embedding of an oriented graph $G$ in $S^3$ with generalized Simon invariant $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$, and let $c(f)$ be the minimum crossing number of all projections of all embeddings ambient isotopic $f$. Let $m_{\varepsilon}$ be the maximum of $|\varepsilon(e_{i},e_{j})|$ over all pairs of disjoint edges in $G$. Then $$\left|\widehat{L}(f)\right| \le c(f) m_{\varepsilon}.$$
Fix a diagram of $f(G)$ which realizes the minimal crossing number $c(f)$. Observe that $c(f)$ includes crossings between an edge and itself as well as crossings between adjacent edges, which are not included in $\sum_{e_{i}\cap e_{j}=\emptyset}|\ell(f(e_{i}),f(e_{j}))|$. Therefore, we have the following sequence of inequalities. $$\begin{aligned}
|\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)|
&=& \left|\sum_{e_{i}\cap e_{j}=\emptyset}\varepsilon(e_{i},e_{j})\ell(f(e_{i}),f(e_{j}))\right|\\
&\le& \sum_{e_{i}\cap e_{j}=\emptyset}|\varepsilon(e_{i},e_{j})| |\ell(f(e_{i}),f(e_{j}))|\\
&\le& m_{\varepsilon} \sum_{e_{i}\cap e_{j}=\emptyset}|\ell(f(e_{i}),f(e_{j}))|\\
&\le& m_{\varepsilon} c(f). \end{aligned}$$ Thus we have the result.
Since every reduced Wu invariant with respect to a given homomorphism $\varepsilon$ is a generalized Simon invariant with epsilon coefficients given by $\varepsilon(a,b)$, Theorem \[cr\] is true for any reduced Wu invariant $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$.
Recall from Example \[2K3\_2\] that the reduced Wu invariant of $2K_3$ is twice the linking number. Thus applying Theorem \[cr\] to an embedding of $2K_3$ gives us the well known fact that the minimal crossing number of a $2$-component link is at least twice the absolute value of the linking number. Applying Theorem \[cr\] to Examples \[K5\] and \[K33\] shows that the minimal crossing number of any spatial embedding of $K_5$ or $K_{3,3}$ is at least the absolute value of the Simon invariant.
[ Let $f$ be a spatial embedding of $K_{7}$. Consider the generalized Simon invariant $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ given in Section \[GSI\]. Since $m_{\varepsilon}(f)=1$ for any projection of $f$, it follows from Theorem \[cr\] that $c(f)\ge |\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)|$. ]{}
Consider the oriented and labeled $K_6$ illustrated in Figure \[K6Simon3\]. We introduce a new generalized Simon invariant for $K_6$ where the epsilon coefficients are given by:
$$\varepsilon(x_i,x_j)=\varepsilon (z_i,z_j)=1$$
$$\varepsilon(y_i,y_j)=\varepsilon(x_i, z_j)=-1$$
$$\varepsilon(x_i, y_j)=\varepsilon(y_i, z_j)=0$$
It is not hard to check that these epsilon coefficients indeed give us a generalized Simon invariant for $K_6$. Alternatively, if we let $T_1$ be the triangle with vertices $y_1$, $y_2$, and $y_3$ and let $T_2$ be the triangle with vertices $y_4$, $y_5$, and $y_6$, then we can define $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ as the sum of $2\mathrm{lk}(f(T_1), f(T_2))$ together with the Simon invariant of the oriented $K_{3,3}$-subgraph obtained from $K_6$ by deleting $T_1$ and $T_2$.
Let $f$ be the spatial embedding of $K_{6}$ illustrated in Figure \[K6Simon2\], where the rectangle represents the number of positive crossings. We compute the generalized Simon invariant $\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)$ as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal L}_{\varepsilon}(f)=\varepsilon(y_{1},y_{4})\cdot (2n+1)+\varepsilon(x_{4}, z_{2})\cdot 1+\varepsilon(y_{6}, y_{3})\cdot 1=-(2n+1)-1=-2n-3\end{aligned}$$
Since $m_{\varepsilon}=1$, it follows from Theorem \[cr\] that $c(f)\geq|\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)|=2n+3$. The projection in Figure \[K6Simon2\] has $2n+3$ crossings. Thus this projection has a minimal number of crossings. In particular, this means that for every odd number $k\geq 3$, there is an embedding $g$ of $K_6$ in $S^3$ such that $c(g)=k$.
Let $f$ be the embedding of the Heawood graph illustrated in Figure \[HeawoodEmbed\], where each of the rectangles represent the number of positive crossings. Using the generalized Simon invariant from Section \[GSI\], we find that $\widehat{L}_{\varepsilon}(f)=5(2k+1)+5(2m+1)+5(2n+1)$. Also, $m_\varepsilon=5$. Now it follows from Theorem \[cr\] that $c(f)\geq 2(k+m+n)+3$. Since this is precisely the number of crossings in Figure \[HeawoodEmbed\], it follows that this projection has a minimal number of crossings. Since we can choose any values for $k$, $m$, and $n$, it follows that for every odd number $l\geq 3$, there is an an embedding $g$ of the Heawood graph in $S^3$ such that $c(g)=l$.
The authors are grateful to Professor Kouki Taniyama for suggesting that the Wu invariant might be used to obtain bounds on the minimal crossing number of a spatial graph.
The first author was supported in part by NSF grant DMS-0905087, and the third author was partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No. 21740046), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Also, the first author thanks the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications at the University of Minnesota for its hospitality during the Fall of 2013, when she was a long term visitor.
[99]{} J. Conway and C. Gordon. Knots and links in spatial graphs, *Journal of Graph Theory* **7** (1983), 445-453.
E. Flapan. Symmetries of Möbius ladders, *Mathematische Annalen* **283** (1989), 271-283.
E. Flapan and N. Weaver. Intrinsic chirality of complete graphs, *Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society* **1** (1992), 233-236.
L. Kauffman. Formal Knot Theory, Mathematical Notes, 30, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, (1983).
Y. Huh and K. Taniyama. Identifiable projections of spatial graphs, *Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications* **13** (2004), 991-998.
L. Kauffman. Invariants of graphs in three-space, *Transactions of the American Mathematical Society* **311** (1989), 697-710.
R. Nikkuni. The second skew-symmetric cohomology group and spatial embeddings of graphs, *Journal of Knot Theory Ramifications* [**9**]{} (2000), 387–411.
R. Nikkuni. Completely distinguishable projections of spatial graphs, *Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications* **15** (2006), 11-19.
R. Nikkuni. Achirality of spatial graphs and the Simon invariant, *Intelligence of Low Dimensional Topology 2006*, 239-243, Ser. Knots Everything, **40**, *World Sci. Publ., Hackensack, NJ*, (2007).
R. Nikkuni. A refinement of the Conway-Gordon theorems, *Topology and its Applications* **156** (2009), 2782-2794.
R. Nikkuni. $\Delta Y$ exchanges and Conway-Gordon type theorems, *Intelligence of Low Dimensional Topology*, [*RIMS Kokyuroku*]{} [**1812**]{} (2012), 1–14.
R. Nikkuni and K Taniyama. Symmetries of spatial graphs and Simon invariants, *Fundamenta Mathematicae* **205** (2009), 219-236.
Y. Ohyama. Local moves on a graph in $\mathbb{R}^3$, *Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications* **5** (1996), 265-277.
R. Shinjo and K. Taniyama. Homology classification of spatial graphs by linking numbers and Simon invariants, *Topology and its Applications* **134** (2003), 53-67.
J. Simon. Topological chirality of certain molecules, *Topology* [**25**]{} (1986), 229–235.
K. Taniyama. Cobordism, homotopy and homology of graphs in $R^3$, *Topology* **33** (1994), 509-523.
K. Taniyama. Homology classification of spatial embeddings of a graph, *Topology and its Applications* **65** (1995), 205-228.
A. Thompson. A polynomial invariant of graphs in 3-manifolds, *Topology* [**31**]{} (1992), 657–665.
W. T. Wu. On the isotopy of a complex in a Euclidean space I, *Scientia Sinica* **9** (1960), 21-46.
W. T. Wu. A theory of imbedding, immersion, and isotopy of polytopes in a Euclidean space, Science Press, Peking, (1965).
S. Yamada. An invariant of spatial graphs, *Journal of Graph Theory* [**13**]{} (1989), 537–551.
Y. Yokota. [*Topological invariants of graphs in 3-space*]{}, Topology [**35**]{} (1996), 77–87.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\#1[200= ]{}
[**Determining the Phases $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ from Direct CP Violation in $B_u$, $B_d$ and $B_s$ Decays to Two Vectors** ]{}
David Atwood$^{1}$\
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011\
Amarjit Soni$^{2}$\
Theory Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973\
> [**Abstract:**]{} A method for clean determination of the unitarity angles $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ is proposed that uses only direct CP violation and does not require any time dependent measurements. The method takes advantage of helicity amplitudes for $B_u$, $B_d$ and $B_s$ decay to two vector mesons and can be used, at any B-facility, in conjunction with a large number of modes. It also allows for experimental tests of theoretical approximations involved.
Considerable progress has recently been made in experimental determination of the angle $\beta$ of the unitarity triangle and improved measurements are expected in the near future [@cdf_ref; @belle_ref; @babar_ref]. However, even with increased precision in the extraction of $\beta$, the ability to test the CKM [@cabibbo] description of CP violation in the Standard Model (SM) will be limited as the existing tests rely on theoretical calculation of hadronic matrix elements which still have considerable uncertainties [@CKMparadgim]. Therefore clean determinations of all three angles ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) of the unitarity triangle is important to facilitate precision tests of the SM and search for new CP-odd phase(s) due to physics beyond the SM. Currently the asymmetric B-factories are performing remarkably well and in the future hadronic B-machines may produce 1-3 orders of magnitude more B-mesons. Thus, it is very important to devise methods for clean extraction of the angles that can be used at all B-facilities. Furthermore, since time dependent measurements involving $B_s$ mesons are extremely challenging due to the high frequency of $B_s-\bar B_s$ oscillations, it would also be helpful if methods could be devised that do not require such time dependent information.
Motivated by these considerations we propose a method with the novelty that it uses only direct CP-violation and does not involve any use of time dependent measurements. Potentially all types of B-mesons ($B_u$, $B_d$, $B_s$) can be used at all B-facilities. The method also allows for experimental tests of the key theoretical approximations that are involved. Specifically, we propose determination of the angles $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ through a study of the interference of tree and penguin amplitudes in decays of B-mesons to two vector particles.
There have been several methods proposed to extract these angles. For $\alpha$ one can consider oscillation effects in $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ although one must account for the penguin through isospin analysis [@alpha1] by observing $B^0\to\pi^0\pi^0$. Since the branching ratio to $\pi^0\pi^0$ is expected to be small and hard to observe, it may be preferable to consider $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ where one can also take advantage of resonance effects in the Dalitz plot [@alpha2]; however there may be problems in precise modeling of the resonance structure. Another method for extracting $\alpha$ from the interference of $u$-penguins with $t$-penguins in $B^0\to K^{(*)}K^{(*)}$ may overcome the disadvantages of the $2\pi$ and $3\pi$ final states [@londonKK] although the analogous $B_s$ decays are required for the analysis. All three of these methods use time dependent CP violation measurements of $B^0(\xba B^0)$ decays driven by the mixing in that system while our method relies on direct (time independent) CP violation only.
The angle $\gamma$ may be extracted at the $B$-factories through the interference of $b\to u\xba c s$ and $b\to c\xba u s$ [@adsglw]. In the method we discuss here, we will obtain $\gamma$ through the interference of the $b\to s$ penguin and the $b\to s u\xba u$ tree and $\alpha$ from the interference of the $b\to d$ penguin and the $b\to d
u\xba u$ tree.
Our method requires measurements made in two separate decay modes. One mode of the form $B\to V_1V_2$, together with $\xba B \to \xba V_1 \xba
V_2$, ($B=B_u$, $B_d$ or $B_s$) which receives both tree and penguin contributions and another mode $B\to V_3V_4$ which is a pure penguin. The procedure uses helicity amplitudes of $B\to V_1V_2$, which can be inferred from decay distributions of the vectors [@german; @palmer; @chi_wolf; @ddf_moments; @as_krho]. By analyzing this data together with the helicity amplitudes for $B\to V_3V_4$ one can extract the tree-penguin weak phase difference. From a $b\to d$ penguin transition contributing to $B\to V_1V_2$, we deduce $|{V_{td}\over V_{ts}}
\sin\alpha|$ from which $|\sin\alpha|$ may be obtained once $|{V_{td}/V_{ts}}|$ is known [@vtd_note]; from a $b\to s$ penguin we can obtain $|\sin\gamma|$. A list of such modes is shown in Table \[table\_one\]. Thus to implement this method to obtain $\alpha$ one needs to study one mode from the $\alpha$-mode column and one mode from the “pure penguin” column. Likewise to obtain $\gamma$ one $\gamma$-mode and one pure penguin mode is required. Using more than one mode from each column will, of course, increase the analyzing power of the method.
Let us first discuss some of the tree penguin interference modes that are suitable in our method for extracting $\alpha$. In charged $B$ decays, the relevant mode is $B^\pm\to\rho^\pm\omega$. In this case the tree graph is color allowed which we find is advantageous in terms of statistical power. Since the charge of the $\rho$ indicates the flavor of the initial state, no other tagging is required. However, this mode has two $\pi^0$, in the final state originating from decays of $\rho^\pm$ and $\omega$ perhaps making it difficult for hadronic machines.
From Table \[table\_one\] we see see that for an analogous extraction of $\alpha$ via decays of $B^0$ we may use any one of the modes $B^0\to\rho^0\rho^0$, $\rho^+\rho^-$, $\omega\rho^0$ or $\omega\omega$. These modes require tagging at production and C-odd interference terms are degraded somewhat by time integration. Also the tree is color suppressed; however, in the case of $\rho^0\rho^0$ it leads to a final state that does not contain any $\pi^0$ and so may be easier to implement at hadronic $B$ machines. The mode $B^0\to\rho^+\rho^-$ has the advantage that any electro-weak penguin (EWP) contribution is color suppressed.
Decays of $B_s$ usable for $\alpha$ are $B_s\to K^{*0}\rho^0$ or $B_s\to
K^{*+}\rho^-$. Both are self tagging, though in the first case only if $K^{*0}\to K^+\pi^-$. The first mode also has the advantage that the final state contains no $\pi^0$. The final state $K^{*+}\rho^-$, while suffering from at least one $\pi^0$ in the final state, has the advantage that possible contamination from the EWP is color suppressed.
Likewise, our method can also be used to extract $\gamma$ through the use of $b\to s$ penguins. In $B^0$ the candidate modes are $B^0\to K^{*+}
\rho^-$, $B^0\to K^{*0} \rho^0$ and $B^0\to K^{*0} \omega$; note that $B^0\to K^{*0} \rho^0$ has the advantage of no $\pi^0$ in the final state. For charged $B$’s again there are two such modes: $B^+\to K^{*+}\rho^0$ and $B^+\to K^{*+}\omega$, either one of which could be used to obtain $\gamma$; $B^+\to K^{*+}\rho^0$ is free of $\pi^0$.
Our method also needs input from one pure penguin mode; this should be a $b\to s$ penguin since we need the component with an intermediate $u$ quark to be small. For pure penguin modes we can use: $B^+\to \phi
K^{*+}$, $B^0\to \phi K^{*0}$, $B^+\to K^{*0}\rho^+$, $B_s\to \phi \phi$ or $B_s\to K^{*0}K^{*0}$. Likewise the decays $B^0\to\rho^0K^{*0}$ and $B^0\to\omega K^{*0}$ can also be used since the tree contribution is color and CKM suppressed. In Table \[table\_one\] as well as listing all the modes mentioned, we indicate which have color suppressed EWP (underlined); which have color allowed tree contributions (parentheses) and which have $\pi^0$-free final states \[square brackets\].
$B$-meson $\alpha$-mode $\gamma$-mode Pure Penguin
----------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$B^+$ ($\rho^+\omega$) \[([$K^{*+}\rho^0$]{})\], ($K^{*+}\omega$) [height11pt depth7pt width0pt]{}\[$\phi K^{*+}$\], $\underline{K^{*0}\rho^+}$
$B^0$ (), \[$\rho^0\rho^0$\], () \[$K^{*0}\phi$\]
$\omega\omega$, $\rho^0\omega$
$B_s$ \[$K^{*0}\rho^0$\], (), see note [@no_bs_gamma_modes] \[$\phi\phi$\], \[\]
$K^{*0}\omega$
: The relevant $B\to VV$ modes originating from each kind of $B$ meson are shown. In the “$\alpha$-mode” column are tree-penguin interference modes which are sensitive to $\alpha$; likewise the “$\gamma$-modes” are sensitive to $\gamma$. The “pure penguin” modes proceed through $b\to
s$ penguin processes only. The underlined modes have a color suppressed EWP contribution; the modes enclosed in parentheses have color allowed tree contributions while the modes enclosed in square brackets have $\pi^0$ free final states. \[table\_one\]
In our analysis we will use the approximations that: (1) SU(3) is a valid symmetry for penguin processes, (2) the effects of the EWP are small, (3) the $q\bar q$ pair which arises in a strong penguin does not form a single vector meson of the final state. Recall that the EWP are assumed to be small for other proposed methods [@alpha1; @alpha2; @londonKK] as well for extracting $\alpha$. Note also that for some of the modes in Table \[table\_one\] the EWP is color suppressed. Later we will discuss ways to test each of these three approximations.
To illustrate our method, we now focus on $B^\pm\to\rho^\pm\omega$ (i.e. $V_1V_2=\rho^+\omega$) where the discussion easily generalizes to the other modes mentioned above. The SM amplitude ${\fa}$ for this process can be written:
$$\begin{aligned}
\fa = T v_u + P_u v_u + P_c v_c + P_t v_t
\equiv \hat T v_u + \hat P v_t\end{aligned}$$
where $T$ is the tree contribution to the amplitude, $P_i$ is the penguin contribution due to the diagram with an internal quark of type $u_i$ and $v_i=V^*_{ib}V_{id}$. Unitarity of the CKM matrix allows us to express the amplitudes in terms of $\hat T=T+P_u-P_c$ which we will refer to as the corrected tree and $\hat P=P_t-P_c$, the corrected penguin.
For this mode it is useful to follow a (non-standard) convention for the weak phase where the corrected tree is zero. The amplitudes for $B^+\to\rho^+\omega$ may then be written as:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\bf A}=
{\bf a}
+
{\bf b}
e^{i\alpha}
~~~{\rm where}~~~
{\bf a}= \hat T |v_u|
~~~{\rm and}~~~
{\bf b}= \hat P |v_t| \end{aligned}$$
and each of the bold face terms represent a set of helicity amplitudes.
The amplitude for the charge conjugate process in this convention is ${\bf \bar A}= {\bf a} + \Pi {\bf b} e^{-i\alpha}$ where $\Pi$ indicates parity.
Even knowing the full amplitudes in these decays we cannot hope to determine $\alpha$. This is evident writing the amplitude:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\bf A}={\bf c} + i {\bf b}\sin\alpha,
~~~
{\bf \xba A}={\bf c} - i \Pi {\bf b}\sin\alpha
~~~\Rightarrow~~~
{\bf b}\sin\alpha=({\bf A}-\Pi{\bf \bar A})/(2i)
\label{d_def}\end{aligned}$$
where ${\bf c}={\bf a}+{\bf b}\cos\alpha$. While we may extract ${\bf c}$ and ${\bf b}\sin\alpha$, we clearly can not separately obtain $\sin\alpha$ without more information [@isonote]. To solve for $\alpha$ then, we need two more pieces of information: (1) A means to fix the relative weak phase between ${\bf A}$ and ${\bf \xba A}$. (2) A separate normalization of the penguin contribution ${\bf b}$.
The measurement of pure penguin amplitudes will provide these remaining two inputs. The normalization of such a mode will clearly allow the determination of $\sin^2\alpha$ while the ratios and phase differences between the components of ${\bf b}$ can be matched with those determined from eqn. (\[d\_def\]) providing the condition needed to fix the relative phase of ${\bf A}$ and $\overline {\bf A}$.
Let us now consider how the necessary information about the components of the amplitude may be extracted from the experimental data. For both the $\omega$ and $\rho$ the polarization vector can be completely determined in their rest frame by their decays. For $\rho^\pm\to\pi^\pm\pi^0$ we can define the polarization vector as $\vec E_\rho=\vec P_{\pi^0}/|\vec
P_{\pi^0}|$ while for the $\omega$ we define $\vec E_\omega=\vec
P_{\pi^+}\times \vec P_{\pi^-}/|\vec P_{\pi^+}\times \vec P_{\pi^-}|$. Let us introduce $\theta_1$ to be the polar angle between $\vec E_\rho$ and the boost axis in the $\rho$ frame and likewise $\theta_2$ the polar angle between $\vec E_\omega$ and its boost axis. In addition we introduce the azimuthal angle $\Dd$ between $\vec E_\rho$ and $\vec E_\omega$ with respect to the $\rho$ boost axis. It is convenient to describe the final state in a helicity bases which contains the following states: $|R\ket=|+1\ket_\rho|+1\ket_\omega$, $|L\ket=|-1\ket_\rho|-1\ket_\omega$ and $|0\ket=|0\ket_\rho|0\ket_\omega$. In the following we will rewrite the transverse modes as parity eigenstates: $|S\ket=(|R\ket+|L\ket)/\sqrt{2}$ and $|P\ket=(|R\ket-|L\ket)/\sqrt{2}$ where the action of parity is $\Pi:|0\ket$, $|S\ket\to+|0\ket$, $|S\ket$ and $\Pi:|P\ket\to-|P\ket$.
The amplitudes for production of the $|0\ket$, $|S\ket$ and $|P\ket$ states respectively may be expressed in the three component notation: ${\bf A}= \left
[A_0,~ A_S,~ A_P \right]$. The angular distribution (see e.g. [@chi_wolf]) for the two vector decay is $ d\Gamma/d\Phi
=\sum_{i=1}^{6} X_i f_i(\Phi) $ where $\Phi$ represents the phase space, $d\Phi=dz_1dz_2d\Dd/(8\pi)$ and the basic distributions are given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
&&f_1=9z_1^2z_2^2;
~~~~
f_2=(9/2)u_1^2u_2^2\cos^2\Dd;
~~~~
f_3=(9/2)u_1^2u_2^2\sin^2\Dd;
\nonumber\\
&&f_4=9\sqrt{2}z_1z_2u_1u_2\cos\Dd;
~~~
f_5=9\sqrt{2}z_1z_2u_1u_2\sin\Dd; \nonumber\\
&&f_6= 9 u_1^2u_2^2\sin\Dd\cos\Dd
\label{dist2}\end{aligned}$$
with $z_i=\cos\theta_i$ and $u_i=\sin\theta_i$ ($i=1,2$). In terms of the helicity amplitudes, the coefficients are thus:
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{lll}
X_1=|A_0|^2;&
X_2=|A_S|^2;&
X_3=|A_P|^2;
\\
X_4=Re(A_0A_S^*);&
X_5=Im(A_0A_P^*);&
X_6=Im(A_sA_P^*);
\end{array}
\label{pars}\end{aligned}$$
we have normalized the coefficients so that $Br=X_1+X_2+X_3$.
A convenient method to determine $X_i$ from the angular distribution is to introduce a set of operators [@ddf_moments] $g_i$ such that $<g_i>=X_i/(X_1+X_2+X_3)$. We will use the following set of operators with this property:
$$\begin{aligned}
&&g_1=(40f_1-5f_2-5f_3)/126,
~~
g_2=(265f_2-20f_1-85f_3)/504,
\nonumber\\
&&g_3=(265f_3-20f_1-85f_2)/504,
~~
g_{4,5}=25f_{4,5}/36,
~~
g_6=25f_6/72.
\label{moments}\end{aligned}$$
Once an experimental determination of the observables $\{X_i\}$ has been made, it is possible to determine the amplitudes up to the following ambiguities: (1) An overall phase, (2) the transformation ${\bf A}\to
\Pi{\bf A}^*$. Thus we have six observables determining three complex (amplitudes), or equivalently six real parameters. The overall phase ambiguity means that the remaining five amplitude parameters are over determined by the six observables. An unobservable phase may be applied to both ${\bf A}$ and $\xba {\bf A}$ leaving one only the relative phase between the $B^+$ and $B^-$ decays undetermined. To be specific, we will take this weak phase to be $\pp=\arg(A_0(B^-)A_0^*(B^+))$. Once $\pp$ is determined, the experimental observables in $B^+$ and $B^-$ decay will allow us to obtain ${\bf b}\sin\alpha$ from eqn. (\[d\_def\]). To obtain $\sin\alpha$ we therefore need a means to fix $\pp$ as well as information about ${\bf
b}$.
Consider now what may be learned from $B^0\to\phi K^*$. In the SM we expect negligible CP violation in this mode (e.g. in [@palmer] the CP violation is estimated to be $O(1\%)$); thus $X_{1-4}(\phi
K^{*0})=X_{1-4}(\phi \xba K^{*0})$ and $X_{5,6}(\phi K^{*0})=-X_{5,6}(\phi
\xba K^{*0})$. Within the SM and using our assumption that the gluon does not fragment to a single vector meson, the amplitude ${\bf A}(\phi
K^{*0})=\sqrt{2}{\bf b}(V_{ts}/V_{td})$ hence the observables will be related to ${\bf b}$ by:
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{|b_0|^2}
=
q
{X_1({\cal F})},
~~
{|b_S|^2}
=
q
{X_2({\cal F})},
~~
{|b_P|^2}
=
q
{X_3({\cal F})},
~~
{Re(b_0b_S^*)}
=
q
{X_4({\cal F})},
\nonumber\\
&&
{Im(b_0b_P^*)}
=
q
{X_5({\cal F})},
~~
{Im(b_Sb_P^*)}
=
q
{X_6({\cal F})},
\label{final_eqn}\end{aligned}$$
where ${\cal F}=\phi K^*$ and $q=|V_{td}/V_{ts}|^2/2$. We are now in a position to determine $\pp$ and $\sin^2\alpha$ since eqn. (\[final\_eqn\]) gives six equations in only two unknowns (i.e. $\pp$ and $\alpha$) when combined with eqn. (\[d\_def\]).
We now estimate the precision with which one may extract $\sin^2\alpha$ using this method. The statistical errors will, of course, depend on the number of $B$ mesons which are available. To quantify this for a given decay mode $B\to X$, let us define $\hat
N_B=(number~of~B)(acceptance~for~X)$ for each type of $B$-meson. For concreteness, we consider $\hat N_B=10^8$ and $5\times 10^8$ in our calculations.
The pure penguin modes $B^+\to\phi K^{*+}$ and $B^0\to\phi K^{*0}$ have in fact recently been observed at BaBar [@cleo_Kphi; @babarpeng] with $Br(B^+\to \phi K^{*+})$ = $(9.7^{+4.2}_{-3.4}\pm1.7)\times10^{-6}$ and $Br(B^0\to \phi K^{*0})$ = $(8.6^{+2.8}_{-2.4}\pm1.1)\times10^{-6}$. In our sample calculation we will take this branching ratio to be $10^{-5}$. Estimating the corrected $b\to d$ penguin contributions, we get $Br_{penguin}(B^-\to\rho^-\omega)$ $\approx$ $2|V_{td}/V_{ts}|^2 Br(B\to
\phi K^*)\approx 8\times 10^{-7}$ where [@CKMparadgim] $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|\approx 0.2$. The tree graph for this final state has a similar topology to the observed [@cleo_Kpi; @babar_0105061] $B^+\to\pi^+\pi^0$ decay modes with branching ratios of $\sim 5\pm 2
\times 10^{-6}$. The branching ratio to a two vector final state should be somewhat larger because of the additional helicity states. Here we will assume that this will increase the branching ratio by roughly a factor of 3 as is the case for $Br(B^+\to\rho^+ D^{*0})/Br(B^+\to\pi^+D^{0})$ so that $Br_{tree}(B^+\to\rho^+\omega)\approx 15\times 10^{-6}$ [@pdb].
The precision for extracting $\sin^2\alpha$ will depend on the distribution of the amplitudes between the various helicity states. As an example, which we will call Case 1, we will take the toy model for the amplitudes given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\bf a}\propto
\left [1,1,-1\right ]
~~~~
{\bf b}\propto
\left [ 0.23,0.23,0.23\right ]
\label{toy_modelA}\end{aligned}$$
which has the correct ratio of total rates. In this toy model the amplitudes have no relative phase from final state interactions. Case 2 will be the corresponding results averaged over helicity distributions and phases subject only to the condition that $|{\bf a}|$ and $|{\bf b}|$ are fixed.
To simulate the reconstruction of $\sin^2\alpha$ from experimental data we will calculate the observables $X_i$ for each mode and estimate the correlated errors assuming that these are measured using the operators $g_i$. The tree-penguin mode give us $A$ and $\xba A$ up to a relative phase. We can thus use eqn. (\[d\_def\]) to get ${\bf b}\sin\alpha$ so that eqn. (\[final\_eqn\]) further constrains the fit and a minimum value of $\chi^2$ can be obtained for each value of $\sin^2\alpha$. The dependence of $\chi^2$ on $\sin^2\alpha$ thus allows us to obtain the statistical error $\Delta \sin^2\alpha$ given in Table \[table\_two\] where we take $\alpha=30^\circ$ and $60^\circ$. In the last line of this Table, we consider a similar exercise for a mode sensitive to $\gamma$.
Table \[table\_two\] gives results for the tree penguin modes: $B^+\to
\rho^+\omega$ where the tree is color allowed, $B^0\to \rho^0\omega$ where the tree is color suppressed and a combined fit with both modes taken together. We also consider the $B_s$ mode, $B_s\to K^{*+}\rho^-$. In each case we take $\hat N_B=10^8$ and $5\times 10^8$ and give results for Cases 1 and 2.
--------------------------------------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Tree-Penguin CKM quantity $30^\circ$ $60^\circ$ $30^\circ$ $60^\circ$
$B^+\to\rho^+\omega$ $\sin^2\alpha$ .065; .029 .112; .050 .063;.033 .115;.062
$B^0\to\rho^0\omega$ $\sin^2\alpha$ .220; .118 .221; .107 .095; .051 .114;.060
$B^+\to\rho^+\omega$ & $B^0\to\rho^0\omega$ $\sin^2\alpha$ .056; .025 .101; .045 .055;.023 .081;.040
$B_s\to K^{*+}\rho^-$ $\sin^2\alpha$ .088; .039 .151; .068 .098;.039 .146;.072
$B^+\to K^{*+}\rho^-$ $\sin^2\gamma$ .054; .032 .069; .049 .099; .054 .095; .057
--------------------------------------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
: The error in $\sin^2\alpha$ or $\sin^2\gamma$ assuming the central value of $\alpha$, $\gamma$ = $30^\circ$ or $60^\circ$. The results under Case 1 use the helicity distribution given in eqn. (\[toy\_modelA\]) while Case 2 is a Monte Carlo average both over helicity distribution and over phases keeping the branching ratios fixed. In each entry the first number is for $\hat
N_B=10^8$ while the second is for $\hat N_B=5\times 10^8$. \[table\_two\]
Let us now consider how the validity of the approximations used in this method may be experimentally verified. The validity of SU(3) for penguins may be tested by comparing the various pure penguin modes considered. If this symmetry is exact, the magnitude and relative phases of all the $b\to
s$ pure penguin modes should be the same.
The assumption that EWPs do not play a large role is required in most isospin analysis [@alpha1; @alpha2; @londonKK] since the EWPs have the isospin properties of the tree but the weak phase of the penguin so it cannot be cleanly separated from the tree without additional information. Its presence may be specifically checked in the decay $B^\pm\to\rho^\pm\rho^0$. The final state must have total isospin $I=2$ so in the SM only the tree and EWP can contribute. A significant EWP contribution which has a relative weak phase of $\alpha$ with respect to the tree would thus lead to CP violation. There are six possible CP violating observables that can be obtained from the distributions: $X_{1-4}(\rho^+\rho^0)-X_{1-4}(\rho^-\rho^0)$ and $X_{5,6}(\rho^+\rho^0)+X_{5,6}(\rho^-\rho^0)$. Note that the first four are even under naive time reversal [@physrep], $T_N$, thus require a rescattering phase while the last two are $T_N$ odd and do not. The analogous test for the EWP can also be performed in the decay $B^\pm\to\pi^\pm\pi^0$ where an EWP could generate a partial rate asymmetry. The possible advantage of using the $\rho^\pm\rho^0$ final state is that there are six CP odd signals rather than one in $\pi^\pm\pi^0$.
In the $K\pi$, $K^*\pi$, $K\rho$ and $K^*\rho$ systems one can also check for EWP effects by looking for CP violation with isospin properties inconsistent with tree penguin interference [@as_krho; @as_kpi]. In the $K\pi$ system the absence of EWP implies:
$$\begin{aligned}
2 \Delta(B^-\to K^-\pi^0)
- \Delta(B^-\to \xba K^0\pi^-)
- \Delta(\xba B\to \xba K^-\pi^+)
+2 \Delta(\xba B\to \xba K^0\rho^0)=0
\label{sumrule}\end{aligned}$$
where $\Delta(X)$ is the partial rate asymmetry for the reaction $X$. Eqn. (\[sumrule\]) also applies to $K\rho$ and $K^*\pi$ while for $K^*\rho$ it applies separately to $X_1$, $X_2$ and $X_3$.
It is also possible to reduce the potential impact of the EWP by choosing modes in which their contribution will be color suppressed. In particular, the tree penguin interference processes $B_s\to K^{*+}\rho^-$ and $B_0\to
\rho^+\rho^-$ will color suppress the EWP as will the pure penguin process $B_s\to K^{*0} K^{*0}$.
The assumption that the gluon does not fragment into a single vector meson is true at lowest order in perturbation theory by color conservation. We can estimate how well it holds when QCD corrections are introduced, through renormalization group improved perturbation theory. If we define ${\bf b^\prime}$ to be the penguin contribution where the quarks from the gluon form a single meson, the ratios of the contributions should be:
$$\begin{aligned}
|{\bf b^\prime}|/|{\bf b }|
\approx
{
(3C_3+C_4+3C_5+C_6)
/
(C_3+C_4+C_5+C_6)
}\end{aligned}$$
where we have used the notation of [@buras_rg]. With the numerical results from that paper we find that this ratio is about 0.04 for various values of $\Lambda_{QCD}$ both in naive dimensional regularization and in the ’t-Hooft—Veltman schemes at next to leading order.
To summarize, we have shown that unitarity angles $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ can be extracted by a method that is rather unique in that it only uses direct CP violation and does not need any time dependent measurements. We gave several examples of modes which can be used and also discussed how experimentally the underlying theoretical approximations can be tested. Since these angles are fundamental parameters of the SM, and their precise determinations could lead to its crucial tests, the importance of measuring them in several different ways can hardly be over emphasized.
This research was supported in part by US DOE Contract Nos.DE-FG02-94ER40817 (ISU); DE-AC02-98CH10886 (BNL).
[99]{}
T. Affolder [*et al*]{}. \[CDF Collab.\], Phys. Rev., 072005 (2000).
A. Abashian [*et al*]{}. \[BELLE Collab.\], hep-ex/0102018 (2001).
B. Aubert [*et al*]{}. \[BaBar Collab.\], hep-ex/0102030 (2001).
N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**10**]{}, 531 (1963); M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Th. Phys. [**49**]{}, 652 (1973).
For recent fits to the CKM matrix see: M. Ciuchini [*et al*]{}. hep-ph/0012308; D. Atwood and A. Soni, hep-ph/0103197; A. Hocker [*et al*]{}, hep-ph/0104062.
M. Gronau and D. London, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 3381 (1990).
A. E. Snyder and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 2139 (1993); H. R. Quinn and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 054002 (2000).
A. Datta and D. London, hep-ph/0105073.
M. Gronau and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. [**B265**]{} (1991); M. Gronau and D. London., Phys. Lett. [**B253**]{}, 483 (1991); D. Atwood [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 3257 (1997); Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 036005 (2001); D. London [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1807 (2000).
G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. D [**39**]{}, 3339 (1989).
G. Kramer [*et al*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**428**]{}, 77 (1994).
C. Chiang and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 074031 (2000).
A. S. Dighe [*et al*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**6**]{}, 647 (1999).
D. Atwood and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 013007 (1999).
Using the fits in [@CKMparadgim] $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|=0.183\pm 0.015$. Future measurement of the rate of $B_s$ oscillation at the Tevatron or LHC should determine this ratio with much greater accuracy.
In the case of $B_s$, there are no analogous self tagging modes which may be used; for instance, the decay mode $B_s\to K^{*+}K^{*-}$ is not useful since it cannot be flavor tagged.
Note that because the tree always has a component with the same isospin properties as the penguin, the consideration of isospin related processes alone will therefore not help to separate ${\bf
b}\cos\alpha$ from ${\bf a}$.
R. A. Briere [*et al.*]{} \[CLEO Collaboration\], hep-ex/0101032.
B. Aubert \[BABAR Collaboration\], hep-ex/0105001.
D. Cronin-Hennessy [*et al.*]{} \[CLEO Collaboration\], hep-ex/0001010;
B. Aubert \[BABAR Collaboration Collaboration\], hep-ex/0105061.
D. E. Groom [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**15**]{}, 1 (2000).
D. Atwood [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rept. [**347**]{}, 1 (2001).
D. Atwood and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 036005 (1998).
G. Buchalla, [*et al*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, 1125 (1996).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Thomas Pumir[^1] Amit Singer[^2] Nicolas Boumal[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'pumir.bib'
title: |
The generalized orthogonal Procrustes problem\
in the high noise regime
---
[^1]: Department of Operations Research and Financial Engineering, Princeton University
[^2]: Mathematics Department and PACM, Princeton University
[^3]: Mathematics Department, Princeton University
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: '**[[montage]{}]{}: AGB nucleosynthesis with full $s$-process calculations**'
---
Introduction
============
The asymptotic giant branch (AGB) is the final stage of the lives of low- and intermediate-mass stars. Evolution during the AGB phase is dominated by thermal pulses [@1965ApJ...142..855S]. These cyclical events consist of brief, intense helium-burning [*pulses*]{} interspersed with quiescent hydrogen-burning [*interpulse*]{} phases. This complex behaviour produces significant nucleosynthesis. Of particular significance for the origin of the elements heavier than iron is the [$s$-process]{}. Neutrons produced by the $^{13}{\rm C}(\alpha,\n)^{16}{\rm O}$ and $^{22}{\rm Ne}(\alpha,\n)^{25}{\rm
Mg}$ reactions are captured on to heavy metal isotopes, in particular . Through a sequence of neutron captures and beta decays this process can produce isotopes as heavy as lead and bismuth. The AGB and [$s$-process]{} nucleosynthesis are well covered in the literature; for example, see recent reviews of AGB evolution by and the [$s$-process]{} by , as well as references therein and other contributions in this issue.
The recent history of [$s$-process]{} nucleosynthetic calculations is dominated by the work of Roberto Gallino and his collaborators, and is reviewed in detail elsewhere in this volume. Much of this work has been motivated by the abundant data provided in recent years by the analysis of meteoritic grains [@2008PASA...25....7Z; @2005sdfm.book.....L] and by spectroscopic observations of giant stars [e.g. @1995ApJ...450..302L; @2002ApJ...579..817A]. Such calculations are challenging for several reasons. One problem is the large computational effort required. For stars that undergo thermal pulses the AGB is, by a large factor, the most difficult part of the evolutionary calculations. In order to reduce their run-time AGB structure calculations usually only include the reactions that generate substantial quantities of energy: the pp-chains, CNO cycles and helium-burning reactions. This allows a small nuclear network to be used. For nucleosynthetic calculations, however, a much larger network is required. To deal with this problem a post-processing technique is commonly employed, where the calculation of nuclear burning and mixing is decoupled from stellar structure and evolution calculations. The isotopes produced and destroyed via the [$s$-process]{} represent the majority of the nuclear network. One technique to deal with them is to assume an average neutron-absorption cross-section for the heavy isotopes and, by means of a fictitious particle, count the number of neutrons that they absorb [e.g. @1988ApJ...326..196B]. This then allows those neutrons to be distributed within the [$s$-process]{} network to calculate their nucleosynthetic effect. Alternatively a restricted [*s*]{}-process network can be used, containing a sub-section of the relevant isotopes [e.g. @2008arXiv0809.1456K]. A third approach has been followed by @2006NuPhA.777..311S, who present an evolutionary model containing a full nuclear network coupled directly to their stellar evolution code [see also @2009ApJ...696..797C].
We describe here a numerical technique that allows us to compute the nucleosynthesis of all the relevant isotopes at the same time with a reasonable computational effort. We split the nuclear network into two parts and solve them separately. The [*lower network*]{} comprises all elements up to and including potassium, and some calcium and scandium isotopes. The [*upper network*]{} contains all the heavier isotopes. The code for evaluating the lower network is briefly discussed in Section \[sect:monsoon\] and that for the upper network, along with the interface between the two, is described in Section \[sect:montage\]. We describe a sample model and give its yields in Section \[sect:yield\].
[[monsoon]{}]{} and the lower network {#sect:monsoon}
=====================================
To model the nucleosynthesis of species less massive than calcium we use [[monsoon]{}]{}, a post-processing nucleosynthesis code. It calculates the mixing and burning of a user-specified set of isotopes simultaneously using a standard relaxation method. As its input [[monsoon]{}]{} takes the radius, pressure, temperature, density, mixing length and velocity as a function of mass from separately calculated stellar structure models. We briefly cover the details of [[monsoon]{}]{}’s construction here; for more information the reader is referred to @1993MNRAS.263..817C, which describes an early version of the code, and Church et al. (in preparation).
[[monsoon]{}]{} comprises a one-dimensional, spherically-symmetric model. Material undergoing convection is split into two streams, one moving upwards and one downwards. In a given timestep material is mixed into each up-flowing cell from the cell below, and similarly into each down-moving cell from the cell above. A gradient in the vertical flow causes material to flow between the two cells in the same level. The ratio of the cross-sectional areas of the up-flowing and down-flowing streams can be adjusted. However, in the model computed here we assume that the two streams have the same cross-section.
We adopt a mesh composed of several sections, the number depending on the evolutionary phase. For main-sequence stars the mesh is placed at geometrically spaced intervals in mass, increasing from the core to envelope. When burning shells develop on the RGB and AGB they are treated with two additional sections of mesh each, also with geometrically-spaced — but closer — meshes. Cores and inter-shell regions are treated with meshes spaced at constant intervals in mass. As burning shells move out through the star the sections of mesh that represent them consume points from the region above and release points into the region below as necessary. Otherwise the mesh is held steady to reduce numerical diffusion. Some special treatment is needed to preserve sufficient resolution in the inter-shell region on the AGB and this is discussed in Section \[sect:montage\]. It is important to note that the mesh that we adopt does not depend on that used for the structural input. This provides a substantial saving in computational effort; for example, the structure code must place many points in the outer envelope to deal with ionisation zones, whereas very little nucleosynthesis of any interest takes place in the envelope and hence very few points are required. Similarly we choose the timestep independently of that used to calculate the star’s structure.
Nuclear reactions are utilised in the parameterised [reaclib]{} form of @2000ADNDT..75....1R. This utilises a seven-component fit to reaction rates that avoids the need for interpolation in large tables. Multiple fits may be made in the case of complex rates, in particular those exhibiting resonances. For the models presented in this paper we use the recommended rates of Illiadis (private communication).
To produce a $^{13}$C pocket and hence the required source of neutrons in low-mass stars we follow the prescription of [@2008arXiv0809.1456K]. For each thermal pulse where third dredge-up occurs a partially-mixed zone is artificially inserted at the bottom of the convective envelope at its point of maximum penetration into the star. Instead of trying to model the behaviour of the (unknown) process causing this partial mixing, we mimic its effect by modifying the hydrogen abundance to include an exponentially decaying profile just below the base of the convective zone. The capture of these protons by $^{12}$C naturally leads to a pocket of $^{13}$C forming, which burns via the $^{13}{\rm C}(\alpha,\n)^{16}{\rm O}$ reaction to produce the dominant neutron source for the [$s$-process]{} in low-mass AGB stars. We find that for a star of this mass ($M\simeq3\,{\rm{M}_\odot}$) a reasonable quantity of $s$-processing is obtained by choosing a zone of mass roughly one tenth that of the intershell region [@2008arXiv0809.1456K].
Treatment of the [$s$-process]{} {#sect:montage}
================================
To treat the [$s$-process]{} we use the network of @2006NuPhA.777..311S for isotopes from $^{44}$Ca to $^{209}$Bi. In this part of the network the only reactions that we consider are neutron captures, beta decays and electron captures. In the conditions found in AGB stars proton- and alpha-capture reactions are not significant for these isotopes. Decays that occur rapidly are taken to be instantaneous. The network is terminated by the reactions $$^{210}{\rm Pb}(\n,\alpha\beta\beta)^{207}{\rm Pb}$$ $$^{210}{\rm Bi}(\n,\alpha\beta)^{207}{\rm Pb}$$ $$^{210}{\rm Po}(\n,\alpha)^{207}{\rm Pb}$$ and $$^{210}{\rm Po}(\alpha)^{206}{\rm Pb}.$$ The alpha particles produced by these reactions are not fed back into the lower network but are retained within the upper network and do not react. This is unlikely to lead to significant errors as the [$s$-process]{} occurs within helium-rich parts of the star where the contribution of the mechanism to the helium abundance is insignificant.
In order to increase the speed of the code such that it can produce useful results, the burning and mixing processes in the upper network are decoupled. A burning step takes place first, using the neutron abundances provided by the lower network, and the resulting isotopic abundances are then mixed. The mixing scheme used is, as in the lower network, that of @1993MNRAS.263..817C, and again the resulting equations are solved using a standard relaxation method. As a result of this simplification burning only needs to be calculated at a single meshpoint at a time, whereas mixing is only calculated for a single isotope at a time. This removes the need to invert very large matrices and hence makes the problem tractable. It may lead to some small loss of accuracy, but only for reactions that occur on a similar timescale to the mixing processes. Such reactions are, in these models, confined to the lower network, which is why simultaneous mixing and burning is employed there. The neutron capture reactions that dominate the upper network are in general much faster than convective mixing, whereas most of the $\beta$ decays are rather slower.
For reasons of simplicity the mesh and timestep used by the upper network are taken from the lower network. Occasionally the upper network may require a shorter timestep to converge: in these cases the step is broken into a set of several intervals of equal duration.
In order to resolve the $^{13}$C pocket and resulting [$s$-process]{} reactions well it is necessary to have good mass resolution in the intershell. We find that a good compromise between adequate resolution and code performance can be achieved by inserting a large number of points, of the order of 50, when the partially mixed zone is included at the point of maximum dredge-up. We then allow the code to add and remove points in the usual manner, provided that the removal of a point does not create a composition discontinuity greater than a factor of 1.3 between any of the lower-network abundances of the newly adjacent points. This is empirically found to retain sufficient resolution during the interpulse period as the pocket burns radiatively. At the peak of the next pulse the intershell convection zone reaches the remainder of the $^{13}$C pocket: the convective motions flatten the composition profile and hence the points are removed.
[[monsoon]{}]{} and the upper network
-------------------------------------
The interface between [[monsoon]{}]{} and the upper network is effected by means of the species $^{44}$Ca and $^{45}$Ca. These two isotopes are included in both networks. Their molar fractions, $h'$, in the lower network are given, in terms of molar fractions $h$ of species in the upper network, by $$h'_{^{44}\rm Ca} = \sum h_i$$ $$h'_{^{45}\rm Ca} \simeq 0$$ where the sum runs over all the species in the upper network. In the lower network there are two reactions that involve both species: $$^{44}{\rm Ca}(\n,\gamma)^{45}{\rm Ca}$$ and $$^{45}{\rm Ca}({\rm g})^{44}{\rm Ca}.$$ The fictitious particle g is included to count the number of neutron captures that the material in the upper network has undergone. The rate of the second reaction is chosen to be very fast, so that any neutron captured produces a g particle in effect instantaneously. This constrains the abundance of in the lower network to be very close to zero at all times, although it could take a small but finite value in regions with a very large neutron exposure. The cross-section, $\sigma_{\rm ^{44}Ca,n}$, of the first reaction is calculated as a weighted sum across all the -capture reactions in the upper network: $$\sigma_{\rm ^{44}Ca,n} = \sum h_i \sigma_{i,\n} / h'_{^{44}\rm Ca}$$ where the sum once again runs over all the species in the upper network. This allows the number of neutrons captured in the upper network to be calculated self-consistently, and subsequently used to calculate the changes in abundance in the upper network.
Model and yield {#sect:yield}
===============
As a sample model we present a $3\,{\rm{M}_\odot}$, $Z=0.02$ star. The structure model sequence was computed using the Monash version of the Mount Stromlo Stellar Structure Programme [[monstar]{}, @1986ApJ...311..708L; @1996ApJ...473..383F]. The opacities used by the code have been updated. At high temperatures we use the OPAL opacities [@1996ApJ...464..943I], and at low temperatures the opacity tables from @2005ApJ...623..585F. We use the mass-loss law on the first giant branch and during core helium burning with $\eta=0.4$, and the AGB mass-loss law of @1993ApJ...413..641V thereafter. Our initial abundances are taken from @1989GeCoA..53..197A. The model was evolved from the pre-main sequence through to the late stages of the AGB where numerical instabilities prevented any further evolution. The helium-burning luminosity as a function of time during the AGB is shown in Figure \[fig:model\]. Dredge-up takes place during the last 35 thermal pulses: the very final pulse does not evolve as far as dredge-up and hence is not included. At the end of the calculation the model has lost a total of $1.77\,{\rm{M}_\odot}$ of material in winds and has a hydrogen-exhausted core mass of $0.71\,{\rm{M}_\odot}$, with $0.52\,{\rm{M}_\odot}$ remaining in the envelope. Given the mass-loss rate of $2.16\times 10^{-5}\,{\rm{M}_\odot}\,{\rm yr^{-1}}$ and interpulse period of $3.3\times 10^4\,{\rm yr}$ prevailing at the end of the simulation this suggests that there are two thermal pulses missing, including the final pulse that does not converge.
![The helium burning luminosity of our $3\,{\rm{M}_\odot}$, ${\rm{Z}_\odot}$ star is shown as a function of time during the AGB. The time at the start of the plot is chosen to precede the onset of oscillations in the helium-burning luminosity. The sharp spikes are thermal pulses, a total of 45 of which can be seen.[]{data-label="fig:model"}](m3z02LHe.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
We find that we have both a larger final core mass and more thermal pulses than the corresponding model of @2007PASA...24..103K, which was calculated with a different version of the same code. This is because we have used updated physical data, including a larger mixing length parameter and updated low-temperature opacities. These changes lead to a later onset of the super-wind, hence a larger core and increased number of thermal pulses.
Nucleosynthesis during a sample pulse
-------------------------------------
For each pulse with dredge-up we add a partially-mixed zone as described in Section \[sect:monsoon\]. This then goes on to form a pocket through the capture of protons on to . As an example we present the evolution of the isotopic abundances during the twelfth thermal pulse. Following @2008arXiv0809.1456K we add a partially-mixed zone of mass $10^{-3}\,{\rm{M}_\odot}$ – chosen to be about one tenth of the total intershell mass – at the point of maximum dredge-up. Figure \[fig:pulse12structure\] shows the effect on the most structurally-important isotopes.
Panel (a) shows conditions $10^3\,{\rm years}$ after the maximum extent of dredge-up. The partially-mixed zone has been added and has partially burnt already to produce some and . Panel (b) is part-way into the interpulse phase. The part of the partially mixed zone with the largest abundance of protons has burnt into CNO equilibrium, so the most abundant CNO isotope is . Further in to the star a larger quantity of has been able to form. Panel (c) is from about 2/3 of the way through the interpulse period. The majority of the formed has burnt to , via the neutron-producing alpha-capture reaction. The final panel, (d), shows the state of the intershell just before the 13th thermal pulse. The has been almost completely burned.
Figure \[fig:pulse12sproc\] shows the effect of the pocket and subsequent neutron production on a selection of [$s$-process]{} isotopes. The discontinuity between the abundances in the envelope and those in the intershell is caused by previous $s$-process episodes, caused by the $(\alpha,\n)$ reaction during the interpulse periods and the $(\alpha,\n)$ reaction which is eventually activated at the pulse peaks. The chemical signatures of these previous thermal pulses remain within the intershell region and are mixed at each pulse peak by the partially-overlapping intershell convection zones. The isotopes shown were selected to show the effect of a moderate neutron exposure on isotopes with a range of different formation and destruction pathways and neutron-capture cross-sections. is the initially most abundant [$s$-process]{} isotope and hence the only discernible effect on its abundance is destruction by absorption of neutrons. Similarly, is synthesised in supernovae, not by the [$s$-process]{}: it is also only destroyed by neutron absorption. is both produced and destroyed at different mass co-ordinates in the star, depending on the degree of neutron absorption. Starting from the majority seed, , requires only three neutrons to be captured and hence is produced in the regions of the pocket with a lower neutron exposure. Towards the centre of the pocket where the neutron flux is higher it is on average depleted. The other two isotopes, and , show only production, as they lie further up the [$s$-process]{} and hence require a large number of neutrons to be absorbed by a seed for their production.
Comparison with single-network approach
---------------------------------------
![Isotopic abundances for structurally-significant isotopes at four points spanning the 12th thermal pulse and subsequent interpulse period. Black lines with crosses show hydrogen, red lines with plusses , blue lines with stars , magenta lines with squares , cyan lines with triangles , brown lines with circles and pink lines with diamonds .[]{data-label="fig:pulse12structure"}](structure.eps){width=".75\columnwidth"}
![Isotopic abundances for selected [$s$-process]{} isotopes at the same times as the corresponding panels in Figure 2. Black lines with crosses show , red lines with plusses , blue lines with stars , magenta lines with squares and cyan lines with triangles .[]{data-label="fig:pulse12sproc"}](sproc.eps){width=".75\columnwidth"}
As part of the testing process we created a version of [[monsoon]{}]{} with an extended network, that went as far as . This was used to model the first few thermal pulses of the model, as was a version of [[montage]{}]{} with a cut-down [$s$-process]{} network. The adopted truncation of the network reduces the runtime for the [[monsoon]{}]{} calculation to a manageable level, allowing us to compute the models presented here in under a week. The nuclear physics input data for the [$s$-process]{} network in [[montage]{}]{} was changed so that the same reaction rates were used as in [[monsoon]{}]{}. A selected set of intershell abundances from the end of the second thermal pulse in both codes are shown in Figure \[fig:compare\]. It can be seen that, phenomenologically, the abundance profiles look very similar but that there are small differences between the abundances calculated, particularly at the point of highest neutron exposure. Closer investigation of the internals of the codes revealed that this was due to the different methods used to interpolate reaction rates in temperature: [[monsoon]{}]{} evaluates the rate for a given temperature from the [reaclib]{} formulae, whereas the [$s$-process]{} network in [[montage]{}]{} interpolates in $\log T$ within a pre-computed table. This leads to a systematically higher reaction rate in [[montage]{}]{} owing to the shape of the rate function at these temperatures. We found that the differences in abundances were consistent with these inconsistencies in reaction rates.
![Isotopic abundances for selected [$s$-process]{} isotopes at the end of the second thermal pulse for the codes with a reduced [$s$-process]{} network. The top panel shows results for [[monsoon]{}]{}, the bottom panel those for [[montage]{}]{}. Black lines with crosses show , red lines with plusses , blue lines with stars , magenta lines with squares and cyan lines with triangles .[]{data-label="fig:compare"}](compareMONSOON.eps "fig:"){width=".75\columnwidth"} ![Isotopic abundances for selected [$s$-process]{} isotopes at the end of the second thermal pulse for the codes with a reduced [$s$-process]{} network. The top panel shows results for [[monsoon]{}]{}, the bottom panel those for [[montage]{}]{}. Black lines with crosses show , red lines with plusses , blue lines with stars , magenta lines with squares and cyan lines with triangles .[]{data-label="fig:compare"}](compareMONTAGE.eps "fig:"){width=".75\columnwidth"}
Yields
------
Following @2007PASA...24..103K we provide yields for the isotopes that we include (Tables \[tab:yields1\] and \[tab:yields2\]). To save space we present only the initial (Solar) value of the mass fraction for each isotope, $X_i(0)$, and its average value in the ejecta, $\left<X_i\right>$. Our model still retained some envelope at the point where the evolution terminated, and the composition of this material is included when taking the average. Although we would expect two additional thermal pulses to take place whilst the remaining envelope was being lost they are unlikely to change the yield greatly as they will represent a small fraction of the total number of thermal pulses. A more sophisticated approach would be to synthesise two additional thermal pulses, as in @2007PASA...24..103K.
The yield, commonly defined as $$p_i = \int_0^\tau \left[X_i(t)-X_i(0)\right]\frac{{\mathrm{d}}M}{{\mathrm{d}}t}{\mathrm{d}}t,$$ can be found as $p_i =
\left[\left<X_i\right>-X_i(0)\right]\Delta M$, where $\Delta M=2.29\,{\rm{M}_\odot}$ is the total mass lost by the star, including the envelope remaining at the end of the calculation.
[lrrlrrlrr]{} Isotope $i$ & & & Isotope $i$ & & &Isotope $i$ & &\
[lrrlrrlrr]{} Isotope $i$ & & & Isotope $i$ & & &Isotope $i$ & &\
Discussion and future work
==========================
Our results demonstrate that we are able to efficiently calculate the nucleosynthesis of a large number of [$s$-process]{} isotopes, incorporating both the $(\alpha,\n)$ and $(\alpha,\n)$ neutron sources. The nucleosynthesis calculations presented here took approximately one CPU-week of time on a modern desktop computer. As can be seen in Figure \[fig:pulse12structure\] we considerably over-resolve the intershell region. The number of points here could most likely be reduced, which would lead to a substantial saving in runtime.
Our next target is to extend these results to a large grid of models. Ideally Galactic chemical evolution calculations need yields at masses separated by about $0.5\,{\rm{M}_\odot}$ at intermediate masses, possibly lower at the lowest masses, and much closer metallicity intervals than those currently available (Izzard, private communication). This will provide a standard, consistent set of yields for use in calculation of Galactic chemical evolution.
[[monsoon]{}]{} has hitherto always been used with the [monstar]{} stellar evolution code. During testing we attempted to use the evolution code of @2007MNRAS.375.1280S to provide output to drive [[montage]{}]{}. This worked very well; a simple approach of writing out every tenth evolution model to the nucleosynthesis code input file provided a frequency of data that converged well. Within the uncertainties provided by differences in reaction rates between the two codes, the light element abundances predicted by the two codes agreed well. We conclude that [[montage]{}]{} is a general post-processing nucleosynthesis code, which with a small amount of effort we should be able to use with [*any*]{} stellar evolution code, suitably modified to print out the relevant models. This will allow us, for example, to quantify the uncertainties in nucleosynthesis predictions caused by different evolutionary codes in a self-consistent manner.
Summary
=======
[The use of a separate network and subtly different computational technique for the main nucleosynthesis and [$s$-process]{} of a thermally-pulsing AGB star has a substantial advantage in terms of the computational effort required. We have calculated the full [$s$-process]{} yields of a $3\,{\rm{M}_\odot}$ star at Solar metallicity, as a demonstration of the utility of the approach. We intend to extend this work to a large grid of simulations suitable for inclusion in Galactic chemical evolution models, as well as by making the code available as a general post-processing tool.]{}
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are very grateful to Simon Campbell for the use of his version of [monstar]{}. We would also like to thank our colleagues for useful discussions, in particular Amanda Karakas, Maria Lugaro and Carolyn Doherty. RJS and RPC are funded by the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects scheme under grants DP0879472 and DP0663447 respectively. SC and OS are supported by the Italian MIUR-PRIN 2006 Project ‘Final Phases of Stellar Evolution, Nucleosynthesis in Supernovae, AGB stars, Planetary Nebulae’.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Fibonacci cube $\Gamma_n$ is the subgraph of the hypercube induced by the binary strings that contain no two consecutive 1’s. The Lucas cube $\Lambda_n$ is obtained from $\Gamma_n$ by removing vertices that start and end with 1. We characterize maximal induced hypercubes in $\Gamma_n$ and $\Lambda_n$ and deduce for any $p\leq n$ the number of maximal $p$-dimensional hypercubes in these graphs.'
author:
- |
Michel Mollard [^1]\
CNRS Université Joseph Fourier\
Institut Fourier, BP 74\
100 rue des Maths, 38402 St Martin d’Hères Cedex, France\
e-mail:
title: Maximal hypercubes in Fibonacci and Lucas cubes
---
[**Key words:**]{} hypercubes; cube polynomials; Fibonacci cubes; Lucas cubes;
[**AMS subject classifications:**]{} 05C31, 05A15, 26C10
Introduction
============
An interconnection topology can be represented by a graph $G=(V,E)$, where $V$ denotes the processors and $E$ the communication links. The *distance* $d_G(u,v)$ between two vertices $u,v$ of a graph $G$ is the length of a shortest path connecting $u$ and $v$. An *isometric* subgraph $H$ of a graph $G$ is an induced subgraph such that for any vertices $u,v$ of $H$ we have $d_H(u,v)=d_G(u,v)$.
The *hypercube* of dimension $n$ is the graph $Q_n$ whose vertices are the binary strings of length $n$ where two vertices are adjacent if they differ in exactly one coordinate. The *weight* of a vertex, $w(u)$, is the number of $1$ in the string $u$. Notice that the graph distance between two vertices of $Q_n$ is equal to the *Hamming distance* of the strings, the number of coordinates they differ. The hypercube is a popular interconnection network because of its structural properties.\
Fibonacci cubes and Lucas cubes were introduced in [@Hsu1993Fibonacci] and [@munarini2001lucas] as new interconnection networks. They are isometric subgraphs of $Q_n$ and have also recurrent structure.
(160, 30)
(30,30)\[bl\]
(10,10) (10,20) (10,30)
(10,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (10,20)[(0,1)[10]{}]{}
(5,10)[$01$]{} (5,20)[$00$]{} (5,30)[$10$]{}
(40,30)\[bl\]
(10,10) (10,20) (10,30) (20,10) (20,20)
(10,10)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (10,20)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (10,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (10,20)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (20,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{}
(3,10)[$001$]{} (3,20)[$000$]{} (3,30)[$010$]{} (21,20)[$100$]{} (21,10)[$101$]{}
(40,30)\[bl\]
(10,10) (10,20) (10,30) (20,10) (20,20) (20,30) (30,10) (30,20)
(10,10)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (10,20)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (10,30)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (10,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (10,20)[(0,1)[10]{}]{}
(20,10)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (20,20)[(1,0)[10]{}]{}
(20,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (20,20)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (30,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{}
(20,12)[$0001$]{} (20,22)[$0000$]{} (20,32)[$0010$]{} (31,20)[$0100$]{} (1,20)[$1000$]{} (1,10)[$1001$]{} (1,30)[$1010$]{} (31,10)[$0101$]{}
(40,30)\[bl\]
(10,10) (10,20) (10,30)
(20,20)
(10,20)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (10,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (10,20)[(0,1)[10]{}]{}
(40,30)\[bl\]
(10,20) (10,30) (20,10) (20,20) (20,30) (30,10) (30,20)
(10,20)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (10,30)[(1,0)[10]{}]{}
(10,20)[(0,1)[10]{}]{}
(20,10)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (20,20)[(1,0)[10]{}]{}
(20,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (20,20)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (30,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{}
(0,-5) (15,-5) (43,-5) (81,-5) (100,-5)
(80, 35) (40,40)\[bl\]
(10,10) (10,20) (10,30) (20,10) (20,20) (20,30) (30,10) (30,20)
(10,10)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (20,10)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (10,20)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (20,20)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (10,30)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (10,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (10,20)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (20,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (20,20)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (30,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{}
(40,40)\[bl\]
(0,0)
(24,14) (24,24) (24,34) (34,14) (34,24) (24,14)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (24,24)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (24,14)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (24,24)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (34,14)[(0,1)[10]{}]{}
(20,10)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (20,20)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (20,30)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (30,10)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (30,20)[(1,1)[4]{}]{}
(40,40)\[bl\]
(0,0)
(6,6) (6,16) (6,26) (16,6) (16,16) (16,26) (26,6) (26,16) (6,6)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (16,6)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (6,16)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (16,16)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (6,26)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (6,6)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (6,16)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (16,6)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (16,16)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (26,6)[(0,1)[10]{}]{}
(6,6)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (6,16)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (6,26)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (16,6)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (16,16)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (16,26)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (26,6)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (26,16)[(1,1)[4]{}]{}
(14,11)[$000001$]{} (14,21)[$000000$]{} (14,31)[$000010$]{} (24,21)[$000100$]{} (4,21) [$001000$]{} (18,25)[$010000$]{} (10,17)[$100000$]{} (4,11) [$001001$]{} (4,31) [$001010$]{} (-1,7)[$101001$]{} (-1,17)[$101000$]{} (-1,27)[$101010$]{} (10,7)[$100001$]{} (10,27)[$100010$]{} (18,35)[$010010$]{} (24,11)[$000101$]{} (35,25)[$010100$]{} (35,15)[$010101$]{} (18,15)[$010001$]{} (20,17)[$100100$]{} (20,7)[$100101$]{}
(0,-5)
(14,6)[$00001$]{} (14,16)[$00000$]{} (14,26)[$00010$]{} (25,16)[$00100$]{} (4,16)[$01000$]{} (25,20)[$10000$]{} (4,26)[$01010$]{} (4,6)[$01001$]{} (25,10)[$10001$]{} (25,06)[$00101$]{} (35,20)[$10100$]{} (35,10)[$10101$]{} (25,30)[$10010$]{}
(40,-5)
(80, 35) (40,40)\[bl\]
(10,10) (10,20) (10,30) (20,10) (20,20) (20,30) (30,10) (30,20)
(10,10)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (20,10)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (10,20)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (20,20)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (10,30)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (10,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (10,20)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (20,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (20,20)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (30,10)[(0,1)[10]{}]{}
(40,40)\[bl\]
(0,0)
(24,24) (24,34) (34,24) (24,24)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (24,24)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (20,20)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (20,30)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (30,20)[(1,1)[4]{}]{}
(40,40)\[bl\]
(40,40)\[bl\]
(0,0)
(24,14) (24,24) (24,34) (34,14) (34,24) (24,14)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (24,24)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (24,14)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (24,24)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (34,14)[(0,1)[10]{}]{}
(20,10)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (20,20)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (20,30)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (30,10)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (30,20)[(1,1)[4]{}]{}
(0,0)
(6,16) (6,26) (16,16) (16,26) (26,16) (6,16)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (16,16)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (6,26)[(1,0)[10]{}]{} (6,16)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (16,16)[(0,1)[10]{}]{} (6,16)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (6,26)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (16,16)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (16,26)[(1,1)[4]{}]{} (26,16)[(1,1)[4]{}]{}
(0,-5) (40,-5)
A [*Fibonacci string*]{} of length $n$ is a binary string $b_1b_2\ldots b_n$ with $b_ib_{i+1}=0$ for $1\leq i<n$. The [*Fibonacci cube*]{} $\Gamma_n$ ($n\geq 1$) is the subgraph of $Q_n$ induced by the Fibonacci strings of length $n$. For convenience we also consider the empty string and set $\Gamma_0 = K_1$. Call a Fibonacci string $b_1b_2\ldots b_n$ a [*Lucas string*]{} if $b_1b_n \neq 1$. Then the [*Lucas cube*]{} $\Lambda_n$ ($n\geq 1$) is the subgraph of $Q_n$ induced by the Lucas strings of length $n$. We also set $\Lambda_0=K_1$.\
Since their introduction $\Gamma_n$ and $\Lambda_n$ have been also studied for their graph theory properties and found other applications, for example in chemistry (see the survey [@Klavzarsurvey]). Recently different enumerative sequences of these graphs have been determined. Among them: number of vertices of a given degree[@KlavzarDegree], number of vertices of a given eccentricity[@Castro], number of pair of vertices at a given distance[@KlavzarWiener] or number of isometric subgraphs isomorphic so some $Q_k$[@KlavzarCube]. The counting polynomial of this last sequence is known as cubic polynomial and has very nice properties[@cubepolmed].
We propose to study an other enumeration and characterization problem. For a given interconnection topology it is important to characterize maximal hypercubes, for example from the point of view of embeddings. So let us consider [*maximal hypercubes of dimension $p$*]{}, i.e. induced subgraphs $H$ of $\Gamma_n$ (respectively $\Lambda_n$) that are isomorphic to $Q_p$, and such that there exists no induced subgraph $H'$ of $\Gamma_n$ (respectively $\Lambda_n$), $H\subset H'$, isomorphic to $Q_{p+1}$.
Let $f_{n,p}$ and $g_{n,p}$ be the numbers of maximal hypercubes of dimension $p$ of $\Gamma_n$, respectively $\Lambda_n$, and $C'(\Gamma_{n},x)=\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}{f_{n,p}x^p}$, respectively $C'(\Lambda_{n},x)\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}{g_{n,p}x^p}$, their counting polynomials.
By direct inspection, see figures 1 to 3, we obtain the first of them: $$\begin{aligned}
C'(\Gamma_{0},x) & = & 1\,\:\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ C'(\Lambda_{0},x) = 1\, \\
C'(\Gamma_{1},x) & = & x\,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ C'(\Lambda_{1},x) = 1\, \\
C'(\Gamma_{2},x) & = & 2x\,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ C'(\Lambda_{2},x) = 2x \\
C'(\Gamma_{3},x) & = & x^2+x\,\ \ \ \ C'(\Lambda_{3},x) = 3x\, \\
C'(\Gamma_{4},x) & = & 3x^2\,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ C'(\Lambda_{4},x) = 2x^2\, \\
C'(\Gamma_{5},x) & = & x^3+3x^2\,\ C'(\Lambda_{5},x) = 5x^2 \\
C'(\Gamma_{6},x) & = & 4x^3+x^2\,\ C'(\Lambda_{6},x) = 2x^3+3x^2 \\ \end{aligned}$$
The intersection graph of maximal hypercubes (also called cube graph) in a graph have been studied by various authors, for example in the context of median graphs[@Bresar]. Hypercubes playing a role similar to cliques in clique graph. Nice result have been obtained on cube graph of median graphs, and it is thus of interest, from the graph theory point of view, to characterize maximal hypercubes in families of graphs and thus obtain non trivial examples of such graphs. We will first characterize maximal induced hypercubes in $\Gamma_n$ and $\Lambda_n$ and then deduce the number of maximal $p$-dimensional hypercubes in these graphs.
Main results
============
For any vertex $x=x_1\dots x_n$ of $Q_n$ and any $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ let $x+\epsilon_i$ be the vertex of $Q_n$ defined by $(x+\epsilon_i)_i= 1-x_i$ and $(x+\epsilon_i)_j= x_j$ for $j\neq i$.
Let $H$ be an induced subgraph of $Q_n$ isomorphic to some $Q_k$. The *support* of $H$ is the subset set of $\{1\dots n\}$ defined by $Sup(H)=\{i/\: \exists\: x,y\in V(H)$ with $x_i\neq y_i\}$. Let $i\notin Sup(H)$, we will denote by $H\widetilde{+}\epsilon_i$ the subgraph induced by $V(H)\cup\{x+\epsilon_i/x\in V(H)\}$. Note that $H\widetilde{+}\epsilon_i$ is isomorphic to $Q_{k+1}$.
The following result is well known[@Klavzarnbhyper].
\[pro:bt\] In every induced subgraph $H$ of $Q_n$ isomorphic to $Q_k$ there exists a unique vertex of minimal weight, *the bottom vertex* $b(H)$. There exists also a unique vertex of maximal weight, the *top vertex* $t(H)$. Furthermore $b(H)$ and $t(H)$ are at distance $k$ and characterize $H$ among the subgraphs of $Q_n$ isomorphic to $Q_k$.
We can precise this result. A basic property of hypercubes is that if $x, x+\epsilon_i, x+\epsilon_j$ are vertices of $H$ then $x+\epsilon_i+\epsilon_j$ must be a vertex of $H$. By connectivity we deduce that if $x, x+\epsilon_i$ and $y$ are vertices of $H$ then $y+\epsilon_i$ must be also a vertex of $H$. We have thus by induction on $k$:
\[pro:btprec\] if $H$ is an induced subgraph of $Q_n$ isomorphic to $Q_k$ then
$|Sup(H)|=k$
$\text{If } i\notin Sup(H) \text{ then }\forall x\in V(H) \ \;x_i=b(H)_i=t(H)_i$
$\text{If } i\in Sup(H) \text{ then }b(H)_i=0 \text{ and } t(H)_i=1 $
$V(H)= \{x=x_1\dots x_n/ \;\forall i\notin Sup(H)\ x_i=b(H)_i\}.$
If $H$ is an induced subgraph of $\Gamma_n$, or $\Lambda_n$, then, as a set of strings of length $n$, it defines also an induced subgraph of $Q_n$; thus Propositions \[pro:bt\] and \[pro:btprec\] are still true for induced subgraphs of Fibonacci or Lucas cubes.
A Fibonacci string can be view as blocks of $0$’s separated by isolated $1$’s, or as isolated $0$’s possibly separated by isolated $1$’s. These two points of view give the two following decompositions of the vertices of $\Gamma_n$.
\[pro:dec0\] Any vertex of weight $w$ from $\Gamma_n$ can be uniquely decomposed as $0^{l_0}10^{l_1}\dots 10^{l_i}\dots10^{l_{p}}$ where $p=w$; $\sum_{i=0}^p{l_i}=n-w$; $l_0,l_p \geq 0$ and $l_1,\dots,l_{p-1}\geq1$.
\[pro:dec1\] Any vertex of weight $w$ from $\Gamma_n$ can be uniquely decomposed as $1^{k_0}01^{k_1}\dots 01^{k_i}\dots01^{k_{q}}$ where $q=n-w$; $\sum_{i=0}^q{k_i}=w$ and $k_0,\dots,k_{q}\leq1$.
A vertex from $\Gamma_n$, $n\geq2$ being the concatenation of a string of $V(\Gamma_{n-1})$ with $0$ or a string of $V(\Gamma_{n-2})$ with $01$, both properties are easily proved by induction on $n$.
[$\square$ ]{}
Using the the second decomposition, the vertices of weight $w$ from $\Gamma_n$ are thus obtained by choosing, in $\{0,1,\dots,q\}$, the $w$ values of $i$ such that $k_{i}=1$ in . We have then the classical result:
\[pro:nbw\] For any $w\leq n$ the number of vertices of weight $w$ in $\Gamma_n$ is $\binom{n-w+1}{w}$.
Considering the constraint on the extremities of a Lucas string we obtain the two following decompositions of the vertices of $\Lambda_n$.
\[pro:declucas0\] Any vertex of weight $w$ in $\Lambda_n$ can be uniquely decomposed as $0^{l_0}10^{l_1}\dots 10^{l_i}\dots 10^{l_{p}}$ where $p=w$, $\sum_{i=0}^p{l_i}=n-w$, $l_0,l_p\geq0$, $l_0+l_p\geq1$ and $l_1,\dots,l_{p-1}\geq1$.
\[pro:declucas1\] Any vertex of weight $w$ in $\Lambda_n$ can be uniquely decomposed as $1^{k_0}01^{k_1}\dots 01^{k_i}\dots01^{k_{q}}$ where $q=n-w$; $\sum_{i=0}^q{k_i}=w$; $k_0+k_q\leq1$ and $k_0,\dots,k_{q}\leq1$.
From Propositions \[pro:btprec\] and \[pro:dec0\] it is possible to characterize the bottom and top vertices of maximal hypercubes in $\Gamma_n$.
If $H$ is a maximal hypercube of dimension $p$ in $\Gamma_n$ then $b(H)=0^n$ and $t(H)=0^{l_0}10^{l_1}\dots 10^{l_i}\dots10^{l_{p}}$ where $\sum_{i=0}^p{l_i}=n-p$; $0\leq l_0\leq 1$; $0\leq l_p\leq 1$ and $1\leq l_i\leq 2$ for $i=1,\dots,p-1$. Furthermore any such vertex is the top vertex of a unique maximal hypercube.
Let $H$ be a maximal hypercube in $\Gamma_n$. Assume there exists an integer $i$ such that $b(H)_i = 1$. Then $i \notin sup(H)$ by Proposition \[pro:btprec\]. Therefore, for any $x \in V(H)$, $x_i= b(H)_i= 1$ thus $x+\epsilon_i \in V(\Gamma_n)$. Then $H\widetilde{+}\epsilon_i$ must be an induced subgraph of $\Gamma_n$, a contradiction with $H$ maximal.
Consider now $t(H)=0^{l_0}10^{l_1}\dots 10^{l_i}\dots10^{l_{p}}$.
If $l_0\geq2$ then for any vertex $x$ of $H$ we have $x_0=x_1=0$, thus $x+\epsilon_0$ $\in V(\Gamma_n)$. Therefore $H\widetilde{+}\epsilon_i$ is an induced subgraph of $\Gamma_n$, a contradiction with $H$ maximal. The case $l_p\geq2$ is similar by symmetry.
Assume now $l_i\geq3$, for some $i\in\{1,\dots,p-1\}$. Let $j=i+\sum_{k=0}^{i-1}{l_k}$. We have thus $t(H)_j=1$ and $t(H)_{j+1}=t(H)_{j+2}=t(H)_{j+3}$=0. Then for any vertex $x$ of $H$ we have $x_{j+1}=x_{j+2}=x_{j+3}=0$, thus $x+\epsilon_{j+2}$ $\in V(\Gamma_n)$ and $H$ is not maximal, a contradiction.
Conversely consider a vertex $z=0^{l_0}10^{l_1}\dots 10^{l_i}\dots10^{l_{p}}$ where $\sum_{i=0}^p{l_i}=n-p$; $0\leq l_0\leq 1$; $0\leq l_p\leq 1$ and $1\leq l_i\leq 2$ for $i=1,\dots,p-1$. Then, by Propositions \[pro:bt\] and \[pro:btprec\], $t(H)=z$ and $b(H)=0^n$ define a unique hypercube $H$ in $Q_n$ isomorphic to $Q_p$ and clearly all vertices of $H$ are Fibonacci strings. Notice that for any $i\notin Sup(H)$ $z+\epsilon_i$ is not a Fibonacci string thus $H$ is maximal. [$\square$ ]{}
With the same arguments we obtain for Lucas cube:
\[pro:lucas\] If $H$ is a maximal hypercube of dimension $p\geq1$ in $\Lambda_n$ then $b(H)=0^n$ and $t(H)=0^{l_0}10^{l_1}\dots 10^{l_i}\dots10^{l_{p}}$ where $\sum_{i=0}^p{l_i}=n-p$; $0\leq l_0\leq 2$; $0\leq l_p\leq 2$; $1\leq l_0+l_p\leq 2$ and $1\leq l_i\leq 2$ for $i=1,\dots,p-1$. Furthermore any such vertex is the top vertex of a maximal hypercube.
\[th:fp\] Let $0\leq p \leq n$ and $f_{n,p}$ be the number of maximal hypercubes of dimension $p$ in $\Gamma_n$ then:\
$$f_{n,p}=\binom{p+1}{n-2p+1}$$\
This is clearly true for $p=0$ so assume $p\geq1$. Since maximal hypercubes of $\Gamma_n$ are characterized by their top vertex, let us consider the set $T$ of strings which can be write $0^{l_0}10^{l_1}\dots 10^{l_i}\dots10^{l_{p}}$ where $\sum_{i=0}^p{l_i}=n-p$; $0\leq l_0\leq 1$; $0\leq l_p\leq 1$ and $1\leq l_i\leq 2$ for $i=1,\dots,p-1$. Let $l'_i =l_i-1$ for $i=1,\dots,p-1$; $l'_0 =l_0$; $l'_p =l_p$. We have thus a 1 to 1 mapping between $T$ and the set of strings $D=\{0^{l'_0}10^{l'_1}\dots 10^{l'_i}\dots10^{l'_{p}}\}$ where $\sum_{i=0}^p{l'_i}=n-2p+1$ any $l'_i\leq 1$ for $i=0,\dots,p$. This set is in bijection with the set $E=\{1^{l'_0}01^{l'_1}\dots 01^{l'_i}\dots01^{l'_{p}}\}$. By Proposition \[pro:dec1\], $E$ is the set of Fibonacci strings of length $n-p+1$ and weight $n-2p+1$ and we obtain the expression of $f_{n,p}$ by Proposition \[pro:nbw\]. [$\square$ ]{}
The counting polynomial $C'(\Gamma_{n},x)=\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}{f_{n,p}x^p}$ of the number of maximal hypercubes of dimension $p$ in $\Gamma_n$ satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
C'(\Gamma_{n},x)& = &x(C'(\Gamma_{n-2},x)+C'(\Gamma_{n-3},x))\ \ \ (n\geq3)\\
C'(\Gamma_{0},x)& = &1,\ C'(\Gamma_{1},x)=x,\ C'(\Gamma_{2},x)=2x\\\end{aligned}$$ The generating function of the sequence $\{C'(\Gamma_{n},x)\}$ is: $$\sum_{n\geq0}{C'(\Gamma_{n},x)y^n}=\frac{1+xy(1+y)}{1-xy^2(1+y)}$$
By theorem \[th:fp\] and Pascal identity we obtain $f_{n,p}=f_{n-2,p-1}+ f_{n-3,p-1}$ for $n\geq3$ and $p\geq1$. Notice that $f_{n,0}=0$ for $n\neq 0$. The recurrence relation for $C'(\Gamma_{n},x)$ follows. Setting $f(x,y)=\sum_{n\geq0}{C'(\Gamma_{n},x)y^n}$ we deduce from the recurrence relation $f(x,y)-1-xy-2xy^2=x(y^2(f(x,y)-1)+y^3f(x,y))$ thus the value of $f(x,y)$. [$\square$ ]{}
\[th:gp\] Let $1\leq p \leq n$ and $g_{n,p}$ be the number of maximal hypercubes of dimension $p$ in $\Lambda_n$ then:\
$$g_{n,p}=\frac{n}{p}\binom{p}{n-2p}.$$\
The proof is similar to the previous result with three cases according to the value of $l_{0}$:
By Proposition \[pro:lucas\] the set $T$ of top vertices that begin with $1$ is the set of strings which can be write $10^{l_1}\dots 10^{l_i}\dots10^{l_{p}}$ where $\sum_{i=1}^p{l_i}=n-p$ and $1\leq l_i\leq 2$ for $i=1,\dots,p$. Let $l'_i =l_i-1$ for $i=1,\dots,p$. We have thus a 1 to 1 mapping between $T$ and the set of strings $D=\{10^{l'_1}\dots 10^{l'_i}\dots10^{l'_{p}}$} where $\sum_{i=1}^p{l'_i}=n-2p$, $0\leq l'_i\leq 1$ for $i=1,\dots,p$. Removing the first $1$, and by complement, this set is in bijection with the set $E=\{1^{l'_1}\dots 01^{l'_i}\dots01^{l'_{p}}\}$. By Proposition \[pro:dec1\], $E$ is the set of Fibonacci strings of length $n-p-1$ and weight $n-2p$. Thus $|T|=\binom{p}{n-2p}$.
The set $U$ of top vertices that begin with $01$ is the set of strings which can be write $010^{l_1}\dots 10^{l_i}\dots10^{l_{p}}$ where $\sum_{i=1}^p{l_i}=n-p-1$; $1\leq l_i\leq 2$ for $i=1,\dots,p-1$ and $l_p\leq 1$. Let $l'_i =l_i-1$ for $i=1,\dots,p-1$ and $l'_p =l_p$ . We have thus a 1 to 1 mapping between $U$ and the set of strings $F=\{010^{l'_1}\dots 10^{l'_i}\dots10^{l'_{p}}$} where $\sum_{i=1}^p{l'_i}=n-2p$ and $l'_i\leq 1$ for $i=1,\dots,p$. Removing the first $01$, and by complement, this set is in bijection with the set $G=\{1^{l'_1}\dots 01^{l'_i}\dots01^{l'_{p}}\}$. By Proposition \[pro:dec1\], $G$ is the set of Fibonacci strings of length $n-p-1$ and weight $n-2p$. Thus $|U|=\binom{p}{n-2p}$.
The last set, $V$, of top vertices that begin with $001$, is the set of strings which can be write $0010^{l_1}\dots 10^{l_i}\dots0^{l_{p-1}}1$ where $\sum_{i=1}^{p-1}{l_i}=n-p-2$ and $1\leq l_i\leq 2$ for $i=1,\dots,p-1$. Let $l'_i =l_i-1$ for $i=1,\dots,p-1$. We have thus a 1 to 1 mapping between $V$ and the set of strings $H=\{0010^{l'_1}\dots 10^{l'_i}\dots0^{l'_{p-1}}1\}$ where $\sum_{i=1}^{p-1}{l'_i}=n-2p-1$ and $l'_i\leq 1$ for $i=1,\dots,p-1$. Removing the first $001$ and the last $1$, this set, again by complement, is in bijection with the set $K=\{1^{l'_1}\dots 01^{l'_i}\dots01^{l'_{p-1}}\}$. The set $K$ is the set of Fibonacci strings of length $n-p-3$ and weight $n-2p-1$. Thus $|V|=\binom{p-1}{n-2p-1}$ and $g_{n,p}=2\binom{p}{n-2p}+\binom{p-1}{n-2p-1}=\frac{n}{p}\binom{p}{n-2p}$. [$\square$ ]{}
The counting polynomial $C'(\Lambda_{n},x)=\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}{g_{n,p}x^p}$ of the number of maximal hypercubes of dimension $p$ in $\Lambda_n$ satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
C'(\Lambda_{n},x)& = &x(C'(\Lambda_{n-2},x)+C'(\Lambda_{n-3},x))\ \ \ (n\geq5)\\
C'(\Lambda_{0},x)& = &1,\ C'(\Lambda_{1},x)=1,\ C'(\Lambda_{2},x)=2x,\ C'(\Lambda_{3},x)=3x,\ C'(\Lambda_{4},x)=2x^2\\\end{aligned}$$ The generating function of the sequence $\{C'(\Lambda_{n},x)\}$ is: $$\sum_{n\geq0}{C'(\Lambda_{n},x)y^n}=\frac{1+y+xy^2+xy^3-xy^4}{1-xy^2(1+y)}$$
Assume $n\geq 5$. Here also by theorem \[th:gp\] and Pascal identity we get $g_{n,p}=g_{n-2,p-1}+ g_{n-3,p-1}$ for $n\geq5$ and $p\geq2$. Notice that when $n\geq5$ this equality occurs also for $p=1$ and $g_{n,0}=0$. The recurrence relation for $C'(\Lambda_{n},x)$ follows and $g(x,y)=\sum_{n\geq0}{C'(\Lambda_{n},x)y^n}$ satisfies $g(x,y)-1-y-2xy^2-3xy^3-2x^2y4=x(y^2(g(x,y)-1-y-2xy^2)+y^3(g(x,y)-1-y))$. [$\square$ ]{}
Notice that $f_{n,p}\neq0$ if and only if $\left\lceil \frac{n}{3} \right\rceil \leq p \leq \left\lfloor \frac{n+1}{2} \right\rfloor$ and $g_{n,p}\neq0$ if and only if $\left\lceil \frac{n}{3} \right\rceil \leq p \leq \left\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \right\rfloor$ (for $n\neq1$). Maximal induced hypercubes of maximum dimension are maximum induced hypercubes and we obtain again that cube polynomials of $\Gamma_n$, respectively $\Lambda_n$, are of degree $\left\lfloor \frac{n+1}{2} \right\rfloor$, respectively $\leq \left\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \right\rfloor$ [@KlavzarCube].
[9]{}
M. B. Brešar, S. Klavžar, R. Škrekovski, The cube polynomial and its derivatives: the case of median graphs, , 10:Research Paper 3, 11 pp, 2003.
M. B. Brešar, T. K. Sumenjak, Cube intersection concepts in median graphs, , 309(10), 2990–2997, 2009.
M. A. Castro, M. Mollard, The eccentricity sequences of Fibonacci and Lucas cubes, , 312(5), 1025–1037, 2012.
M. W. J. Hsu, , , 4, 3–12, 1993.
M. S. Klavžar, On median nature and enumerative properties of Fibonacci-like cubes, , 299(1-3), 145-153, 2005.
M. S. Klavžar, Counting hypercubes in hypercubes, , 306(22), 2964–2967, 2006.
M. S. Klavžar, , , Manuscript available as a preprint: IMFM Preprint Series 49 (1150), http://www.imfm.si/preprinti/PDF/01150.pdf.
M. S. Klavžar, M. Mollard, Wiener Index and Hosoya Polynomial of Fibonacci and Lucas Cube, , , Manuscript available on line: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00624188/fr/.
M. S. Klavžar, M. Mollard, Cube polynomial of Fibonacci and Lucas cube, , , Manuscript available on line: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00558273/fr/.
M. S. Klavžar, M. Mollard, M. Petkovšek, , 311(14), 1310–1322, 2011.
M. E. Munarini, C. P. Cippo, N. Zagaglia Salvi, , 39, 12–21, 2001.
M. E. Munarini, C. P. Cippo, N. Zagaglia Salvi, , 255(1-3), 317-324, 2002.
[^1]: Partially supported by the ANR Project GraTel (Graphs for Telecommunications), ANR-blan-09-blan-0373-01
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present improved algorithms for computing the left factorial residues $!p=0!+1!+\dots+(p-1)! \!\mod p$. We use these algorithms for the calculation of the residues $!p\!\mod p$, for all primes $p$ up to $2^{40}$. Our results confirm that Kurepa’s *left factorial conjecture* is still an open problem, as they show that there are no odd primes $p<2^{40}$ such that $p$ divides $!p$. Additionally, we confirm that there are no *socialist primes* $p$ with $5<p<2^{40}$.'
address:
- 'Faculty of Mathematics, University of Belgrade, Serbia'
- 'Inria, France'
- 'Alameda, CA 94501'
author:
- Vladica Andrejić
- Alin Bostan
- Milos Tatarevic
title: Improved algorithms for left factorial residues
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In 1971, Kurepa [@K1] introduced the left factorial function $!n$ for an integer $n$, defined as the sum of factorials $!n=0!+1!+\dots+(n-1)!$. Kurepa conjectured that the greatest common divisor of $!n$ and $n!$ is equal to $2$ for all integers $n>2$. Equivalently, the conjecture claims that there are no odd primes $p$ such that $p$ divides $!p$. This problem has been studied extensively and was called *Kurepa’s conjecture* by the subsequent authors. For a historical background, the reader can consult [@AT1]. The conjecture is also listed in Richard Guy’s classical book [@Gu Section B44]; as of 2019, it is still an open problem.
In the past, there were several attempts to disprove the conjecture by finding a counterexample. In the most recent search [@AT1], no counterexample was found for any $p < 2^{34}$. All such searches are based on calculations of residues $r_p = \,\,!p\!\mod p$ for primes $p$. In all previous attempts, the time complexity of algorithms was $O(p)$ for a single $p$ and $O(n^2 /\log n)$ for all $p<n$. We now show that the computational complexity can be significantly improved and we extend the search range up to $2^{40}$.
These improvements are based on the simple observation that $n!$ and $!n$ can be represented altogether in a matrix factorial form as $$M_n := C_1 C_2 \cdots C_n =\begin{pmatrix}n! & !n\\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix},
\qquad \text{where} \quad
C_k=\begin{pmatrix}k & 1\\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}.$$
Applying [@BGS Theorem 8] on the matrix factorial $M_p$, yields an improved algorithm for computing a single remainder $r_p$ in time $O(p^{0.5+\varepsilon})$. In practice, due to the overhead of the FFT-based polynomial multiplication, this method does not significantly outperform the one given in [@AT1] for $p$ around $2^{34}$. However, the improvement is notable for larger values of $p$. We used this method to verify the individual values $r_p$ obtained by the algorithm we will describe next.
The main method we used in our search is based on the work presented in [@CGH]. The algorithm was originally designed for computing *Wilson primes*, and is easy to adapt to matrix factorials. As a consequence, the remainders $r_p$ for $2\leq p\leq n$ can be computed altogether in time $O(n\log^{3+\varepsilon}n)$. However, for large $n$, due to the limited computing resources, we need to run the search on smaller intervals. The time complexity of the method we used to compute the remainders $r_p$ for $m\leq
p\leq n$ is $$O(m\log^{3+\varepsilon}m + (n-m)\log^{3+\varepsilon}n).$$
Let us denote the terms we will use in the following section, where some definitions are similar to those that appear in [@CGH Theorem 2]. Let $h = \ceil{\log_2 (n-m)}$. For each $0\leq i \leq h$ and $0\leq j\leq 2^i$ we set $$S_{i,j}=\left\{k\in\mathbb{Z} : m+j\frac{n-m}{2^i}<k\leq m+(j+1)\frac{n-m}{2^i}\right\}.$$ Then we introduce $$A_{i,j}=\prod_{k\in S_{i,j}} C_k,\quad P_{i,j}=\prod_{p\in S_{i,j}} p,$$ and $$R_{i,j}=M_m \prod_{0\leq r<j} A_{i,r} \pmod {P_{i,j}}.$$ For each prime $p\in S_{h,j}$ it follows that $r_p$ is congruent to the $(1,2)$-entry of the matrix $R_{h,j}$.
Implementation
==============
For large integer arithmetic computations, we used the libraries GMP [@Gr] and NTT [@Ha]. The NTT library supports multithreading without an additional memory overhead and performs integer multiplication faster than GMP routines when the operands are sufficiently large. This setup is similar to the solution given in [@CGH]. To generate a list of primes, we used the implementation of the sieve of Eratosthenes provided by the FLINT library [@HJP]. The source code of our implementation is available at <https://github.com/milostatarevic/left-factorial>.
To compute all remainders $r_p$ for primes $p$ in an interval $(m,n]$, we implemented the following four phases.
Phase 1: computation of the $P_{i,j}$
-------------------------------------
This phase consists of two parts. First, we generated a list of primes in $(m,n]$, then we computed and stored all $P_{i,j}$ using a product tree. The time complexity of this phase is $O((n-m+\sqrt{n})\log^{2+\varepsilon}n)$.
Phase 2: computation of $M_m \pmod {P_{0,0}}$
---------------------------------------------
We computed $M_m$ by using a product tree. The time complexity of this phase is $O(m \log^{3+\varepsilon}m)$. This phase represents the bottleneck of the proposed algorithm.
In practice, each time we extended the computation to the next interval $(m,n]$, we reused the intermediate multiplication results we stored from the previous iteration. This approach allows us to reduce the computation time by a constant factor. The optimal results were achieved when the stored values were just slightly less than $2P_{0,0}$, which additionally required that the tree is partitioned carefully.
Unfortunately, this approach significantly increased space requirements (measured in terabytes). As the data storage solutions are less expensive compared to the cost of RAM or the price per CPU core, we decided to reduce the computation time on account of the increase of the storage space. To reduce the hard disk I/O we used a smaller solid-state drive, where we stored intermediate results. This way the disk I/O did not represent a bottleneck.
As this phase is the most time expensive, the best performance is obtained if the interval $(m,n]$ is as large as possible, which is limited by the available RAM.
Phase 3: computation of the $A_{i,j}$
-------------------------------------
To compute $A_{i,j}$, we also used a product tree. To optimize space usage, we stored only $A_{i,j}\pmod {P_{i,j}}$. Additionally, we used the results from this phase to prepare the computation of $M_m$ for the next search interval as described in Phase 2. The time complexity of this phase is $O((n-m)\log^{3+\varepsilon}n)$.
Phase 4: computation of the $R_{i,j}$
-------------------------------------
This phase is similar to Phase 3, with the difference that we performed the computation starting from the top level of the product tree $i=0$, going down to the level $i=h$. The only values we had to store during this process belonged to the level we were currently processing and those contained in one level above. The time complexity of this phase is also $O((n-m)\log^{3+\varepsilon}n)$.
Verification of the results
---------------------------
To verify a subset of computed values $r_p$, we used a procedure based on the algorithm described in [@BGS], with the time complexity $O(p^{0.5+\varepsilon})$ per prime $p$. The polynomial multiplication is performed by using the NTL library [@Sh].
Hardware
--------
The computation was performed using a 6-core CPU (i7 6800K). The configuration was equipped with 64GB of RAM and 16TB of disk space. The entire computation took approximately $33\, 000$ core hours, where about $65$% of the time was spent in Phase 2. For a couple of the last blocks we processed, the time spent in Phase 2 was approaching $80$%.
Results
=======
We calculated and stored $r_p$ for all primes $p$ less than $2^{40}$. Heuristic considerations suggest that $!p$ is a random number modulo $p$ with uniform distribution, so the probability that $r_p$ has any particular value is approximately $1/p$, and the sum of reciprocals of the primes diverges. Thus, we might expect that the probability to find a counterexample in an interval $(2^m,2^n)$ is approximately $1-m/n$, and the expected number of primes $p$ with $\abs{r_p}<\ell$ is approximately $(2\ell-1)\log(n/m)$ [@AT1].
The new search covered the interval $(2^{34},2^{40})$, where this heuristic predicts approximately 15% of chances to find a counterexample. Although we only found 24 primes with $\ell=100$ in our interval in comparison with the expected value 32, the heuristics give good estimates for higher values of $\ell$. For $\ell=10\,000$ the expected number of primes in this interval is $3250$, which is close to the actual value $3237$. Similarly, for $\ell=10\,000\,000$, the predicted value $3\,250\,379$ is close to the actual value $3\,250\,456$. The results for $\abs{r_p}<100$ are presented in the following table.
$p$ $r_{p}$ $p$ $r_{p}$ $p$ $r_{p}$
---------------------- --------- ---------------------- --------- ---------------------- ---------
$22\,370\,028\,691$ $-55$ $153\,736\,627\,747$ $24$ $450\,798\,203\,041$ $52$
$34\,212\,035\,633$ $47$ $203\,109\,046\,969$ $-73$ $541\,389\,125\,113$ $-9$
$35\,420\,262\,113$ $-24$ $252\,164\,235\,031$ $84$ $576\,365\,852\,729$ $5$
$39\,541\,338\,091$ $-1$ $296\,599\,719\,739$ $-67$ $581\,743\,725\,197$ $28$
$71\,848\,806\,989$ $-87$ $315\,631\,019\,399$ $72$ $668\,487\,297\,869$ $-92$
$94\,844\,067\,751$ $-59$ $342\,077\,311\,241$ $-85$ $740\,405\,032\,753$ $-24$
$102\,281\,886\,901$ $19$ $348\,036\,477\,379$ $-77$ $817\,880\,148\,803$ $-46$
$141\,853\,427\,273$ $95$ $425\,430\,768\,359$ $9$ $885\,831\,128\,921$ $-35$
Additionally, we have used our new algorithms in a search for *socialist primes*. The socialist primes are the primes $p$ for which the residues of $2!$, $3!$, …, $(p-1)!$ modulo $p$ are all distinct [@Tr]. Erdős conjectured that any prime $p>5$ is socialist, see [@Gu Section F11]. In our previous work [@AT2] we proved that a socialist prime $p$ needs to satisfy $(!p-2)^2\equiv −1\pmod p$, and showed there are no socialist primes with $5<p<10^{11}$. Our new results confirm that there are no primes $p$ in the interval $(2^{34},2^{40})$ such that the remainder $r_p$ satisfies the desired congruence. Consequently, there are no socialist primes $p$ with $5<p<2^{40}$.
Remarks
=======
After our article appeared in preprint, we learned that the theoretical aspects of using remainder trees to compute the left factorial residues were also covered in Rajkumar’s master’s thesis [@Ra]. We encourage the readers to read it. Let us note that our work is independent and was published online at approximately the same time as the Rajkumar’s work. The computations and the results we presented in our paper are going back to 2017 and were initially presented at 14th Serbian Mathematical Congress in 2018 [@An].
[n]{}
V. Andrejić, *On Kurepa’s left factorial conjecture*, XIV Serbian Mathematical Congress, May 16–19, 2018, Kragujevac, Serbia. Book of abstracts, p96
V. Andrejić and M. Tatarevic, *Searching for a counterexample to Kurepa’s conjecture*, Math. Comp. **85** (2016), 3061–3068.
V. Andrejić and M. Tatarevic, *On Distinct residues of factorials*, Publ. Inst. Math., Nouv. Sér. **100** (2016), 101–106.
A. Bostan, P. Gaudry, and E. Schost, *Linear recurrences with polynomial coefficients and application to integer factorization and Cartier-Manin operator*, SIAM J. Comput. **36** (2007), 1777–1806.
E. Costa, R. Gerbicz, and D. Harvey, *A search for Wilson primes*, Math. Comp. **83** (2014), 3071–3091.
T. Granlund and the GMP development team, *GNU MP: The GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library*, Version 6.1.2 (2016), <http://gmplib.org>.
R. Guy, *Unsolved Problems in Number Theory* (3rd edition), Springer-Verlag, 2004.
W. Hart, F. Johansson, and S. Pancratz, *FLINT: Fast Library for Number Theory*, Version 2.5.2 (2015), <http://flintlib.org>.
D. Harvey, *NTT: A library for large integer arithmetic*, Version 0.1.2 (2012).
. Kurepa, *On the left factorial function $!n$*, Math. Balk. **1** (1971), 147–153.
R. Rajkumar, *Searching for a counterexample to Kurepa’s conjecture in average polynomial time*, Master’s thesis, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UNSW Sydney (2019).
V. Shoup, *NTL: A Library for doing Number Theory*, Version 10.3.0 (2016), <http://www.shoup.net/ntl>.
T. Trudgian, *There are no socialist primes less than $10^9$*, Integers **14** (2014), \#A63.
[^1]: This work is partially supported by the Serbian Ministry of Education and Science, project No. 174012
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
epsf.sty
The idea of charge-spin separation (CSS) by Anderson[@Anderson] which accounts for the anomalous behavior of various normal-state properties of high-$T_{\rm c}$ cuprates[@etc] allows us to treat holons and spinons introduced in the slave-boson (SB) mean-field theory (MFT) of the t-J model as quasi-free particles. Fluctuations around MFT are described by gauge fields coupled to holons and spinons, the effects of which may be calculated in perturbation theory. Actually, by using a massless gauge field, Nagaosa and Lee obtained the dc resistivity $\rho(T) \propto T$, which agrees with the experiment for $T > T^*$ where $T^*$ is the onset temperature of spin gap.
For $T < T^*$, the experimentally observed $\rho(T)$ reduces from this $T$-linear behavior . Because the gauge field is expected to acquire a mass $m_A$ in the spin-gap state, this reduction could be understood as a mass effect; the fluctuations of the gauge field become weaker and the scatterings between holons (the carriers of charge) and gauge bosons are reduced. Actually, in the previous paper , we obtained the following result [@X]; $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(T)
&\simeq& \frac{3 \pi \bar{m}}{2 e^2 n_B} k_{\rm B} T
\Bigl[ 1+X(T) - \sqrt{\{1+X(T)\}^2 -1} \Bigr],\nonumber\\
X(T) &=& \frac{m_A^2(T)}{8\pi \tilde{n}_B(T)},
\quad \frac1{\bar{m}} = \frac1{m_F} + \frac{f_B(-\mu_B)}{2m_B},
\label{rho}\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{F(B)}$ is the spinon (holon) mass, $f_B(-\mu_B) = [\exp(-\beta\mu_B)-1]^{-1}$, with the holon chemical potential $\mu_B$, $n_B$ is the holon density, and $\tilde{n}_B = n_B /f_B(-\mu_B)$. The factor in the square brackets represents the reduction rate due to $m_A^2(T)$. By assuming the behavior $m_A(T) \propto (T^* - T)^{d}$$ (d > 0)$ near $T^*$, and ignoring the weak $T$-dependence in $\bar{m}(T)$ and $\tilde{n}_B(T)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(T) \propto T [ 1-c\:(T^* -T)^d ].\end{aligned}$$ The MF value $d = 1/2$ is excluded since the experiment shows smooth deviations from the $T$-linear form, which requires $ d > 1$. In this letter, we calculate $m_A$ by setting up the effective field theory and taking the compactness of gauge field into account, finding that $d$ is [*not*]{} a universal constant but has the $T$-dependence.
The effective theory is the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory $L(\lambda, A_i)$ coupled with a gauge field $A_i$, where the complex scalar $\lambda$ represents the $d$-wave spinon pairing. Halperin, Lubensky, and Ma considered a similar system in 3D, where $A_i$ corresponds to the electromagnetic field and $\lambda$ to the Cooper-pair field. They calculated the effect of $A_i$ on $\lambda$, which converted the second-order phase transition to first-order. More recently, Ubbens and Lee calculated the one-loop effect of $A_i$ in the SB MFT of the 2D t-J model, and concluded again that the pairing transition at $T^*$ becomes first order. However, their $T^*$ appears below the superconducting transition temperature $T_{\rm c}$, so they concluded that the spin-gap phase is completely destroyed by gauge-field fluctuations. In the present study, we take the compactness of $A_i$ into account, which originates from the t-J model defined on the lattice itself and gives rise to interactions like $\lambda^2 \cos(2 a A_i)$, where $a$ is the lattice constant. Even in the CSS state, it generates nontrivial vertices that are missing in the usual treatments which use $\lambda^2 A_i^2$. We find that the periodic interaction stabilizes the system so as to have a phase transition above $T_{\rm c}$.
For the 2D GL theory coupled with a gauge field, Nagaosa and Lee [@vortex] argued that vortices put a phase transition into a crossover. On the other hand, the 3D system has a genuine phase transition. This is supported by Monte Carlo simulations and other studies [@kajantie]. In the low-temperature phase (spin-gap phase, Higgs phase), vortex loops do not proliferate, while in the high-temperature phase, they do. The former phase is well described by the usual order parameter $\lambda$, while the latter is described by the disorder parameter that measures the vortex-loop density. We assume a small but finite three-dimensionality with anisotropy $\alpha > 0$ ($\alpha = 1$ for 3D and $\alpha =0$ for 2D), so there takes place a genuine phase transition at $T^*$ in the present model.
For a sufficiently small $\alpha$, the 3D critical behavior is observed only in the small interval in $T$ near $T^*$ which vanishes as $\alpha \rightarrow 0$. Beyond this, calculations in the pure 2D system ($\alpha = 0$) should give a reliable result according to the general theory of critical phenomena. There is a good example of this; the antiferromagnetic transition of cuprates at $T = T_{AF}$ [@crossover], for which the 3D behavior takes place for $|T - T_{AF}| \lesssim O(1/|\ln\alpha |^2)$. Beyond this interval, the 2D results fit the experimental data well.
Let us start with the SB t-J Hamiltonian given by $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&-t\sum_{x, i,\sigma} \Bigl(b^{\dagger}_{x+ i}f^{\dagger}_{x \sigma}
f_{x+ i\:\sigma}b_x+\mbox{H.c.}\Bigr)\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{J}{2} \sum_{x, i} \Bigl|
f^{\dagger}_{x\uparrow}f^{\dagger}_{x+ i\downarrow}
- f^{\dagger}_{x\downarrow}f^{\dagger}_{x+ i\uparrow}\Bigr|^2 + H_\mu,
\nonumber\\
H_\mu &=& -\sum_{x}\Bigl(\tilde{\mu}_B b^{\dagger}_{x} b_{x}
+ \tilde{\mu}_F \sum_{\sigma}
f^{\dagger}_{x\sigma} f_{x\sigma} \Bigr),
\label{Hsb}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{x \sigma}$ is the fermionic spinon operator with spin $\sigma$ ($= \uparrow, \downarrow$) at site $x$ of a 2D lattice, and $b_x$ is the bosonic holon operator. The direction index $i$ ($= 1, 2$) is also used as unit vectors. $\tilde{\mu}_{B,F}$ are the chemical potentials to enforce $\langle b^{\dagger}_{x} b_{x} \rangle = \delta$, $\sum_{\sigma} \langle f^{\dagger}_{x\sigma} f_{x\sigma} \rangle = 1-\delta$ where $\delta$ is the doping parameter [@A0]. We introduce the complex auxiliary fields $\chi_{xi}$ and $\lambda_{xi}$ on the link $(x, x+i)$ to decouple both $t$ and $J$ terms as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm MF}&=&\sum_{x, i}\Bigl[
\frac{3J}{8}\:|\chi_{xi}|^2+{2\over 3J}\:|\lambda_{xi}|^2
\nonumber\\
& &-\Bigl\{\chi_{xi}\Bigl(\frac38 J\sum_{\sigma}
f^{\dagger}_{x+i\:\sigma}\:f_{x \sigma}
+t b^{\dagger}_{x+ i}b_x \Bigr)+\mbox{H.c.}\Bigr\}
\label{Hdec1}\\
& &- \frac12
\Bigl\{ \lambda_{xi}
\Bigl(f^{\dagger}_{x\uparrow}f^{\dagger}_{x+ i\downarrow}
- f^{\dagger}_{x\downarrow}f^{\dagger}_{x+ i\uparrow}\Bigr)+\mbox{H.c.}
\Bigr\}\Bigr] + H_{\mu}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $\chi_{xi}$ describes hoppings of holons and spinons, while $\lambda_{xi}$ describes the resonating-valence-bond (singlet spin-pair) amplitude. We shall treat their radial parts as MF’s.
In path integral formalism, the partition function $Z(\beta) \; [\beta \equiv(k_{\rm B} T)^{-1}]$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
Z &=& \int [db][df][d\chi][d\lambda] \: \exp (-S),\nonumber\\
S &=& \int_0^{\beta}d\tau \Bigl[\sum_x \Bigl( \bar{b}_x\dot{b}_x +
\sum_\sigma \bar{f}_{x\sigma}\dot{f}_{x\sigma}\Bigr) + H_{\rm MF}\Bigr],\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau$ is the imaginary time and $\dot{b}_x =\partial b_x(\tau)/\partial\tau$, etc. Let us consider the low-energy effective theory at temperatures $T \ll T_{\rm CSS}$, where $T_{\rm CSS}$ is the critical temperature [*below*]{} which the CSS takes place as a deconfinement phenomenon. It is reasonable to translate the lattice variables to the continuum fields like $f_{x\sigma} \to a f_\sigma(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$, etc. using the lattice constant. The Hamiltonian of the continuum field theory is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&N_{\rm site}\frac34 J\chi^2
+ m_F\:\chi \int d^2 x\:\Bigl[ |\lambda_{s}(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})|^2
+|\lambda_{d}(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})|^2 \Bigr]\nonumber\\
& &+\int d^2 x\: \Bigl[\frac{1}{2m_B}
\sum_i\Bigl|D_i b(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})\Bigr|^2
-\mu_B\Bigl|b(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})\Bigr|^2\Bigr]\\
& &+\int d^2 x\: \Bigl[\frac1{2m_F}\sum_i
\Bigl|D_i f_{\sigma}(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})\Bigr|^2
-\mu_F\Bigl|f_{\sigma}(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})\Bigr|^2\Bigr]
\nonumber\\
& &+\int \frac{ d^2 k\: d^2 q}{(2 \pi)^4} \Bigl[
\Delta_{\rm SG}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $q$})
f^{\dagger}_{\uparrow}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$}
\! +\! \frac{\mbox{\boldmath $q$}}2)
f^{\dagger}_{\downarrow}(-\mbox{\boldmath $k$}
\! +\! \frac{\mbox{\boldmath$q$}}2)
\! +\!\mbox{H.c.} \Bigr], \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_{B, F}$ are the chemical potentials for the continuum theory, $f_{\sigma}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$})$ is the Fourier transform of $f_{\sigma}(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$, and $$\begin{aligned}
&&\lambda_{s,d} = \frac12(\lambda_{1}\pm\lambda_{2}),\quad
\frac{1}{2m_B} = t\chi a^2,\nonumber\\
&&\frac{1}{2m_F} = \frac38 J\chi a^2,\quad
k_F^2 = \frac{2\pi}{a^2}(1-\delta),\nonumber\\
&&\Delta_{\rm SG}(\mbox{\boldmath $k$},\mbox{\boldmath $q$})
= 2(1-\delta)\Bigl(\frac{k^{2}_{1}-k^{2}_{2}}{k^2_F}\Bigr)
\lambda_{d}(\mbox{\boldmath $q$})
-2\delta\:\lambda_{s}(\mbox{\boldmath $q$}).\end{aligned}$$ To obtain $H$, we modified the dispersions of holons and spinons from cosine form to the quadratic one. $D_i \equiv \partial_i - i A_i$ is the covariant derivative with the gauge field $A_i(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$. Here we introduced $A_i(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ by the correspondence $\chi_{xi} \to \chi \exp[i a A_i(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})]$, where $\chi$ is the radial part of $\chi_{xi}$. We ignore the fluctuations of $|\chi_{xi}|$ since $T \ll T_{\chi}$, where $T_{\chi}$ is the onset temperature of $\chi$. In the SB MFT, $\chi$ is estimated at small $\delta$’s as $$\begin{aligned}
\chi
&\simeq& \Bigl\langle\sum_{\sigma}f^{\dagger}_{x+i\: \sigma}\:f_{x \sigma}
+ \frac{8t}{3J}b^{\dagger}_{x+i}b_x \Bigr\rangle_{\rm MF}\nonumber\\
&\simeq& \frac{4}{\pi^2}\sin^2
\Bigl(\frac{\pi}2\sqrt{1-\delta}\Bigr)
+ \frac{8t}{3J}\delta,\end{aligned}$$ if the spinon pairing $\lambda_{xi}$ is neglected.
To obtain the effective action of $\lambda_i$ and $A_i$, $b$ and $f_{\sigma}$ are integrated by the standard bilinear integrations. This procedure generates dissipative terms of $\lambda_i$ and $A_i$. The most singular contributions to $Z$ from the integrations over $\lambda_i$ and $A_i$ come from their static ($\tau$-independent) modes, so we keep only the static modes in the effective Lagrangian density, which is given up to the fourth-order in fields and derivatives by $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\rm eff}&=&
a_s |\lambda_{s}|^2 + a_d |\lambda_{d}|^2
%\nonumber\\ &&
+\:4 b\: \delta^4|\lambda_{s}|^4
+\frac{3}{2} b\ (1-\delta)^4|\lambda_{d}|^4
\nonumber\\
&&+\: 2 b\:\delta^2(1-\delta)^2
\Bigl(4|\lambda_{s}|^2
|\lambda_{d}|^2 + \bar{\lambda}_{s}^2
\lambda_{d}^2
+ \bar{\lambda}_d^2
\lambda_{s}^2 \Bigr)\nonumber\\
&&+\: c\:\sum_i\Bigl(
2\delta^2|{\cal D}_{i}\lambda_{s} |^2
+(1-\delta)^2|{\cal D}_{i}\lambda_{d} |^2
\Bigr) \nonumber\\
&&+\: c\: \delta(1-\delta) \Bigl(
\overline{{\cal D}_{1}\lambda_{s}}
{\cal D}_{1}\lambda_{d}
-\overline{{\cal D}_{2}\lambda_{s}}
{\cal D}_{2}\lambda_{d} + \mbox{H.c.}
\Bigr) \nonumber\\
&&+\: \frac1{12\pi\bar{m}}
\sum_{i j}\frac14 F_{ij} F_{ij},\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{m}$ is defined in Eq.(\[rho\]), and $$\begin{aligned}
a_s &=& m_F\chi-\frac{2}{\pi}m_F\delta^2
\ln\Bigl(\frac{2e^{\gamma}}{\pi}\beta\omega_\lambda\Bigr),\nonumber\\
a_d &=&
m_F\chi - \frac{m_F}{\pi}(1- \delta)^2\ln\Bigl(\frac{2e^{\gamma}}{\pi}
\beta\omega_\lambda\Bigr),
\nonumber\\
b &=& \frac{m_F}{\pi}\frac{7\zeta(3)}{8\pi^{2}}\beta^2,
\quad c = \frac{k_F^2}{4\pi m_F}
\frac{7\zeta(3)}{8\pi^{2}} \beta^2,\nonumber\\
{\cal D}_{i} &=& \partial_{i}-2iA_{i}, \quad
F_{ij} = \partial_{i}A_{j} - \partial_{j}A_{i},\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ is the Euler number. $\omega_\lambda$ is the cutoff of the spinon energy \[$\xi \equiv k^2/(2m_F) - \mu_F$\] in the one-loop integrals representing spinon pairings, and is estimated as $\omega_\lambda \sim O(\mu_F)$. From the potential energy of $\lambda_i(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$, the system favors the d-wave state at small $\delta$’s, and the s-wave state at large $\delta$’s. Let us focus on small $\delta$’s by parameterizing $\lambda_1(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})=
\lambda \exp[ i\theta(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})], \
\lambda_2(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})=
-\lambda \exp[i\theta(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})]$. Here we introduced $\lambda$, the spin-gap amplitude, for the radial parts of $\lambda_{i}(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$, ignoring their fluctuations. Then we have the effective Lagrangian density, $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\rm eff} & = & L_{\lambda} + L_A, \nonumber\\
L_{\lambda}& =&
a_d \lambda^2 + \frac{3}{2} b\: (1-\delta)^4\lambda^4,\\
L_A & =& c\: (1-\delta)^2\lambda^2
\Bigl(\partial_{i}\theta - 2A_{i}\Bigr)^2 + \frac1{12\pi\bar{m}}
\sum_{i j}\frac14 F_{ij} F_{ij}.
\nonumber
\label{Leff}\end{aligned}$$ From the above $L_{\lambda}$, the MF result is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
&&k_{\rm B} T_{\lambda}
=\frac{2e^{\gamma}}{\pi}\: \omega_\lambda
\exp\Bigl[-\frac{\pi\chi}{(1-\delta)^2}\Bigr],
\nonumber\\
&&\frac{7\zeta(3)}{8\pi^{2}}\: (1-\delta)^2
\left[\frac{\lambda(T)}{k_{\rm B}T}\right]^2
\simeq \frac{1}{3}
\Bigl(1-\frac{T}{T_{\lambda}}\Bigr),
\label{MFT}\end{aligned}$$ where $T_{\lambda}$ is the critical temperature below which $\lambda$ develops, and should be identified as $T^*$. The second result is reliable at $T$ near $T_\lambda$.
Let us consider the effect of $L_A$ on $L_{\lambda}$ by integrating over $A_i$. We have treated $A_{i}$ as a noncompact gauge field although it was originally compact. This procedure is appropriate for the kinetic term of $A_{i}$, because we consider the region $T\ll T_{\rm CSS}$. We will respect the compactness of $A_{i}$ and the angle-nature of $\theta$ by considering the following new Lagrangian $L_B$ with the periodic mass term; $$\begin{aligned}
L_B &=&\frac{1}{12\pi\bar{m}}
\sum_{i j}\frac14 F_{ij} F_{ij}
\nonumber\\
&&+ \: c\: (1-\delta)^2\lambda^2 \cdot
\frac1{a^2}
\Bigl[4-\sum_{i}2\cos\Bigl(2 a B_{i}\Bigr)\Bigr],\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced the Proca (massive vector) field $B_i \equiv A_i - \partial_i\theta/2$. ($F_{ij}=\partial_i B_j - \partial_j B_i$.) Let us take the unitary gauge. Then the integrals reduce as $[d\theta][dA_i] \equiv [d\theta][dB_i] \rightarrow [dB_i]$.
Let us estimate the gauge-field mass by the variational method. We choose the variational Lagrangian $L_B'$ for $L_B$ as $$\begin{aligned}
L_B' &=&\frac{1}{12\pi\bar{m}} \Bigl(
\sum_{i j}\frac14 F_{ij} F_{ij}
+\sum_i\frac{m^2_{A}}2\: B_i B_i
\Bigr),\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{A}$ is a variational parameter. The variational free energy density $F_B = F_B' +\langle L_B - L_B'
\rangle'$is given by $$\begin{aligned}
F_B(m_A)
&=& F_B(0) + \frac{k_{\rm B} T}{8\pi}\:m^2_{A}
-\frac{4 c\: (1-\delta)^2\lambda^2}{a^2}
\Bigl(\frac{m^2_A}{q^2_c}\Bigr)^{\frac{T}{\Theta(T)}},
\nonumber\\
k_{\rm B}\Theta(T)&\equiv&
\frac1{3 a^2 \bar{m}}=\chi\Bigl[\frac{J}4+\frac{t}3\:f_B(-\mu_B)\Bigr],
\label{freeenergy}\end{aligned}$$ where $q_c$, the momentum cutoff of $B_i$, is $O(a^{-1})$. We have omitted the higher-order terms of $O( m^4_A/q^4_c)$. Note that we took the definition of the propagator at the same point and the trace of a functional operator $\hat{O}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle B_i(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}) B_j(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})\rangle
&\equiv&\lim_{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}\to \mbox{\boldmath $x$}}
\langle B_i(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}) B_j(\mbox{\boldmath $y$})\rangle,
\nonumber\\
\mbox{Tr}\: \hat{O}
&\equiv&\int d^2 x \lim_{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}\to \mbox{\boldmath $x$}}
\langle \mbox{\boldmath $x$}| \hat{O} | \mbox{\boldmath $y$}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ By minimizing $F_B(m_A)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
m^2_A (T)& = &
q^2_c\Bigl[\frac{96\pi \bar{m}}{q_c^2}
\:c\:(1-\delta)^2\lambda^2\Bigr]^{2 d(T)}, \nonumber\\
d(T) &=&\frac{\Theta(T)}{2[\Theta(T)-T]}.\end{aligned}$$ We note that the fluctuations of $A_i$ do not affect the MF result (\[MFT\]) as long as $d(T) > 1$ since then the order of the corrections becomes higher than $\lambda^4$. Thus the gauge-field mass $m_A(T)$ starts to develop continuously at $T_\lambda$ as $m_A(T) \propto (T_{\lambda} - T)^{d(T_{\lambda})}$. That is, the exponent $d$ is neither $1/2$ nor a constant, and drastically changes especially when $T_\lambda \sim T_A$, where $T_A$ is a root of the equation $T_A=\Theta(T_A)$, at which $d(T)$ diverges. This is in strong contrast with the noncompact case .
If we write $q_c^2 = \epsilon a^{-2}$, we have $m_A^2(T) = q_c^2 z\: (1-T/T_{\lambda})^{2d(T)}$ with $z = [16\pi(1-\delta)\bar{m}/(\epsilon m_F)]^{2d(T)}$. A straightforward estimation, $\pi q_c^2 = (2\pi/a)^2$, by keeping the area of momentum space, gives $\epsilon = 4\pi$. However, this gives rise to a nonrealistic curve of $\rho(T)$ that deviates from the $T$-linear behavior and decreases too rapidly, due to the large factor $z \simeq 4^{2d(T)}$. Thus we regard $q_c$ to be a parameter of the effective theory, and choose $\epsilon$ so as to obtain a reasonable $\rho(T)$. For example, we require $z=1$, which implies $\epsilon = 16\pi(1-\delta)\bar{m}/m_F$.
Finally, we need to consider the renormalization effect of the hopping parameter $t$. We assume that the 3D system exhibits Bose condensation at the temperature scale of $T_{B} \simeq 2\pi n_B/m_B = 4\pi t \chi \delta$, and regard $T_{B}$ to be the observed $T_{\rm c}$ in the lightly-doped region. Since $t \sim 0.3$ eV gives rise to $T_B \sim 3000$ K at $\delta \sim 0.15$, one needs to use an effective $t^* \sim 0.01$ eV in place of $t$ so as to obtain a realistic $T_{\rm c} \sim 100 $K [@tstar].
We show in Fig.\[phase\] the phase diagram with the spin-gap on-set temperature $T_{\lambda}$, $T_A$ at which the mass exponent $d$ diverges, and $T_B$. In Fig.\[resistivity\], we plot $\rho(T)$. As explained, the curves reproduce the experimental data much better than those with $d = 1/2$ of the MF result, showing smooth departures from the $T$-linear curves, i.e., $d (T_\lambda) > 1$ for the region of interest, $0.05 \lesssim \delta \lesssim 0.15$.
The present results of $\rho(T)$ support that our treatment of gauge-field fluctuations by the variational treatment of compactness is suitable to describe the spin-gap state in the t-J model, although more investigation is certainly necessary.
(200,120) (0,0)[ ]{}
(200,200) (0,0)[ ]{}
M. Onoda is financially supported by Research Fellowships of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists.
Electronic address: [email protected] Electronic address: [email protected] Electronic address: [email protected]
P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1839 (1990). See, [*e.g.*]{}, T. Nishikawa [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**63**]{}, 1441 (1994); J. Takeda [*et al.*]{}, Physica C [**231**]{}, 293 (1994); H. Y. Hwang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 2636 (1994). N. Nagaosa and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 2450 (1990); Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 1233 (1991); P. A. Lee and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 5621 (1992). See also L. Ioffe and P. Wiegmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 653 (1990); I. Ioffe and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{} 10348 (1990). M. Gurvitch and A. T. Fiory, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 1337 (1987). T. Ito, K. Takenaka, and S. Uchida, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 3995 (1993); B. Bucher [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2012 (1993). H. Yasuoka [*et al.*]{},“Strong Correlation and Superconductivity”, ed. H. Fukuyama [*et al.*]{} (Springer Series, Berlin, 1989) p.254; M. Takigawa [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 247 (1991); J. Rossat-Mignot [*et al.*]{}, Physica C [**185-189**]{}, 86 (1991); J. M. Tranquada [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 5561 (1992). M. Onoda, I. Ichinose, and T. Matsui, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**67**]{}, 2606 (1998). Eq.(18) of used the expression $X(T) = 3\bar{m}\: n_F^{\rm S}$ $/(2 m_F \tilde{n}_B)$ where $n_F^{\rm S} \propto n_F \beta^2 (1-\delta)^2 \lambda^2$. We obtained it by rewriting $X(T)$ of (\[rho\]) by assuming the relation $m_A^2 \propto n_F^{\rm S}$ of the MFT. Because we shall study the case in which $m_A$ and $n_F^{\rm S}$ are independent, we cite the original expression (\[rho\]) here. B. I. Halperin, T. C. Lubensky, and S. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**32**]{}, 292 (1974). See also S. Coleman and E. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D [**7**]{}, 1888 (1973). M. U. Ubbens and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 6853 (1994). N. Nagaosa and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 966 (1992). K. Kajantie [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**520**]{}, 345 (1998); Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 3011(1998), and references cited therein. See also H. Kleinert, Lett. Nuovo Cimento [**35**]{}, 405 (1982). S. Chakravarty, B. I. Halperin and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{},1057(1988); Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{}, 2344 (1989); H. Yamamoto [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 7654 (1991). The SB local constraint can be incorporated by inserting the time-component $A_0$ of gauge field. However, its fluctuation effects are negligible at $T < T_{\rm CSS}$ since they are short-ranged. I. Ichinose and T. Matsui, Nucl. Phys. B [**394**]{}, 281 (1993); Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 11860 (1995). N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 4210 (1993), also studied a confinement-deconfinement transition of certain dissipative gauge theory of fermions. However, the deconfinement occurs there [*above*]{} the critical temperature. F.C. Zhang, C. Gross, T.M. Rice, and H. Shiba, Supercond. Sci. Technol. [**1**]{}, 36 (1988).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The *act of explaining* across two parties is a feedback loop, where one provides information on what needs to be explained and the other provides an explanation relevant to this information. We apply a reinforcement learning framework which emulates this format by providing explanations based on the *explainee*’s current mental model. We conduct novel online human experiments where explanations generated by various explanation methods are selected and presented to participants, using policies which observe participants’ mental models, in order to optimize an interpretability proxy. Our results suggest that mental model-based policies (anchored in our proposed state representation) may increase interpretability over multiple sequential explanations, when compared to a random selection baseline. This work provides insight into how to select explanations which increase relevant information for users, and into conducting human-grounded experimentation to understand interpretability.'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
---
Introduction
============
As machine learning becomes more commonly used by individuals without technical expertise, explanations of the model’s behavior are necessary to build trust and confidence [@adadi2018peeking; @miller2017explainable; @doran2017does; @hoffman2018metrics]. Decision makers should be able to interpret how models behave and assess the *reasoning* behind specific predictions: This allows identification of features that may have been overlooked by humans, and any errors behind the output of these models. By gaining further insight into the task and evaluating the operation of the models, users may apply them with greater understanding, guaranteeing safer use, and ultimately encouraging further effective adoption of these approaches.
In this work, we focus on explanation methods, which elucidate how a black-box model behaves [@adadi2018peeking]. One criticism of many explanation methods is that they are generally designed by developers and ML experts whose notions of interpretability do not align with the users [@miller2017explainable]. As a result, explanations provided to users (i.e., the *explainee*) may be irrelevant or not convey useful information.
The *act of explaining* is an interaction between the explainer and the explainee, often in a dialogue [@adadi2018peeking; @miller2017explainable; @madumal2018towards]. More precisely, the explainer presents an explanation to the explainee, and the explainee attempts to understand it. The explainee often provides feedback to the explainer as an indication of their understanding (e.g., asking further questions) and the explainer then provides a following explanation based on the received feedback. We refer to any observations of this indication (i.e., a representation of the explainee’s interpretation of the black-box model) as the explainee’s *mental model*. The feedback cycle between the explainer and explainee highlights two important considerations: 1) interpretability of a black-box model through explanation is dependent on the explainee’s mental model [@doran2017does; @hoffman2018metrics]; and 2) the explainer can generate sequential explanations by leveraging the explainee’s mental model [@adadi2018peeking; @hoffman2018metrics; @madumal2018towards].
We address the problem of irrelevant explanations by modeling the *act of explaining* as a reinforcement learning (RL) task. We propose an RL framework to provide sequential explanations which are relevant to the explainee’s current mental model at every iteration, in order to optimize interpretability. Experiments demonstrate enhanced simulatability by selecting explanations using empirically measured observations of the mental model.
Related Work
============
The field of *Explainable AI* (XAI) still has many open questions. The *act of explaining* is described as a social interaction between the explainer and the explainee in the form of a dialogue [@adadi2018peeking; @miller2017explainable]. @miller2017explainable further proposed that, for an explanation to be effective, significant considerations of the target explainees must be taken into account and explanations should reflect the social behavior of human explanations. Assessment of explanation effectiveness is further challenged from a lack of standard evaluation techniques [@adadi2018peeking; @doran2017does]. @doshi2017towards categorized evaluation techniques based on the experimental population and the relevance of the application task. Our experiments use a *human-grounded technique*, where a layperson population is consulted for a generic application task.
**Explainers** Many explanation methods for black-box models (i.e., *explainers*) have been proposed. In general, explainers are either local or global [@adadi2018peeking; @doshi2017towards; @lipton2016mythos]. While global explanations provide generalized interpretability of model behavior, they may not be as interpretable for specific instances or more complex models [@adadi2018peeking]. Explainers are further categorized by their functionality and notation of interpretability, such as saliency maps [@montavon2017explaining; @binder2016layer; @smilkov2017smoothgrad], example-based [@kim2016examples; @dhurandhar2018explanations; @van2019interpretable; @koh2017understanding], and surrogate models [@ribeiro2016should; @ribeiro2018anchors]. Given the diversity of explanation types, a criticism is the difficulty of identifying relevant information for a specific explainee [@miller2017explainable]. It is impractical for explainees to analyze all possible explanations generated from all explainers to find information relevant to their current mental model. Our framework may select explanations from various explanations and explainers sequentially, in order to provide relevant information to the explainee’s current state.
**Evaluation Metrics** Another challenge is the lack of consensus on metrics for interpretability and how effective explanations are to human explainees. Depending on the study, different metrics may be used as proxies for some notion of interpretability [@hoffman2018metrics; @gilpin2018explaining]. @hoffman2018metrics identified empirical observations within a conceptual model of the *act of explaining* which may be used as proxies of the explainee’s mental model, such as satisfaction in the explanation, trust in the model, human performance on the application task, and human simulatabilty of the model’s behavior. Other studies used (or supported the use of) similar metrics as proxies for interpretability [@doshi2017towards; @lipton2016mythos; @gilpin2018explaining; @madumal2019explainable; @poursabzi2018manipulating; @lahav2018interpretable]. We use satisfaction and local simulatability as observations of the explainee’s mental model. Any observable and quantifiable evaluation metric, which the user finds reasonable, may also be included into our framework.
**Human-in-the-Loop** Recent studies have included aspects of human experimentation in selecting explanations. @lage2018human introduced an algorithm for selecting the maximal interpretable model by incorporating human data to establish interpretability priors. @lahav2018interpretable framed the *act of explaining* as a multi-armed bandit problem for selecting sets of interpretable modules statically (e.g., model attributes and surrogate models) to maximize trust in a domain expert population. By contrast, our framework provides explanations in a sequential fashion, such that each explanation is relevant to the explainee’s current, updating mental model.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to measure empirical metrics to observe the explainee’s mental model and select explanations. Our experiments, in particular, use a *human-grounded technique* and seek to optimize for simulatability, as an interpretability proxy, within a layperson population.
Framework
=========
Our goal is to optimize for a specific interpretability proxy, such as simulatability. For each iteration, an agent first observes the current mental model. Following a policy, the agent then selects or generates an explanation, which is optimal for the interpretability proxy. A measure of the interpretability proxy will then be passed to the agent. In practice, the online framework operates sequentially.
The rationale is twofold. Firstly, we hypothesize that providing multiple explanations will increase interpretability for the explainee, as more complementary information may be conveyed. Secondly, we hypothesize that sequential explanations, each provided based on the explainee’s updated mental model, will provide more relevant insight to the explainee, and will thus, increase interpretability. This framework ultimately delivers online personalization in providing explanations in a sequential format.
Contextual Interpretability as Reinforcement Learning
-----------------------------------------------------
We model the *act of explaining* of an AI agent to an explainee as a feedback loop (see Figure \[fig: rl\_framework\]) comprised of three interacting components: the policy $\mu$ (in an RL context, i.e., the *agent*), the explainee who interprets the explanation (i.e., the *environment*), and the black-box model $f(x)$ into which the explanations aim to provide greater insight. The policy provides an explanation $a_{t}$ by observing the context of the mental model $s_{t}$.
![Reinforcement learning representation of the *act of explaining*.[]{data-label="fig: rl_framework"}](rl_framework.png){width="\columnwidth"}
We introduce the probability notation for *contextual interpretability*, which includes the mental model as *context* $s_t$. This is the interpretability of a black-box model $f(x)$ from the perspective of a given context and, when context is non-conditional, is closely related to the notation of @lage2018human. In our framework, we optimize for the interpretability proxy by providing the optimal explanation $a_{t}^{*}$ out of all available explanations $A$:
$$a_t^* = \arg\max_{a\in A}{p(f(x), a_t\,|\,s_t)},$$
The contextual interpretability $p(f(x), a_t\,|\, s_t)$ is the product of the likelihood $p(f(x)\,|\,a_t, s_t)$ and the prior $p(a_t\,|\,s_t)$. Intuitively, $p(f(x)\,|\,a_t, s_t)$ may be defined as the contextual interpretability of the black-box model given an explanation. This is a metric of how interpretable a black-box model is given an explanation and the explainee’s mental model. This may be rewritten as:
$$a_t^* = arg\max_{a\in A}{p(f(x)\,|\,a_t, s_t)\cdot p(a_t\,|\,s_t)}
\label{eq: likelihood_prior}$$
$$a_t^* = arg\max_{a\in A}{p(a_t\,|\,f(x), s_t)\cdot p(f(x)\,|\,s_t)}
\label{eq: likelihood_evidence}$$
where $p(a_t\,|\,f(x), s_t)$ is defined as the contextual interpretability of an explanation given the model (i.e., the posterior). Assuming Markov property, $p(f(x) \, |\, s_t)$ is constant for a given $s_t$ when no explanation is provided. That is, given that the mental model is fully represented by $s_t$, the explainee’s understanding of the black-box model given this specified mental model is unchanging. Providing any additional explanations may change $s_t$ and hence, also $p(f(x) \, | \, s_t)$.
When we optimize for $p(f(x), a_t\,|\,s_t)$, the optimal explanation would maximize the product of the interpretability of the explanation given the mental model and the interpretability of the black-box model given the explanation and the mental model (see Equation \[eq: likelihood\_prior\]). The interpretability proxy is then the RL expected immediate reward. That is, $r_{t+1}(s_t, a_t) \gets p(f(x), a_t\,|\,s_t)$.
The objective is then to obtain a policy $a_t \leftarrow \mu_{\theta}(s_t)$, such that the expected cumulative reward $Q$ is maximized [@watkins1992q]. This optimization may be represented as:
$$\mu^{*} = \arg\max_{\mu_\theta}{Q^{\mu}(s_t, a_t)}
\label{eq: optimal_policy}$$
$$Q^{\mu}(s_t, a_t) = E[r_{t+1}(s_t, a_t) + \gamma Q^{\mu}(s_{t+1}, \mu(s_{t+1}))]
\label{eq: q_function}$$
This framework is agnostic to the policies $\mu$, explanations $a_t$, and context state representation $s_t$ used.
Implementation
--------------
This section discuss experimental parameters used for our implementation of this framework.
### Explanations
We define an explanation, $a$, as the output of an explainer, $e(\cdot)$, when one or more data instances $\mathcal{D}$ are inputted (i.e., $a \gets e(\mathcal{D})$). The selection of instances is dependent on the policy and the context.
Our experiments involve eight possible explanations, generated from two local explainers for four sets of data instances (see Figure \[fig: heatmap\_tp\]). The following two explainers were selected due to their popularity within the field of XAI and their demonstrated validity: prototypes [@kim2016examples; @gurumoorthy2017protodash] and deep Taylor decomposition saliency maps [@montavon2017explaining], implemented using the AIX360 [@aix360-sept-2019] and the iNNvestigate [@alber2019innvestigate] libraries, respectively.
Four sets of three instances each represent four classification possibilities of the dataset: true positives (TP), true negatives (TN), false positives (FP), and false negatives (FN). Instance categorization into these classification possibilities allows each explanation to localize on a certain attribute of the feature space, whereas including all classification possibilities avails explanations to represent properties of all test instances. In our implementation, we select the instances which best represent each possibility (e.g., for FP, the three positive instances which have the highest error) for display in the respective explanation. Our pilot studies suggest that explanations consisting of multiple local instances provides greater local representation and human participation than when only consisting of one instance.
{width="75.00000%"}
### Mental Model and Interpretability Proxy
To quantify the mental model, we use evaluation metric scores obtained from tasks that the explainee completes every iteration. Because we seek to observe aspects of interpretability from the mental model, it is intuitive that various evaluation metrics for interpretability are used as observations. We use the following, obtained before providing the current explanation, as observations of the mental model (i.e., the context): explainee’s satisfaction with the prior explanation [@hoffman2018metrics; @madumal2019explainable] and explainee’s local simulatability of the black-box model for each classification possibility [@hoffman2018metrics; @doshi2017towards; @lipton2016mythos; @kim2016examples; @gilpin2018explaining; @madumal2019explainable; @poursabzi2018manipulating; @zhu2018explainable]. We use the resultant simulatability, across all classification possibilities (i.e., sum of all local simulatability scores) as our interpretability proxy (i.e., the reward).
### Mental Model-Based Policies
We implement three experimental policies which select explanations generated by two explainers: 1) *saliency map policy*, which selects the saliency map explanation corresponding to the classification possibility with the lowest local simulatability score in the previous iteration; 2) *prototype policy*, which selects the prototype explanation corresponding to the classification possibility with the lowest local simulatability score in the previous iteration; and, 3) *combined explanations policy*, which selects the explanation where the explainer has the highest mean satisfaction score from the participant and which corresponds to the classification possibility with the lowest local simulatability score in the previous iteration. We compare these policies to random selection baseline policies with the same available explanations.
Our experimental policies simplifies the long-term reward to an immediate reward (i.e., $\gamma=0$ in Equation \[eq: q\_function\]). By selecting the explanation which greedily increases minimum local simulatability in each iteration, we aim to preserve participation while enhancing immediate simulatability.
Experimental Setup {#sec:experimental_setup}
==================
We deploy our framework into an online human experimentation environment.
Dataset and Black-Box Model
---------------------------
[UTF8]{}[min]{}
We test our framework with a task which most participants have no experience in, such that we may observe the effectiveness of explanations on the interpretability proxy separate from any prior knowledge. We use a binary classification task on Kuzushiji-49 images [@clanuwat2018deep], which are $28 \times 28$ pixel Japanese Hiragana characters written in cursive form, specifically *a* (あ) and *me* (め) characters, selected for their visual similarities. This dataset was selected due to its classification difficulty for participants (who lack prior knowledge in reading Japanese) compared to other datasets [@prabhu2019kannada; @deng2009imagenet], as well as its multi-modal nature, which may assist participants in distinguishing between possible classification possibilities within each character class. Before introducing this task and dataset, participants self-report languages in which they have basic literacy. The task is also described to participants as symbol (i.e., moon-and-sun) classification to reduce association with any prior knowledge of Hiragana characters.
A convolutional neural network (CNN) with two sets of layers (i.e., a ReLU-convolutional layer, a batch normalization layer, a max-pooling layer, and a sigmoid-linear layer per set) is used as the black-box classifier. The CNN is trained for 300 epochs with the Adam optimizer [@kingma2014adam] and a binary cross-entropy loss function. We achieve an accuracy of 0.85 on a balanced test set after training.
Participants
------------
Participants are recruited through the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) online crowd-sourcing platform. Participation is open to candidates who possess fluent English literacy, obtained an HIT approval rate greater than 98%, have over 100 HITs approved, and are located in either Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, or the United States.
To qualify for the study, candidates must first complete a pre-assessment, which assesses comprehension of the definitions of explanations and filters out *ineligible* candidates (e.g., random guessing). Candidates are presented examples and descriptions of four types of explanations [@montavon2017explaining; @kim2016examples; @koh2017understanding; @ribeiro2016should] on ImageNet images [@deng2009imagenet] and are asked comprehension questions. This aims to reduce noise in data quality caused by misunderstanding of the definitions of explanations, as opposed to poor interpretability due to the explanations themselves. In total, 488 participants participated fully or partially across the three experiments.
Experimental Interface and Task Sets
------------------------------------
Participants interact with an iterative survey on Qualtrics. Data is stored using MOOClet [@williams2014mooclet], a back-end engine for running online interactive algorithms. Each of the five experimental iterations first displays an explanation selected by the policy, which is then followed by two task sets, each corresponding to one of the mental model evaluation metrics: satisfaction of the provided explanation and local simulatability of the model’s classifaction behavior.
For simulatability task sets, the set of twelve images includes three instances of each classification possibility. This data balancing approach allows the mental model of all $4$ categories to be represented, while preventing success by simply identifying each instance’s true label [@hase2020evaluating]. We also use a data matching approach [@hase2020evaluating] where the image set is consistent for all participants and all iterations. The model predictions and labels of the image set are never revealed to participants. The resultant simulatability score (i.e., the immediate reward) is computed as the sum of all local simulatability scores within an iteration of the task set.
A baseline iteration precedes the five experimental iterations. The baseline does not include the satisfaction task set nor present any explanations, but only a single example image of each class.
Experimental Results
====================
-0.2in
**Different policy-explanation combinations may result in varying trajectories.** From the three experiments, we observe initial increases in the simulatability score relative to the baseline iteration in all trajectories (see Figure \[fig:progress\]). The combined explanations experiment shows an upward trend, whereas the other two experiments show gradual plateauing of the simulatability score. The lack of difference between the trajectories in the saliency map experiment may indicate a lack of effectiveness of the policy for deep Taylor decomposition saliency map explanations, whereas for the other two experiments, the greater simulatability scores observed in the mental model-based policy trajectories suggest policy-explanation compatibility. The continual upward trend in the combined explanations experiment may also indicate that multiple explanation types may provide complementary relevant information to the explainee, or may select explanations which match the explainee’s individual preferences, compared to the other two experiments where each uses a single explainer.
**Mental model-based policies may assist in increasing simulatability over time.** While the saliency map approach shows similar simulatability scores for both the mental model policy and the baseline, the prototypes and combined explanations approaches show more noticeable differences between the mental model policy and the baseline (see Figure \[fig:progress\]). In these two experiments, the mean simulatability scores of the mental model-based policies are consistently greater than those of the baselines. This difference is reflected in their effect sizes, computed with Cohen’s $d$ [@cohen1988lawrence], relative to their initial iterations. The greater effect sizes of mental model-based policies suggest the effectiveness of these policies. Additionally, medium to large effects ($d > 0.5$) in both trajectories suggest the effectiveness of the explanations themselves. High standard errors, however, indicate high variance, possibly due to non-conformity in the effect of explanations on human participants, as well as other experimental factors which could not be monitored through online experimentation (e.g., fatigue, attention).
The gradual plateau of simulatability scores in the saliency map and prototype experiments may suggest either a lack of new relevant information available from additional explanations or inherent degradation in simulatability over time, which are counteracted by information provided by additional explanations. Intuitively, an increase in interpretability after providing the initial explanation is expected, as it will provide new information regarding the feature space to the explainee who has no prior knowledge. Following explanations may not provide as much new information, depending on how similar they are to previous explanations. Additionally, factors that may degrade interpretability over time may include information overload, shift in attention to different local regions in the feature space, or participant fatigue. In theory, such factors may be used as mental model observations to provide better representations of the context. We do not observe plateauing of simulatability scores in the combined explanations experiments, suggesting different explanation types may provide less similar, yet complementary information regarding the feature space.
-------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------- -------------------------------------------------------- ------- -------------------------------------------------------- ------- -------------------------------------------------------
$d$ $p$ $d$ $p$ $d$ $p$ $d$ $p$
Saliency Map 0.195 9.50<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-4 0.717 1.92<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-33 0.489 7.74<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-11 0.096 9.32<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-3
Prototype 0.214 1.15<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-3 0.691 2.99<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-28 0.473 6.63<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-9 0.066 1.02<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-1
Combined 0.156 5.45<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-3 0.657 3.72<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-30 0.422 2.98<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-8 0.043 1.03<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-1
-------------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------- -------------------------------------------------------- ------- -------------------------------------------------------- ------- -------------------------------------------------------
-------------- --------------- ------ --------------- ------ ------------------------------------------------------- --------------- ------ --------------- ------ --------------------------------------------------------
Mean $\Delta$ SE Mean $\Delta$ SE $p$ Mean $\Delta$ SE Mean $\Delta$ SE $p$
Saliency Map 3.38 0.84 1.95 1.37 8.94<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-2 11.01 0.79 2.39 1.45 2.16<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-25
Prototype 3.69 0.79 2.45 1.48 1.19<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-1 10.65 0.87 3.76 1.41 1.14<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-14
Combined 3.23 0.88 3.10 1.37 8.78<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-1 9.82 0.77 3.51 1.32 1.89<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">e</span>-15
-------------- --------------- ------ --------------- ------ ------------------------------------------------------- --------------- ------ --------------- ------ --------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
==========
We propose a sequential RL framework for explaining the behavior of a black-box model by an AI agent to a human explainee. This framework optimizes for a specific interpretability proxy which is measured from the explainee. In every iteration, metrics of the explainee’s mental model are observed by an explainer policy to select or generate an explanation which will optimize for the interpretability proxy. We deployed online human-interaction experiments of this framework on Amazon MTurk. We compared three experimental policies in selecting explanations generated by prototype [@kim2016examples; @gurumoorthy2017protodash] and deep Taylor decomposition saliency map [@montavon2017explaining] explainers, relative to random selection baselines.
Our results suggest potential effectiveness of providing sequential explanations using policies which observe the explainee’s current, updating mental model. Depending on the explanation type(s), mental model-based policies may lead to greater simulatability than random selection.
Our experiments on MTurk, however, lack participant monitoring, which may lead to greater variance in our data, as observed in our simulatability measures. While our experiments are limited to pre-defined policies and two explanation types, future research may include training policies using multi-armed bandit or deep reinforcement learning techniques, which may require larger amounts of behavioral data. Additionally, we focus on the simulatability of a specific classification task. While our results may be relevant to similar tasks and datasets, further experimentation is necessary to guarantee the framework’s applicability to more diverse tasks and datasets.
This framework provides a model for mapping the *act of explaining* into a dialogue-like process between an explainer AI agent and the human explainee. When feedback regarding the explainee’s mental model is provided to the explainer, our framework may be used to provide explanations which are maximally relevant and useful to the explainee. This will increase the interpretability of black-box models, while limiting irrelevant information.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Sam Maldonado for setting up the MOOClet engine back-end server for data collection. This work was supported by Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) grant funded by the Korean government \[20ZS1100, Core Technology Research for Self-Improving Integrated Artificial Intelligence System\] and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
The problem of Anderson localization in two dimensions (2D) continues to be the subject of extensive research recently. Scaling arguments[@gangof4] predict that all one-particle states are localized in 2D, in the presence of scattering potential which respects time reversal symmetry. In the presence of a [*uniform*]{} magnetic field, however, because of the fact that the magnetic field breaks time reversal symmetry and suppresses the enhanced back scattering, extended states are found at individual critical energies.[@bodoreview] These extended states are crucial to the existence of the integer quantum Hall effect.[@bodoreview]
Recently there has been considerable interest in the localization problem in 2D in the presence of a [*random*]{} magnetic field with [*zero*]{} mean, motivated by the work of Halperin, Lee and Read,[@hlr] and Kalmeyer and Zhang,[@kz] on the problem of the half filled Landau level. These authors argue that if one treats the electrons as composite fermions[@jain] carrying two flux quanta, the flux carried the the composite fermions cancels that of the external magnetic field [*on average*]{} when the Landau level filling factor is $1/2$, and the systems may be viewed as a Fermi liquid like metal. Disorder induces local fluctuations in the density of the composite fermion, and hence at the mean field level the composite fermions see a [*fluctuating*]{} local magnetic field with zero mean, in the presence of disorder.
Following this development, there have been many efforts devoted to the study of the localization problem of noninteracting particles moving in a random magnetic field with zero mean.[@sn; @ahk; @kwpz; @lc; @zhang; @amw; @liu; @sheng; @kim; @miller; @kramer] However, the key issue, namely whether extended states exist in the thermodynamic limit, remains unresolved. Zhang and Arovas[@zhang] argued that in the field theory description of the problem, the local magnetic flux gives rise to a local topological density which has long range interaction and induces a localization-delocalization transition (see, however, Ref. \[\]). Their conclusion is supported by numerical work of several groups[@ahk; @kwpz; @liu; @sheng] which found extended states near the band center on lattice models with weak random potential and finite random magnetic field, although Sugiyama and Nagaosa[@sn] concluded otherwise. On the other hand, Lee and Chalker[@lc] simulated a network model which they argue to be appropriate to the problem of random magnetic field, and find states are localized at all energies. Subsequently Kim, Furusaki and Lee[@kim] showed that the network model of Lee and Chalker may be mapped onto an $SU(2N)$ spin chain in the limit $N\rightarrow 0$, which has short range correlations and an excitation gap; they thus confirm the conclusion of Lee and Chalker within the framework of the network model. The network model was originally introduced[@chalker] in the study of the integer quantum Hall effect, and has enjoyed tremendous success in that context. Such success is ensured by the fact that in the presence of a strong [*uniform*]{} magnetic field, the magnetic length is [*very small*]{}, thus one body states live along [*one dimensional*]{} equipotential lines. In the case of a [*random*]{} magnetic field, however, the relevant percolating equal field lines are along $B=0$, where the magnetic length is [*infinite*]{}! Therefore it is not completely obvious that the network model of Lee and Chalker is an appropriate description of the random magnetic field problem.
In this paper we report a systematic finite size numerical study of the electron localization problem in the presence of a random magnetic field with zero mean, as well as a random potential, on the square lattice. We study topological properties of one-electron wave functions by calculating their topological quantum numbers called the Chern number.[@tknn; @niu] This approach has proved very successful in the study of integer quantum Hall effect and transitions.[@arovas; @huo; @yang] In particular, finite size corrections appear to be much less in this approach, compared with others, implying a rapid convergence to the thermodynamic limit. Recently it has been applied by Sheng and Weng[@sheng] to the present problem. There are, however, several important differences between our work and theirs. Firstly, their work as well as other numerical studies,[@sn; @ahk; @kwpz; @liu] concentrate on systems with a relatively [*weak*]{} (or zero) random potential, and attempt to identify a mobility edge. When the strength of random potential is weak, the length scales involved may be quite large, and it is often hard to distinguish whether the localization length near the band center is truly infinite or very large but finite. In contrast, we study systems with a series of different random potential strengths, with the same strength of random [*flux*]{}. The idea is that [*if*]{} extended states do exist for weak randomness, there must exist a critical random potential strength (which is typically [*not*]{} very weak) at which all extended states disappear, and scaling behavior should be observable near this critical point. Secondly, unlike Sheng and Weng, who study behavior of density of states ($\rho(E)$) and density of current carrying states ($\rho_c(E)$), which are functions of energy $E$, we focus on quantities like the [*total number*]{} of extended states $N_c$ in a finite size system. $N_c$ is the zeroth moment of the distribution function $\rho_c(E)$. In other random systems such as spin glasses low order moments of distribution functions are known to converge to an acceptable level of accuracy relatively fast with sample averaging; the higher moments and the distributions themselves are still quite noisy at that stage. Finally, our massively parallel computer allows us to study samples of considerably larger sizes than those in Ref. \[\].
We consider the one body tight binding Hamiltonian on the square lattice: $$H=-\sum_{\langle ij\rangle}(e^{ia_{ij}}c_i^{\dagger}c_j+
e^{-ia_{ij}}c_j^{\dagger}c_i)+\sum_i\epsilon_ic_i^{\dagger}c_i,$$ where $c_i$ is the fermion operator on lattice site $i$. The first term represents hopping or kinetic energy of the electrons, and the summation is over nearest neighbors. The flux through each square is equal to the summation of $a_{ij}$ along its four edges. We take the flux to be random and uniformly distributed from $-h\pi$ and $h\pi$, where $0\leq h\leq 1$. The second term represents a random onsite potential. We take $\epsilon_i$ to be uniformly distributed between $-w$ and $w$. $h$ and $w$ parameterize the strength of random magnetic field and random potential respectively; when $h=1$ the flux through each square is completely random. We have set the hopping matrix element to be 1 and use it as the unit of energy. We study samples of square geometry with linear size $L$ (with number of sites $N_s=L^2$), and impose periodic boundary conditions in both directions: $\Psi(k+L\hat{x})=e^{i\phi_1}\Psi(k)$, and $\Psi(k+L\hat{y})=e^{i\phi_2}\Psi(k)$. The Hall conductance of an individual eigenstate $|m\rangle$ can be obtained easily using the Kubo formula: $$\sigma_{xy}^{m}={ie^2\hbar\over N_s}\sum_{n\ne m}{\langle m|v_y|n\rangle
\langle n|v_x|m\rangle-\langle m|v_x|n\rangle\langle n|v_y|m\rangle\over
(E_n-E_m)^2},$$ where $E_n$ is the energy of the $n$th state, and $$v_{\tau}=(i/\hbar)\sum_j(c^{\dagger}_{j+\tau}c_je^{ia_{j+\tau,j}}
-c^{\dagger}_{j}c_{j+\tau}e^{-ia_{j+\tau,j}})$$ is the velocity operator along direction $\tau$ ($=\hat{x}$ or $\hat{y}$). $\sigma_{xy}$ is identically zero in the absence of magnetic flux, as guaranteed by time reversal symmetry. In the presence of random magnetic flux with zero average, the time reversal symmetry is broken in a specific configuration of randomness, and [*individual*]{} states may have nonzero $\sigma_{xy}$, although the [*disorder averaged*]{} Hall conductance is always zero for any given Fermi energy, since the averaging process restores the time reversal symmetry. $\sigma_{xy}^m$ depends on the boundary conditions imposed. As shown by Niu [*et al.*]{}, the boundary condition averaged Hall conductance takes the form[@niu] $$\langle\sigma_{xy}^m\rangle={1\over 4\pi^2}\int{d\phi_1d\phi_2\sigma_{xy}^{m}
(\phi_1,\phi_2)}=C(m)e^2/h,
\label{chern}$$ where $C(m)$ is an integer called the Chern number of the state $|m\rangle$. States with nonzero Chern numbers carry Hall current and are necessarily extended states.[@arovas] Thus by numerically diagonalizing the Hamiltonian on a grid of $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$, and calculating the Chern numbers of states of finite size systems by converting the integral in (2) to a sum over grid points, we are able to identify extended states in a [*finite size*]{} system unambiguously.
In this work we have studied finite size samples with linear size ranging from $L=4$ to $L=19$, for different random potential and random field strength. For each particular randomness strength and system size, we average over 30 to 2000 different configurations of randomness. Depending on system size and randomness strength, the number of grids necessary to determine the Chern numbers unambiguously using Eq. (\[chern\]) ranges from $35\times 35$ to $70\times 70$.
We plot in Fig. 1 the dependence of disorder averaged number of current carrying states $N_c$ versus the system size $N_s$, for $h=0.5$ and a series of different $w$, on a [*double logarithmic*]{} plot. We find for a given system size, $N_c$ decreases as $w$ increases. This is exactly what is expected, since random potential tends to localize states. For very strong randomness ($w\ge 4.5$) and big enough system size, we see $N_c$ decreases with increasing $N_s$, indicating there are no extended states in the thermodynamic limit, and the localization length is finite throughout the band. For somewhat weaker randomness, [*e.g.*]{} $w=4.0$, although $N_c$ increases with $N_s$ within the size range we are able to reach, the curves obviously have downward curvature, and beyond certain $N_s$, $N_c$ presumably decreases with increasing size and eventually goes to zero. Current carrying states appear in [*finite size*]{} systems in this case because the localization length $\xi$ for states near the band center, although finite, may be larger than the system size $L$.[@huo] For even weaker randomness ($w<3.0$), however, we do not see any evidence of such downward curvature, and it appears that $N_c\rightarrow\infty$ as $N_s\rightarrow\infty$. Such behavior is expected if extended states exist in the thermodynamic limit, either at individual critical energies,[@huo; @yang] or in a finite width band near the band center. In both cases, one expects the asymptotic behavior on the double logarithmic plot tp be linear. In the former case, the slope is expected to be less than $1$, while for a band of extended states we have $N_c\propto N_s$, hence the slope equals unity. For weak enough random potential, $w\le 2.0$, we do find that the slope $y$ is extremely close to $1$, consistent with a band of extended states in the thermodynamic limit.
It has been suggested[@amw] that for weak randomness states are just barely localized (as in the case without magnetic field[@gangof4]) with exponentially large $\xi$ near the band center, much larger than system sizes accessible to numerical studies. While this may give the impression of an extended band, one would expect a slow, logarithmic decrease in $N_c/N_s$ with increasing system size. However, we find no such evidence for small $w$; $N_c/N_s$ appears to be a constant, or [*increases*]{} slightly. If, on the other hand, there is a band of extended states for small $w$, the width of such a band should decrease as $w$ increases and shrink to zero at a critical random potential $w_c$, above which $\xi$ is finite throughout the band (see Fig. 2). For $w<w_c$ we should have $N_c\propto N_s$ as $N_s\rightarrow\infty$, while for $w>w_c$, $N_c\rightarrow 0$ in this limit. Right at the critical point $w=w_c$, there is a [single]{} critical energy at which the localization length diverges, just like the case of a uniform magnetic field,[@huo; @yang] and we should have $N_c\sim N_s^{y_c}$, where $y_c$ is an exponent related to the localization length exponent $\nu$ through[@huo; @yang; @note3] $$y_c=1-{1\over 4\nu}.
\label{y}$$ For $w$ close to $w_c$, there is a characteristic length scale that scales as $\xi_m\sim |w-w_c|^{-\nu}$. For $w>w_c$, $\xi_m$ is the maximum localization length of the system, while for $w<w_c$, $\xi_m$ is the length scale above which the behavior $N_c\propto N_s$ is seen. Near the critical point we should see scaling behavior: $$N_c\sim N_s^{y_c}\tilde{F}^{\pm}(L/\xi_m)\sim N_s^{y_c}F^{\pm}(N_s
|w-w_c|^{2\nu}),
\label{scale}$$ where $F^{\pm}(x)$ are two different scaling functions for $w<w_c$ and $w>w_c$ respectively, which should satisfy the asymptotic behavior $F^+(x)\sim x^{1-y_c}$ and $F^-(x)\rightarrow 0$ as $x\rightarrow\infty$. Therefore, [*if*]{} there is indeed a critical randomness $w_c$, we ought to see scaling behavior (\[scale\]), by tuning a [*single*]{} parameter $w_c$. The other parameter $\nu$ in the scaling relation (\[scale\]) may be determined using Eq. (\[y\]), since the slope $y$ is know from the data presented in Fig. 1.
Such scaling behavior is indeed seen, and the data collapses best for $w_c=3.0$ and $\nu=1.8$, as shown in Fig. 3. At $w=3.0$ the linear fit of $\log N_c$ versus $\log N_s$ yields $y=0.87\pm 0.01$, and from Eq. (\[y\]) we obtain $\nu=1.9\pm 0.2$, consistent with scaling results. We emphasize that data collapsing of [*two*]{} different scaling curves is achieved by tuning [*one*]{} parameter, due to the constraint Eq. (\[y\]). The scaling behavior we see here supports the existence of a band of extended states for weak random potential, and would not be expected if there were no localization-delocalization transition at finite $w_c$. In order to make sure that our data are indeed in the scaling regime, we plot in Fig. 4 both the total density of states $\rho(E)$ and density of current carrying states $\rho_c(E)$ (per site), for $w=3.0$ and $h=0.5$, for two different system sizes $L=4$ and $L=16$. We find the width of $\rho_c(E)$ is considerably smaller than that of $\rho(E)$, especially for the larger size. Further the width of $\rho_c(E)$ is size dependent while that of $\rho(E)$ is essentially the same for both sizes. This is similar to what is seen in the study of the localization problem in lowest Landau level,[@huo] and indicates that we are indeed in the scaling regime. By contrast the width of $\rho_c(E)$ and $\rho(E)$ is almost the same for Gaussian white noise potential in the first Landau level, where the localization lengths are known to be very large.[@bodoreview; @guo]
From the scaling we are also able to estimate the critical randomness to be $w_c=3.0\pm 0.2$, and $\nu=1.8\pm 0.2$, for $h=0.5$. The localization length exponent $\nu$ we obtain here is very close to that estimated by Sheng and Weng[@sheng] using a very different scaling scheme, although they do not have a quantitative estimate of the critical random potential strength $w_c$.
In summary, we have found good evidence supporting the existence of a localization-delocalization transition driven by random potential, in the 2D square lattice in the presence of a random magnetic field with zero average, implying the existence of extended states at weak randomness. The critical random potential strength and localization length exponent are estimated using finite size scaling analysis.
We thank Yong Baek Kim, Z. Y. Weng, and P. Wölfle for helpful discussions. This work was supported by NSF grants DMR-9400262 and CDA-9121709. R.N.B. was also supported in part by a Guggenheim fellowship, and thanks the Aspen Center for Physics for hospitality while this manuscript was being written up.
E. Abrahams, P. W. Anderson, D. C. Licciardello and T. V. Ramakrishnan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**42**]{}, 673 (1979).
B. Huckestein, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**67**]{}, 357 (1995).
B. I. Halperin, P. A. Lee and N. Read, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 7312 (1993).
V. Kalmeyer and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 9889 (1992).
J. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 199 (1989).
T. Sugiyama and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1980 (1993).
Y. Avishai, Y. Hatsugai, and M. Kohmoto, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 9561 (1993).
V. Kalmeyer, D. Wei, D. P. Arovas, and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 11095 (1993).
D. K. K. Lee and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 1510 (1994).
S. C. Zhang and D. P. Arovas, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 1886 (1994).
A. G. Aronov, A. D. Mirlin, and P. Wölfle, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 16609 (1994).
D. Z. Liu, X. C. Xie, S. Das Sarma, and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 5858 (1995).
D. N. Sheng and Z. Y. Weng, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 2388 (1995).
Y. B. Kim, A. Furusaki and D. K. K. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 16646 (1995).
J. Miller and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 1461 (1996).
B. Kramer, D. Belitz and M. Batsch, preprint (cond-mat/9607043).
J. T. Chalker and P. D. Coddington, J. Phys. C [**21**]{}, 2665 (1988).
D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Ninghtingale and M. Den Nijs, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**49**]{}, 405 (1982).
Q. Niu, D. J. Thouless and Y. S. Wu, Phys. Rev. B [**31**]{}, 3372 (1985).
D. P. Arovas, R. N. Bhatt, F. D. M. Haldane, P. B. Littlewood and R. Rammel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 619 (1988).
Y. Huo and R.N. Bhatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1375 (1992).
K. Yang and R.N. Bhatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 1316 (1996).
This relation is slightly different from the uniform field case,[@huo; @yang] in which case one has $y=1-1/(2\nu)$. This is because of the fact in that case there are only individual critical energies near which $\xi\sim |E-E_c|^{-\nu}$, for $w<w_c$.[@yang] In the present case however, at $w=w_c$, the distance to criticality is proportional to $E^2$, instead of $E$ ($E_c=0$), due to the fact that there is a [*band*]{} of extended states for $w<w_c$. Thus $\xi\sim |E-E_c|^{-2\nu}$ for $w=w_c$. For $w<w_c$ we still have $\xi\sim |E-E_c|^{-\nu}$, where $E_c$ is the mobility edge. See Fig. 2.
Muyu Guo and R. N. Bhatt, (in preparation).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report the detection of a planetary companion with a minimum mass of $m \sin i = 0.0771~{\rm M}_{\rm Jup} = 24.5~{\rm M}_{\oplus}$ to the nearby ($d=9.4$ pc) M2.5V star GJ 176. The star was observed as part of our M dwarf planet search at the Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET). The detection is based on 5 years of high-precision differential radial velocity (RV) measurements using the High-Resolution-Spectrograph (HRS). The orbital period of the planet is $10.24$ d. GJ 176 thus joins the small (but increasing) sample of M dwarfs hosting short-periodic planets with minimum masses in the Neptune-mass range. Low mass planets could be relatively common around M dwarfs and the current detections might represent the tip of a rocky planet population.'
author:
- 'Michael Endl and William D. Cochran'
- 'Robert A. Wittenmyer'
- 'Alan P. Boss'
title: 'An $m \sin i = 24$ Earth Mass Planetary Companion To The Nearby M Dwarf GJ 176. [^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Over the past few years our preliminary knowledge on the frequency of extrasolar planets in the low mass part of the HR-diagram has increased significantly. An ever increasing number of M dwarfs is being monitored by various Doppler searches with high radial velocity (RV) precision. This has led to several discoveries of M dwarf planets that cover an enormous and surprising range in mass, almost comparable to the mass range of the planets in our Solar System. Jovian planets were found around GJ 876 (Delfosse et al. 1998, Marcy et al. 1998, 2001), GJ 849 (Butler et al. 2006) and GJ 317 (Johnson et al. 2007), and Neptune-mass planets around GJ 436 (Butler et al. 2004), GJ 581 (Bonfils et al. 2005b) and GJ 674 (Bonfils et al. 2007). The low primary masses of M dwarfs combined with state-of-the-art RV precision even allowed the detection of additional planets with minimum masses below $10~{\rm M}_{\oplus}$ (so-called “Super-Earths”) in the GJ 876 (Rivera et al. 2005) and GJ 581 (Udry et al. 2007) systems.
In this paper we report the detection of a new low mass planet in a $10.24$ d orbit around the M dwarf GJ 176. This is the fourth planet in the class of Neptune-mass companions orbiting M dwarfs. GJ 176 is already the third (previously unknown) planet host in our HET M dwarf planet search (Endl et al. 2003, 2006) sample.
Stellar parameters of GJ 176
============================
GJ 176 (HD 285968, HIP 21932, LHS 196) is a $V=9.97$ M2.5Ve star at a distance of $9.4$ parsec, according to the Hipparcos parallax of $106 \pm 2.5$ mas (Perryman et al. 1997). The star has a $B-V$ of $1.51$ and an absolute $V$ magnitude of $10.08$. The 2MASS magnitudes for GJ 176 are $J=6.462$, $H=5.824$ and $K=5.607$ mag (Cutri et al. 2003). Using the V-band and K-band mass-luminosity relationships of Delfosse et al. (2000), we estimate a mass of $0.48$ and $0.50~{\rm M}_{\odot}$, respectively. We adopt the mean value of $0.49\pm0.014~{\rm
M}_{\odot}$ as the mass of the star.
A photometric study by Weis (1994) didn’t find significant variability for GJ 176. The V-band scatter measured by Weis (1994) is 0.006 mags, equal to the measurement uncertainties. The ROSAT All-Sky-Survey catalog of nearby stars (Hünsch et al. 1999) reports a moderate coronal X-ray emission level of $3 \times 10^{27}\,{\rm erg\,s}^{-1}$. GJ 176 is thus a moderately active star, possibly exhibiting starspots and flares, a quite typical behavior for M dwarfs. Rauscher & Marcy (2006) measured the equivalent widths of the Ca II H and K lines with $0.97\pm0.10$ Å and $0.69\pm0.08$ Å, respectively. Based on the V-band mass-metallicity relationship of Bonfils et al. (2005a) we estimate an \[Fe/H\]$=-0.1\pm0.2$ for GJ 176, so roughly solar metallicity.
Observations and RV results
===========================
We observed GJ 176 as part of our on-going Doppler search for planets around M dwarfs (Endl et al. 2003, 2006) using the HET (Ramsey et al. 1998) and its HRS spectrograph (Tull 1998). We started observations of GJ 176 in 2003 October 15 and collected a total of 28 spectra over 5 years. All observations were performed using our standard planet search setup and data reduction pipeline decribed in detail in Cochran et al. (2004). We use the common I$_2$ cell technique to obtain high precision differential RV measurements (e.g. Butler et al. 1995, Endl et al. 2000).
Fig. \[rvs\] shows the time series of our HET/HRS RV measurements with the small secular acceleration of the RV of $0.36~{\rm m\,s}^{-1}{\rm yr}^{-1}$, as computed from the Hipparcos parallax and proper motion information, already subtracted. The data have an overall rms-scatter of $9.84~{\rm m\,s}^{-1}$ and average internal errors of $4.69\pm0.63~{\rm m\,s}^{-1}$. The total scatter is more than twice the measurement uncertainties, indicative of intrinsic RV variability of this target. The HET RV data are listed in Table \[data\].
Period search and orbital solution
==================================
We searched the RV data of GJ 176 for any significant periodicities using the classic Lomb-Scargle periodogram (Lomb 1976 ; Scargle 1982). Fig. \[lomb\] displays the resulting power spectrum. A strong peak is visible at a period of $10.24$ d. We estimate the false-alarm-probability (FAP) of this signal with the bootstrap randomization scheme (e.g. Kürster et al. 1997). After 100,000 bootstrap re-shuffling runs we find that the FAP of the $10.24$ d signal is only 0.0004.
As the next step we use Gaussfit (Jeffereys et al. 1988) to find a Keplerian orbital solution to our RV data. A circular orbit fit yields a $\chi^{2}$ of $35.2$ ($\chi^{2}_{\rm red}=1.47$) and a residual RV scatter of $5.57~{\rm m\,s}^{-1}$. A slightly better fit is obtained with an eccentric orbit with $e=0.23\pm0.13$: $\chi^{2}$ of $32.86$ ($\chi^{2}_{\rm red}=1.49$) and residual rms of $5.32~{\rm
m\,s}^{-1}$. The large uncertainity in $e$ and the fact that a circular orbit yields a lower $\chi^{2}_{\rm red}$ urges us to remain cautious concerning the reality of the non-circular orbit. However, future observations will allow us to determine whether the orbit is indeed eccentric. A moderately eccentric orbit could be an indication for additional planets around this star and thus warrants intensive follow-up monitoring.
Fig. \[phase\] shows the RV measurements and both orbital solutions (circular and eccentric) phased to the best-fit period. The circular orbital solution yields a minimum mass for the companion of $0.077\pm0.012~{\rm M}_{\rm Jup} = 24.5\pm3.9~{\rm M}_{\oplus}$, while an eccentric orbit would lower the minimum mass slightly to $0.076\pm0.010~{\rm M}_{\rm Jup} = 24.1\pm3.1~{\rm M}_{\oplus}$. The orbital parameters are summarized in Table \[tab:planet2\].
Stellar activity versus planet hypothesis
-----------------------------------------
The case of GJ 674 has demonstrated clearly that star spots can introduce low level signals in high precision RV data of M dwarfs (Bonfils et al. 2007). Can the GJ 176 signal also be caused by rotational modulation due to star spots and not a planet? This scenario is very unlikely because a rotation period of $10.2$ d would mean that GJ 176 would rotate more than 3 times faster than GJ 674, and this should lead to a higher activity level than GJ 674. This is not the case, as GJ 176 has a slightly lower coronal X-ray emission than GJ 674 (Hünsch et al. 1999). As mention before, Weis (1994) didn’t detect photometric variability in GJ 176 and we also did not find any significant variability or periodicity in the Hipparcos photometry for this star (the highest peak at $3.7$ d has a FAP of $1.5\%$.)
Moreover, the vast majority of the data of Bonfils et al. (2007) was collected over a relatively short period of time ($\approx
200$ d), where rotational modulation can mimic a Keplerian signal of a planet because the active regions on the star remain constant for this period of time. However, over a larger amount of time, active regions will reconfigure and emerge at different stellar longitudes causing a phase as well as amplitude change in the RV signal. The GJ 176 signal remains stable in phase and amplitude over 5 years, which makes the planet hypothesis much more plausible as the origin of the RV signal.
Discussion
==========
Remarkably, GJ 176 is already the third M dwarf with a Neptune-mass companion that was included in our HET sample of $60$ M dwarfs. GJ 436 and GJ 581 were part of our M dwarf sample before the planets around them were announced. The frequency of short-periodic Neptune-mass planets around M dwarfs in our HET sample is hence $5\%$, which is higher than the frequency of hot Jupiters around FGK-type stars of $\approx 1.2\%$ (Marcy et al. 2005). Neptunes and Super-Earths could be relatively common around low mass stars. Of course, with M dwarfs we are still limited by small number statistics, as compared to the few thousands of FGK-type stars already observed by various Doppler surveys around the world.
We are currently increasing the size of the HET M dwarf sample, and combined with the results of other programs observing M dwarfs, we should be able to derive important constraints for planet formation models. The present information about Neptune-mass planets on short-period orbits suggests that they may be the tip of the terrestrial planet distribution, for several reasons. First, a number of hot Neptunes have 2 or 3 sibling gas giant planets orbiting at much greater distances: $\rho$ 1 Cnc, $\mu$ Ara, and GJ 876 all have such systems. This planetary system architecture is the same as our own solar system, with inner terrestrial planets and outer gas giant planets, and suggests that the hot Neptunes in these systems formed inside their gas giants, making them likely to be rocky planets. Theoretical models of the collisional accumulation of terrestrial planets predict that rocky planets as massive as about $21~{\rm M}_{\oplus}$ would result from a protoplanetary disk with a surface density of gas and solids high enough to form a gas giant planet by core accretion in a few million years (Wetherill 1996; Inaba et al. 2003). Formation of the Neptunes interior to their gas giants seems to be a much more likely scenario than formation as ice giants on orbits outside the orbits of the gas giants, followed by migration somehow past the gas giants to their current short-period orbits. While GJ 876 is the only M dwarf of these three stars, one might expect a common explanation for its hot Neptune as a rocky world, as well as those of GJ 436 and GJ 581. This interpretation bodes well for the eventual detection of Earth-mass planets on habitable orbits around low mass stars. For M dwarfs with masses of $<0.2~{\rm M}_{\odot}$ we already have the sensitivity to detect $m \sin i \approx 1~{\rm M}_{\oplus}$ planets in the habitable zone (Endl & Kürster 2007, in prep.).
While M dwarfs appear to have hot Neptunes at a higher rate than G dwarfs, they appear to have short-period gas giant planets at a somewhat smaller rate than G dwarfs (Endl et al. 2006 ; Johnson et al. 2007). Similarly, microlensing surveys have detected planetary companions at asteroidal distances to M dwarf stars at frequencies that suggest that planets at such locations are more likely to be Neptune-mass than Jupiter-mass. These results may simply be a result of M dwarfs have lower mass protoplanetary disks than G dwarfs, with the consequent result that the planets that form tend to have a mass distribution that is shifted downward. However, this apparent preference for cold Super-Earths over Jupiters can also be explained at present by both the core accretion and disk instability formation mechanism for gas giant planets. In the case of core accretion, the lengthened orbital periods around M dwarfs could lead to most cores growing too slowly to accrete significant gaseous envelopes, making failed cores the usual outcome, rather than gas giants (Laughlin et al. 2004). Disk instability explains the appearance of both gas giants and Super-Earths at asteroidal distances around M dwarfs by appealing to rapid formation of gaseous protoplanets by disk instability, followed by conversion to ice giants (cold Super-Earths) by photoevaporation at asteroidal distances in region of high mass star formation (Boss 2006). Because most M dwarfs form in regions of high mass formation, they should be orbited at asteroidal distance primarily by Super-Earths. M dwarfs that form in region of low mass star will have gas giant planets at those distances, if disk instability is operative (Boss 2006). It remains for these theoretical speculations to be tested by completing the extrasolar planetary census.
This material is based on work supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under Grants NNG04G141G, NNG05G107G issued through the Terrestrial Planet Finder Foundation Science program and Grant NNX07AL70G issued through the Origins of Solar Systems Program. The Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) is a joint project of the University of Texas at Austin, the Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, and Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. The HET is named in honor of its principal benefactors, William P. Hobby and Robert E. Eberly. We would like to thank the McDonald Observatory TAC for generous allocation of observing time.
Bonfils, X., Delfosse, X., Udry, S., Santos, N. C., Forveille, T., Ségransan, D. 2005a, , 442, 635
Bonfils, X., Forveille, T., Delfosse, X., Udry, S., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Bouchy, F., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Bertaux, J. -L. 2005b, , 443, L15
Bonfils, X., Mayor, M., Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Gillon, M., Perrier, C., Udry, S., Bouchy, F., Lovis, C., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N. C., Bertaux, J. -L. 2007, , submitted
Boss, A. P. 2006, , 644, L79
Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Williams, E., McCarthy, C., Dosanjh, P., Vogt, S. S. 1996, PASP, 108, 500
Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Wright, J. T., Henry, G. W., Laughlin, G., & Lissauer, J. J. 2004, , 617, 580
Butler, R. P., Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., Wright, J. T., Vogt, S. S. & Fischer, D. A. 2006, PASP, 118, 1685
Cochran, W. D., Endl, M., McArthur, B., Paulson, D. B., Smith, V. V., MacQueen, P. J., Tull, R. G., Good, J., Booth, J., Shetrone, M., Roman, B., Odewahn, S., Deglman, F., Graver, M., Soukup, M., & Villarreal, M. L. 2004, , 611, L133
Cutri, R. M., et al. 2003, 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Pasadena: IPAC)
Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Naef, D., & Queloz, D. 1998, , 338, L67
Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Ségransan, D., Beuzit, J.-L., Udry, S., Perrier, C., Mayor, M. 2000, , 364, 217
Endl, M., Kürster, M., Els, S. 2000, , 362, 585
Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., Tull, R. G, & MacQueen, P. J. 2003, , 126, 3099
Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., Kürster, M., Paulson, D. B., Wittenmyer, R. A., MacQueen, P. J., & Tull, R. G. 2006, , 649, 436
Hünsch, M., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., Sterzik, M. F.,& Voges, W. 1999, A&AS, 135, 319
Inaba, S., Wetherill, G. W., & Ikoma, M. 2003, Icarus, 166, 46
Jefferys, W. H., Fitzpatrick, M. J., & McArthur, B. E. 1988, Celestial Mechanics, 41, 39
Johnson, J. A., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., Vogt, S. S., Wright, J. T., Peek, K. M. G. 2007, , accepted
Kürster, M., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., Cutispoto, G., & Dennerl, K. 1997, , 320, 831
Laughlin, G., Bodenheimer, P., & Adams, F. C. 2004, , 612, L73
Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 477
Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Fischer, D., & Lissauer, J. J. 1998, , 505, L147
Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Fischer, D., Vogt, S. S., Lissauer, J. J, & Rivera, E. J. 2001, , 556, 296
Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Fischer, D., Vogt, S. S., Wright, J. T., Tinney, C. G., & Jones, H. R. A. 2005, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 158, 24
Perryman, M. A. C. 1997, The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues (ESA SP-1200; Noordwijk: ESA)
Ramsey, L. W., et al. 1998, Proc. SPIE, 3352, 34
Rauscher, E. & Marcy, G. W. 2006, PASP, 118, 617
Rivera, E. J., Lissauer, J. J., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Vogt, S. S., Fischer, D. A., Brown, T. M., Laughlin, G., Henry, G. W. 2005, , 634, 625
Scargle, J. D. 1982, , 263, 835
Tull, R. G. 1998, Proc. Soc. Photo-opt. Inst. Eng., 3355, 387
Udry, S., Bonfils, X., Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Mayor, M., Perrier, C., Bouchy, F., Lovis, C., Pepe, F., Queloz, D., Bertaux, J. -L. 2007, , 469, L43
Weis, E. W. 1994, , 107, 1135
Wetherill, G. W. 1996, Icarus, 119, 219
![5 years of HET/HRS RV measurements of GJ 176. The data have a scatter of $9.84~{\rm m \, s}^{-1}$ and an average measurement uncertainty of $4.69~{\rm m \, s}^{-1}$. \[rvs\]](fig1.eps)
![Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the RV data of GJ 176. The highest peak is at $10.24$ days and has a false-alarm-probability of $0.0004$. The lower panel displays the window function of our observations. \[lomb\]](fig2.eps)
![The best-fit orbital solutions are shown as solid line (circular) and dashed line (eccentric) along with the HET/HRS RV measurements phased to the orbital period of $10.24$ d (the data are plotted twice for a second cycle). The semi-amplitude $K$ of $11.6~{\rm m\,s}^{-1}$ corresponds to a minimum mass of $24.5~{\rm M}_{\oplus}$ for the companion. All parameters of the orbital solution are summarized in Table \[tab:planet2\]. The residual scatter around the fit is $5.57~{\rm m \, s}^{-1}$ (circular) and $5.32~{\rm m \, s}^{-1}$ (eccentric orbit). \[phase\]](fig3.eps)
[rrrrrr]{} 52927.82553 & -19.88 & 4.88 & 53669.99475 & 7.67 & 4.86\
52935.80776 & -3.78 & 3.83 & 53682.74654 & -0.38 & 5.20\
52939.79789 & -4.69 & 4.44& 53687.75180 & 5.35 & 4.84\
52941.98273 & 2.78 & 4.49& 53718.67107 & -8.00 & 4.76\
53254.93830 & -1.95 & 3.99& 53719.66762 & -0.47 & 4.98\
53297.80620 & -17.60 & 4.88& 53721.64443 & 16.26 & 4.54\
53302.79940 & 4.63 & 4.84& 53730.82258 & 18.79 & 5.29\
53310.78943 & 4.09 & 5.37& 54049.74686 & 12.15 & 4.51\
53313.97346 & 2.26 & 4.69& 54136.72087 & -8.74 & 4.74\
53315.77643 & 2.73 & 6.56& 54328.97056 & -3.20 & 4.27\
53330.71871 & 4.76 & 4.30& 54330.96817 & -16.47 & 3.95\
53330.72892 & 10.60 & 4.89& 54338.95808 & -2.98 & 4.16\
53350.66330 & 2.13 & 5.19& 54342.93427 & -0.15 & 3.62\
53603.95259 & -19.79 & 5.67 & 54347.92539 & 1.41 & 3.70\
[lr@[$\pm$]{}lr@[$\pm$]{}l]{} P & 10.2369 & 0.0039 days & 10.2366 & 0.0038 days\
T & 2454550.6672 & 0.39 BJD& 2455037.7979 & 1.1 BJD\
K & 11.62 & 1.61 ms$^{-1}$& 11.72 & 1.62 ms$^{-1}$\
e & 0.0 & 0.0 (fixed)& 0.232 & 0.127\
$\omega$ & 0.0 & 0.0 degrees (fixed)& 210.4 & 32.5 degrees\
$M \sin i $ & 0.0771 & 0.0122 $M_{\rm Jup}$& 0.0757 & 0.0096 $M_{\rm Jup}$\
$M \sin i $ & 24.5 & 3.9 $M_{\oplus}$& 24.1 & 3.1 $M_{\oplus}$\
a & 0.0727 & 0.0007 AU& 0.0727 & 0.0007 AU\
RMS & &\
[^1]: Based on observations obtained with the Hobby-Eberly Telescope, which is a joint project of the University of Texas at Austin, the Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, and Georg-August-Universität Göttingen.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Crystals of $^4$He contain vacancies that move around by a quantum mechanical hopping process. The density and pressure of these vacancies can be experimentally studied. The accuracy of the experiments is high enough to detect the effect of the Bose statistics of the vacancies. In this paper we examine the effect of the hard-core repulsion between the vacancies, which should also have a measurable effect on their behaviour. We set up a virial expansion for a lattice gas of hard-core particles, and calculate the second virial coefficient. It turns out that the vacancies behave as ideal Bose particles at low temperatures, but that the hard-core interaction makes them behave more and more like fermions as the temperature increases.'
author:
- Dirk Jan Bukman
- 'J.M.J. van Leeuwen'
---
Pressure and density of vacancies in solid $^4$He
Department of Physics, Simon Fraser University,\
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
Instituut-Lorentz, Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden,\
P.O. Box 9506, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
Introduction
============
The thermodynamic behaviour of vacancies in solid $^4$He is an interesting experimental and theoretical problem [@And1]. Vacancies in Helium are more mobile than in any other solid. At the temperatures where solid Helium exists the motion of vacancies requires a quantum mechanical description. They hop from site to site with a certain rate $\nu_v$, leading to a band of states $\varepsilon(\vec{k})$, much like the electron motion in the tight binding approximation. For $^4$He the vacancies are obviously bosons, since the creation operator for a vacancy is the annihilation operator for a $^4$He particle, which is a boson [@And2]. The fact that two vacancies cannot occupy the same lattice site has to be incorporated as a hard-core potential for the hopping bosons. So the simplest model for vacancies in $^4$He is that of a gas of hard-core bosons on a lattice. In reality the strain fields around the vacancies produce a more complicated interaction between them than the simple on-site exclusion. However, we consider the hard-core boson approximation as a sufficiently realistic description of the vacancy motion to leave out these further refinements, in order not to complicate the model too much. The hard-core bosons on a lattice are known to be equivalent to a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ quantum system with an interaction of the XY type [@M+M]. It is however not this analogy that is exploited in this paper. The reason is that the vacancy system is in practical circumstances always extremely dilute, which corresponds in the spin analogy to a system in an extremely large external magnetic field. In this limit the spin analogy is of little use and in our opinion less transparent than the particle language.
Experiments show that the percentage of vacancies in a crystal is at most of the order of 1% [@Goodk], at least at temperatures of the order of 1K, where the experiments take place. As a first approximation the vacancies thus behave as an ideal gas. However, present day experiments are sufficiently accurate that effects of Bose statistics can be detected. It is one of our points that then also effects of the hard-core interaction become detectable.
In this paper we present a systematic analysis of the vacancies using $\exp (-\Delta/k_BT)$ as a small parameter, $\Delta$ being the excitation energy, or band gap, required to create a vacancy. This is equivalent to a virial expansion [@Huang] for the quantum lattice gas, and we work out the properties in detail up to the second virial coefficient. A general formula for the second virial coefficient of the hard-core Bose lattice gas is derived and evaluated for hypercubic lattices in one, two, and three dimensions. The case of the hcp lattice, which applies to real solid $^4$He, will be treated elsewhere.
The hard-core Bose lattice gas
==============================
The vacancies are represented by Bose creation and annihilation operators $b_i^{\dagger}, b_i$ obeying the usual Bose commutation relations. The Hamiltonian for the vacancies is given by $${\cal H} = -t \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} ( b_i^{\dagger}b_j +
b_j^{\dagger}b_i) +(\Delta + ct ) \sum_i b_i^{\dagger} b_i
+\frac{U}{2} \sum_i b_i^{\dagger} b_i^{\dagger} b_i b_i .
\label{ham}$$ Here the transfer integral $t$ is equal to $h\nu_v$, and the hops take place between all pairs of nearest neighbours $\langle
i,j \rangle$ on the lattice. The coordination number of the lattice is $c$, and $\Delta$ is the energy required to create a vacancy. It functions as minus the chemical potential for the vacancies. The last term represents the vacancy-vacancy repulsion. It could be omitted in favour of a change to on-site Fermi commutation relations for the $b_i^{(\dagger)}$, but we prefer to work with standard commutation relations and a potential $U$ which penalizes the simultaneous occurrence of two or more vacancies at the same site. We will let $U\rightarrow \infty$, or $U$ is much larger than any other energy in the problem.
Without the potential term we have an ideal Bose lattice gas, the Hamiltonian of which can be diagonalized by the canonical transformation $$\begin{aligned}
b(\vec{k}) &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_j b_j e^{i\vec{k}\cdot
\vec{r}_j},\nonumber \\
&& \\
b_j &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{\vec{k}} b(\vec{k})
e^{-i \vec{k} \cdot \vec{r}_j},\nonumber
\label{trafo}\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is the number of sites in the system. We use periodic boundary conditions, and the wave vectors $\vec{k}$ are restricted to the first Brillouin zone of the lattice.
Inserting (\[trafo\]) into the first two terms of (\[ham\]) we obtain the unperturbed Hamiltonian $${\cal H}_0 = \sum_k [\Delta + \varepsilon(\vec{k}) ] b^{\dagger}
(\vec{k}) b(\vec{k}),
\label{h0}$$ where $\varepsilon(\vec{k}) $ is given by $$\varepsilon(\vec{k}) = t \sum_{\delta} (1-\cos \vec{k}\cdot\vec{r}_
{\delta}),
\label{eps}$$ and $\vec{r}_{\delta}$ is the set of the $c$ nearest neighbour positions with respect to a centrally chosen site. $\Delta$ is the gap of the energy band, since we have $\varepsilon(\vec{0})
=0$ as lowest energy in the center of the Brillouin zone. One sees that $t$ is a measure for the bandwidth, which for a $d$-dimensional hypercubic lattice is $w=4dt$.
The interaction is written in terms of $b^{(\dagger)}(\vec{k})$ as $$V=\frac{U}{2N} \sum_{\vec{k}_i,\vec{G}} \delta_{\vec{k}_1+\vec{k}_2,
\vec{k}_3+\vec{k}_4+\vec{G}} b^{\dagger}(\vec{k}_1)b^{\dagger}
(\vec{k}_2)
b(\vec{k}_3) b(\vec{k}_4),
\label{vk}$$ where $\vec{G}$ is a vector of the reciprocal lattice. The matrix elements of the interaction have no other structure than the conservation of the total incoming and outgoing momentum (up to a reciprocal lattice vector), a feature which is of great advantage in solving the two-particle problem.
The virial expansion
====================
The grand partition function of the vacancy system is given by $$\Xi = \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits e^{-\beta {\cal H}},
\label{xi}$$ with ${\cal H}$ given by (\[ham\]), $\beta=1/k_BT$, and $\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits$ stands for the trace over all symmetrized states. As ${\cal H}$ conserves the number of vacancies, $\Xi$ can be expanded as $$\Xi = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} Z_n e^{-n\beta \Delta},
\label{expa}$$ where $Z_n$ is the canonical partition sum for $n$ vacancies excluding the contribution from the gap $\Delta$. Of course, $Z_0=1$, and $$Z_1=\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits_1 e^{-\beta({\cal H}_0-\Delta)} =
\sum_{\vec{k}} e^{-\beta
\varepsilon (\vec{k})},
\label{z1}$$ because for one vacancy no hard-core effects enter. $\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits_n$ is the trace over $n$-vacancy states.
For $\ln \Xi$ we may deduce from (\[expa\]) $$\beta p N v_0 =\ln \Xi =N \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} b_{\ell} e^{-\ell
\beta
\Delta},
\label{vircs}$$ where $v_0$ is the volume of the unit cell, $p$ is the pressure of the vacancies, and the $b_{\ell}$ are the fugacity expansion coefficients. The first of these, $b_1$, reads $$b_1(\beta) = \frac{1}{N} Z_1 = \frac{v_0}{(2 \pi)^d} \int_{BZ}
d\vec{k} \,e^{-\beta\varepsilon(\vec{k})},
\label{b1}$$ where we have replaced the sum over $\vec{k}$ by an integral over the Brillouin zone. In contrast to the continuum ideal gas, $b_1$ is not simply related to a thermal wavelength $\lambda$ as $$b_1=v_0/\lambda^{d}.
\label{b1l}$$ A formula of this type only results when the temperature is so low that $\varepsilon(\vec{k})$ may be replaced by its low-momentum behaviour $$\varepsilon(\vec{k}) \approx \frac{t}{2} \sum_{\delta} (\vec{k}
\cdot \vec{r}_\delta )^2 \equiv \frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m^*},
\label{lowk}$$ defining an effective mass $m^*$ for the vacancies. For $d$-dimensional hypercubic lattices we find $$m^*=\frac{\hbar^2}{2 t a^2},
\label{mstar}$$ where $a$ is the lattice constant. Using (\[lowk\]) in (\[b1\]) and extending the $\vec{k}$-integral beyond the Brillouin zone to infinity (as is allowed for large $\beta$ or small $T$) one finds (\[b1l\]) with $$\lambda^2=h^2/2\pi m^* k_BT.
\label{lambda}$$
The second term $b_2$ in (\[vircs\]) is our main concern in this paper. We find from (\[expa\]) and (\[vircs\]) $$\begin{aligned}
b_2&=&\frac{1}{N}\left( Z_2 - \frac{Z_1^2}{2}\right)\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{1}{N}\left\{ \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits_2 e^{-\beta({\cal H}
-2 \Delta )} -
\frac{1}{2}\left( \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits_1 e^{-\beta({\cal H}_0 -
\Delta)}\right)^2\right\}.\nonumber\\
\label{b2}\end{aligned}$$ We rewrite this expression by adding and subtracting the contribution of the non-interacting two-vacancy system. So we define $$b_2^{\rm int}=\frac{1}{N} \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits_2\left[
e^{-\beta({\cal H}-2\Delta)}-
e^{-\beta({\cal H}_0 -2\Delta)}\right]
\label{b2int}$$ as the contribution of the hard-core interaction, and $$b_2^0=\frac{1}{N} \left[\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits_2 e^{-\beta(
{\cal H}_0-2\Delta)}-
\frac{1}{2} \left(\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits_1 e^{-\beta({\cal H}_0
-\Delta)}\right)^2\right]
\label{b20}$$ as the effect of the Bose statistics of the vacancies. The combination $$b_2=b_2^0+b_2^{\rm int}
\label{b2tot}$$ yields the total effect.
The statistical effects are trivial to calculate, as the unperturbed grand partition function is given by $$\ln \Xi^0 =-\sum_{\vec{k}} \ln\left(1-e^{-\beta(\varepsilon(\vec{k})
+\Delta
)}\right) = N \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} b_{\ell}^0 e^{-\ell
\beta \Delta},
\label{xi0}$$ such that $$b_{\ell}^0=\frac{1}{N\ell} \sum_{\vec{k}} e^{-\ell\beta
\varepsilon(\vec{k})}
=\frac{1}{\ell} b_1(\beta\ell),
\label{bl0}$$ with $b_1(\beta)$ given by (\[b1\]). Thus it suffices to focus our attention on the calculation of $b_2^{\rm int}$. As a general observation we note that the two contributions in (\[b2tot\]) will have opposite signs. To see this more clearly, we go over to a series in the density $n$ of the vacancies, $$n=\frac{1}{N v_0} \langle \sum_i b_i^{\dagger}b_i \rangle =
-\partial p/
\partial \Delta =\frac{1}{v_0} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \ell b_{\ell}
e^{-\ell \beta
\Delta}.
\label{dens}$$ Eliminating $e^{-\beta\Delta}$ from (\[vircs\]) and (\[dens\]) we obtain a virial expansion for the pressure $$\beta p = n -(b_2/b_1^2) v_0 n^2 + \ldots .
\label{pexp}$$ So at fixed density $n$ the statistical effects lower the pressure as $b_2^0 $ is positive according to (\[bl0\]). The hard-core repulsion can only increase the pressure, so $b_2^{\rm int}$ must be negative.
The second virial coefficient
=============================
The second virial coefficient (\[b2int\]) is evaluated as $$b_2^{\rm int} =\frac{1}{N} \int dE \left[ \rho_2(E) -\rho_2^0(E)
\right]
e^{-\beta(E-2\Delta)},
\label{b2e}$$ where the level densities $\rho_2(E)$ are given by $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\rho_2(E)=\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits_2 \delta(E-{\cal H}) \\
\rho_2^0(E)= \mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits_2 \delta(E-{\cal H}_0).
\end{array}
\right.
\label{rhos}$$ The level densities are obtained from the formula $${\cal G}_+(E) = \frac{1}{E+i\epsilon-{\cal H}}={\cal P}
\frac{1}{E-{\cal H}}
-i\pi\delta(E-{\cal H}),
\label{Green}$$ which transfers the problem to the determination of the Green’s function, for which the general equation holds $${\cal G}(z) = {\cal G}_0(z)+{\cal G}_0(z) V {\cal G}(z),
\label{Geq}$$ with $z$ a complex number. The density $\rho(E)$ is obtained from ${\cal G}$ as $$\rho(E)=-\frac{1}{\pi} \mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits
\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits {\cal G}_+ (E).
\label{rhoG}$$
The states of the unperturbed 2-vacancy Hamiltonian are denoted by two wavenumbers $\vec{k}_1$ and $\vec{k}_2$ with the property $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_0 |\vec{k}_1\,\vec{k}_2\rangle &=&E_0(\vec{k}_1, \vec{k}_2)
|\vec{k}_1\,\vec{k}_2\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&\left(2\Delta+\varepsilon(\vec{k}_1)
+\varepsilon(\vec{k}_2) \right) |\vec{k}_1\,\vec{k}_2\rangle.
\label{states}\end{aligned}$$ The matrix elements of $V$ are obtained from (\[vk\]) $$\langle\vec{k}_1\,\vec{k}_2| V |\vec{k}_1'\,\vec{k}_2'\rangle =
\frac{2U}{N} \sum_{\vec{G}}
\delta_{\vec{k}_1+\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_1'+\vec{k}_2'+\vec{G}},
\label{vmat}$$ which shows that a representation in center of mass and relative coordinates will be advantageous. Thus we introduce $$\vec{K}=\vec{k}_1+\vec{k}_2,\mbox{~~~~~}\vec{k}=(\vec{k}_1-
\vec{k}_2)/2.
\label{kk}$$ The sum over $\vec{G}$ is eliminated by choosing the Brillouin zone in such a way that no two points in it have values of $\vec{K}$ differing by a reciprocal lattice vector, so that only the term with $\vec{G}=\vec{0}$ contributes. The matrix element of $V$ is then diagonal in $\vec{K}$. From now on we will assume that the Brillouin zone has been chosen in such a way, and drop the reference to $\vec{G}$. Since the total momentum $\vec{K}$ is conserved by ${\cal H}_0$ and $V$, ${\cal G}$ becomes diagonal in it. So, writing (\[Geq\]) in the $\vec{K},\vec{k}$ representation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\vec{K}\,\vec{k}| {\cal G}(z) |\vec{K}\,\vec{k}'\rangle & = &
\frac{1}{z-E_0(\vec{K},\vec{k})} \left\{ \vphantom{|\sum_{3}|}
\delta_{\vec{k},\vec{k}'}\right.
\nonumber \\
&&+\left.
\frac{2U}{N}\sum_{\vec{k}''} \langle\vec{K}\,\vec{k}''| {\cal G}(z)
|\vec{K}\,\vec{k}'\rangle \right\}.\nonumber\\
\label{Gdiag}\end{aligned}$$ The simplifying feature of (\[Gdiag\]) is that the general matrix element of ${\cal G}$ couples only to the total sum over the first entry of the matrix elements. For the latter we obtain an expression by summing (\[Gdiag\]) over $\vec{k}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\vec{k}}\langle\vec{K}\,\vec{k}| {\cal G}(z&)& |
\vec{K}\,\vec{k}'\rangle =
\frac{1}{z-E_0(\vec{K},\vec{k}')}\nonumber \\
& & +2U{\cal R}(z,\vec{K}) \sum_{\vec{k}''}
\langle\vec{K}\,\vec{k}''| {\cal G}(z)
|\vec{K}\,\vec{k}'\rangle,\nonumber\\
\label{sumk}\end{aligned}$$ with ${\cal R}(z,\vec{K}) $ given by $${\cal R}(z,\vec{K}) =\frac{1}{N} \sum_{\vec{k}}
\frac{1}{z-E_0(\vec{K},
\vec{k})}.
\label{rdef}$$ Now (\[sumk\]) is an algebraic equation for the quantity in the left hand side. Using the solution of this equation in (\[Gdiag\]) one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\vec{K}\,\vec{k}| {\cal G}(z&)& |\vec{K}\,\vec{k}'\rangle =
\frac{1}{z-E_0(\vec{K},\vec{k})} \left\{ \vphantom{\frac{1}{2^2}
\sum_{3^4}}
\delta_{\vec{k},\vec{k}'}\right.
\nonumber \\
&& +\left.
\frac{2U/N}{1-2U{\cal R}(z,\vec{K})} \frac{1}{z-E_0(\vec{K},\vec{k}')}
\right\}.\nonumber\\
\label{gsol}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the off-diagonal elements are of order $N^{-1}$ while the diagonal elements are of order 1. With (\[gsol\]) we can calculate the level density from $$\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits {\cal G}(z)=\sum_{\vec{K},\vec{k}}
\langle\vec{K}\,\vec{k}| {\cal G}(z)
|\vec{K}\,\vec{k} \rangle,
\label{trace}$$ leading to the compact expression $$\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits {\cal G}(z) =\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits
{\cal G}_0(z) +\frac{\partial}{\partial z} \sum_{\vec{K}}
\ln \left[ 1-2U{\cal R}(z,\vec{K}) \right] ,
\label{trdz}$$ which in turn yields for the difference $\rho_2-\rho_2^0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_2(E)&-&\rho_2^0(E)=\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{1}{\pi}\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits\left[ \frac{\partial}
{\partial z}
\sum_{\vec{K}}\ln \left( 1
-2U{\cal R}(z,\vec{K})\right) \right]_{z=E+i\epsilon}.\nonumber\\
\label{rhodiff}\end{aligned}$$
This expression holds generally for any on-site repulsion $U$. We may let $U\rightarrow\infty$, by which it will disappear from the formula as the $U$ term under the logarithm starts to dominate the argument for any $z$ and $\vec{K}$. Omitting the 1 in the argument of the logarithm, the term $\ln( -2U)$ drops out after differentiation with respect to $z$. So for (\[rhodiff\]) we have in the limit $U\rightarrow\infty$ the equivalent expression $$\rho_2(E)-\rho_2^0(E)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits\left[
\frac{\partial}{\partial z}
\sum_{\vec{K}}\ln {\cal R}(z,\vec{K}) \right]_{z=E+i\epsilon}.
\label{rhodiff2}$$ Hereby the problem is essentially reduced to the evaluation of ${\cal R}
(z,\vec{K})$ given by (\[rdef\]).
A few comments are in order about this expression. For bosons the state $|\vec{k}_1\,\vec{k}_2\rangle $ is the same as $|\vec{k}_2\,\vec{k}_1\rangle$. So the relative momenta $\vec{k}$ and $-\vec{k}$ should be identified with each other. Both $\vec{k}_1$ and $\vec{k}_2$ run through a Brillouin zone appropriate for the structure of the lattice, and this in principle defines the ranges of $\vec{K}$ and $\vec{k}$. But as was mentioned before, we have chosen the Brillouin zone such that there are no points whose values of $\vec{K}$ differ by a reciprocal lattice vector.
From the definition (\[rdef\]) of ${\cal R}(z,\vec{K})$ and the expression (\[states\]) for $E_0(\vec{K},\vec{k})$ one sees that $2\Delta$ occurs as a shift in the energy variable and the $\rho_2$ are functions of $E-2\Delta$. Taking $E-2\Delta$ as an integration variable in (\[b2e\]) one finds $$b_2^{\rm int} =\frac{1}{N} \int dE' \left[ \rho_2(E') -
\rho_2^0(E')\right]
e^{-\beta E'},
\label{b2e2}$$ with $$\rho_2(E')-\rho_2^0(E')= -\frac{1}{\pi}\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits
\left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial z}
\sum_{\vec{K}} \ln {\cal R}'(z,\vec{K}) \right]_{z=E'+i\epsilon} ,
\label{rhoe2}$$ and ${\cal R}'(z,\vec{K})$ given by $${\cal R}'(z,\vec{K}) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\vec{k}} \frac{1}
{z-\varepsilon(
\frac{\vec{K}}{2}+\vec{k}) -\varepsilon(\frac{\vec{K}}{2} -\vec{k})} .
\label{r2}$$ In this formula $\Delta$ is eliminated, as it should be. Using the fact that $\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits \ln z = \mathop{\rm arg}\nolimits
z$, we can further rewrite (\[rhoe2\]) $$\rho_2(E') - \rho_2^0(E') = -\frac{N}{\pi} \frac{\partial}
{\partial z}
F(z) |_{z=E'+i\epsilon},
\label{rhof}$$ with $$F(z)=\frac{1}{N} \sum_{\vec{K}} \mathop{\rm arg}\nolimits
{\cal R}'(z,\vec{K}).
\label{fdef}$$
From (\[rhoe2\]) and (\[r2\]) one sees that only $E'$ values occur in (\[b2e2\]) which lead to complex values of ${\cal R}'(z,\vec{K})$. These occur when $z=E'+i\epsilon$ is a pole in the $\vec{k}$-integration in (\[r2\]). Thus the combined bandwidth of $\varepsilon(
\vec{K}/2+\vec{k}) +\varepsilon(\vec{K}/2 -\vec{k}) $ determines the range of $E'$ values. This is twice the bandwidth of $\varepsilon(\vec{k})$ just as in the ideal Bose contribution (\[bl0\]).
The one-dimensional case {#oned}
========================
We interrupt the general discussion for the treatment of the one-dimensional case of (\[b2e2\])-(\[fdef\]), as this case is interesting, completely analyzable, and elucidating for the structure of the functions occurring in (\[b2e2\])-(\[fdef\]).
The $d=1$ band structure is given by (for a lattice constant $a=1$) $$\varepsilon(k)=2t(1-\cos k),
\label{1deps}$$ which gives for $b_1(\beta)$ the expression $$b_1(\beta)=\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} dk \,
e^{-2\beta t (1-\cos k)}=
e^{-2\beta t} I_0(2 \beta t),
\label{1db1}$$ where $I_0(x)$ is a modified Bessel function of the first kind.
For the evaluation of ${\cal R}(z,K)$ we rearrange the Brillouin zone in such a way that its boundaries in $K,k$ space are convenient, and also such that no reciprocal lattice vector $G$ enters into the problem. In figure \[bzfig\] we have divided the original Brillouin zone $-\pi < k_1 < \pi\;,\; -\pi < k_2 < \pi$ into four domains, I, II, III, and IV. Domains I and IV, as well as II and III, refer to the same states, as they are obtained from each other through interchanging $k_1
\leftrightarrow k_2$. So it suffices to take one of each, say I and III. Now III is equivalent to III$'$, which follows from III by shifting $k_1$ over $2\pi$. The combined domain I and III$'$ is given in $K,
k$ space by $0 < K < 2\pi\;,\; 0 < k < \pi$.
Using this parameter space one can write (\[r2\]) explicitly as (dropping the primes) $${\cal R}(z,K)=\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{\pi} dk\,
\frac{1}{z-4t(1-\cos\frac{K}{2}
\cos k)} .
\label{1dr}$$ For convenience we put $z=4t(\zeta+1+i\epsilon)$, and have $${\cal R}(\zeta,K)=\frac{1}{8 \pi t}\int_0^{\pi} dk \,\frac{1}
{\zeta
+i\epsilon+\cos
\frac{K}{2} \cos k}.
\label{1dr2}$$ According to equations (\[rhof\]) and (\[fdef\]) we are interested in real values of $\zeta$. So, letting $\epsilon \downarrow 0$, the integral has a real part given by a principal value integral, and an imaginary part given by an integral over a delta function $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal R}(\zeta,K)&=& \frac{1}{8 \pi t} \,{\cal P}\int_0^{\pi} dk\,
\frac{1}
{\zeta+\cos
\frac{K}{2} \cos k}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{i}{8t}\int_0^{\pi} dk\, \delta(\zeta+\cos
\frac{K}{2} \cos k).
\label{rint}\end{aligned}$$ Two cases must be distinguished: for $|\zeta| > |\cos(K/2)|$, the imaginary part of ${\cal R}$ is zero, and for $|\zeta| <
|\cos(K/2)|$ its real part is zero. The result is $${\cal R}(\zeta,K)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{1}{8t} \frac{\mathop{\rm sgn} (\zeta)}
{\sqrt{\zeta^2-\cos^2\frac{K}{2}}}}&
{}~~(|\zeta| > |\cos(K/2)|)\\
\\
\displaystyle{\frac{-i}{8t} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\cos^2\frac{K}{2}
-\zeta^2}}}&
{}~~(|\zeta| < |\cos(K/2)|).
\end{array}
\right.
\label{rintsecond}$$ The important quantity in equations (\[rhof\]) and (\[fdef\]) is $\arg {\cal R}$. From (\[rintsecond\]) we see that if $\zeta < -|\cos(K/2)|$, ${\cal R}$ is real and negative, while for $\zeta > |\cos(K/2)|$ it is real and positive. For $-|\cos(K/2)| \leq \zeta \leq |\cos(K/2)|$, ${\cal R}$ is pure imaginary with a negative imaginary part. So we find that $$\Phi(\zeta,K)=\mathop{\rm arg}\nolimits {\cal R}(\zeta,K)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\pi & ~~(\zeta < -|\cos(K/2)|) \nonumber\\
-\pi/2 & ~~(|\zeta| \leq |\cos(K/2)|)\\
0 & ~~(\zeta > |\cos(K/2)|).\nonumber
\end{array}
\right.
\label{phi}$$ These values of $\Phi$ are plotted in figure \[fifig\] in the $\zeta,
K/2$ plane. Integrating in the $K$-direction, we find for $F(\zeta)$ $$\begin{aligned}
F(\zeta)&=&\frac{1}{N} \sum_K \mathop{\rm arg}\nolimits
{\cal R}(\zeta, K) = \frac{1}{2\pi}
\int_0^{2\pi} dK \Phi(\zeta,K) \nonumber \\
&&~~~= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\pi & ~~(\zeta < -1) \\
- \arccos \zeta & ~~(-1 \leq \zeta \leq 1)\\
0 & ~~( \zeta > 1).
\end{array}
\right.
\label{1df}\end{aligned}$$ Using $\zeta$ instead of $E$ in (\[b2e2\]) as integration variable we have $$b_2^{\rm int} = \frac{1}{N} \int_{-1}^1 d\zeta \left[
\rho_2(\zeta) - \rho_2^0(\zeta)\right] e^{-4\beta t(\zeta +1)} .
\label{rhozeta}$$ Due to the differentiation with respect to $z$ in (\[rhof\]) only values of $\zeta$ between $-1$ and 1 contribute to the integral. From (\[1df\]) we see that for $|\zeta| \leq 1$ $$\rho_2(\zeta) - \rho_2^0(\zeta)= -\frac{N}{\pi} \frac{\partial}
{\partial
\zeta} F(\zeta)=
-\frac{N}{\pi} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\zeta^2}}.
\label{rho1d}$$ Substituting this into (\[rhozeta\]) we find $$b_2^{\rm int}=-e^{-4\beta t} I_0(4\beta t).
\label{1dbint}$$
We now compare this with the result for an ideal lattice gas, given by (\[bl0\]) $$b_2^0=\frac{1}{2}b_1(2\beta)=\frac{1}{2}e^{-4 \beta t}
I_0(4\beta t)=
-\frac{1}{2} b_2^{\rm int}.
\label{1db20}$$ So the hard-core interaction giving rise to $b_2^{\rm int}$ changes the value of $b_2$ from $b_2^0$ into its opposite, or in other words, the Bose value is turned into the Fermi value. This is exactly what has to be expected from the well known fact that a hard-core Bose gas in one dimension is equivalent to an ideal Fermi gas (for all virial coefficients).
The picture shown in figure \[fifig\] for the phase $\Phi$ has some general validity, in the sense that for sufficiently negative $\zeta$ one has $\Phi =-\pi$ while for $\zeta$ sufficiently positive $\Phi=0$. In the zone in between one has for $d>1$ in general a continuous transition from $-\pi$ to 0, with eventually also zones with $\Phi=-\pi/2$.
The two- and three-dimensional lattices
=======================================
The calculation of $b_2$ for hypercubic lattices in higher dimensions runs along the same lines as what was done in section \[oned\] for one dimension. The band structure is now given by (again $a=1$) $$\varepsilon (\vec{k}) =\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
2t(2-\cos k_x - \cos k_y ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(d=2)\\
2t(3-\cos k_x - \cos k_y -\cos k_z) ~~~~~(d=3).
\end{array}
\right.
\label{hdeps}$$ In $d$ dimensions, $b_1(\beta)$ is simply given by $$\begin{aligned}
b_1(\beta) &=& \frac{1}{(2\pi)^d} \left[ \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}
dk\, e^{-2\beta t(1-\cos k)}\right]^d\nonumber\\
&=&e^{-2d\beta t}\left[ I_0
(2\beta t) \right]^d.
\label{mdb1}\end{aligned}$$
As before, we rearrange the Brillouin zone such that its boundaries in $\vec{K},\vec{k}$ space are convenient. The different components of $\vec{K},\vec{k}$ are independent, and we have $0\leq K_i
\leq 2\pi\;,
\; 0 \leq k_x \leq \pi \; , \; -\pi \leq k_y ,
k_z \leq \pi$. The $k_x$-interval is halved to avoid counting the same (symmetric) state twice. The two-vacancy energy bands are given by $$\begin{aligned}
E_0(\vec{K},\vec{k})&=&
4t(2-\cos\displaystyle{\frac{K_x}{2}}\cos k_x -\cos
\displaystyle{\frac{K_y}{2}}\cos k_y )\nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(d=2),\nonumber\\
E_0(\vec{K},\vec{k})&=&
4t(3-\cos\displaystyle{\frac{K_x}{2}}\cos k_x -\cos
\displaystyle{\frac{K_y}{2}}\cos k_y
\nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~-\cos\frac{K_z}{2}\cos k_z)~~~~~~(d=3).
\nonumber\\
\label{md2es}\end{aligned}$$ We scale the parameter $z$ as $$z=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\hphantom{1}8t(\zeta +1 +i\epsilon)~~~~~~(d=2)\\
12t(\zeta +1 +i\epsilon)~~~~~~(d=3),
\end{array}
\right.$$ so that in both cases the energy band runs from $\zeta=-1$ to $\zeta=1$.
In two dimensions we find with (\[rint\]) $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal R}_2(\zeta,\vec{K})&=&\frac{1}{(2\pi)^2}
\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}dk_y\int_
{0}^{\pi} dk_x \, \frac{1}{8t} \left[\zeta+i\epsilon
+ \frac{1}{2}\left(
\cos\frac{K_x}{2}\cos k_x
+\cos\frac{K_y}{2}\cos k_y \right)
\right]^{-1}
\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{32t\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}dk_y \frac{f(A,B)}{
\sqrt{|A^2-B^2|}},
\label{2dr}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A&=& \zeta+\frac{1}{2} \cos\frac{K_y}{2}\cos k_y,\nonumber\\
B&=& \frac{1}{2}\cos\frac{K_x}{2},
\label{AB}\end{aligned}$$ and $$f(A,B)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathop{\rm sgn} (A) &~~(A^2>B^2)\\
-i &~~(A^2<B^2).
\end{array}
\right.
\label{f}$$ The integral in (\[2dr\]) can be expressed in terms of complete elliptic integrals of the first kind (see appendix). This gives an analytic expression for ${\cal R}_2(\zeta,\vec{K})$.
This expression can also be used to find the result in three dimensions, $${\cal R}_3(z,\vec{K})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} dk_z
\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} dk_y \int_0^{\pi} dk_x\left[
z-4t(3-\cos\frac{K_x}{2}\cos k_x
-\cos\frac{K_y}{2}\cos k_y
-\cos\frac{K_z}{2}\cos k_z)\right]^{-1}
\label{3drz}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal R}_3(\zeta,\vec{K})&=&\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} dk_z
\frac{1}{32t\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}dk_y\int_0^{\pi} dk_x \left[
\widetilde{\zeta} +i\epsilon \vphantom{\frac{1}{2}}
+\frac{1}{2}(
\cos\frac{K_x}{2}\cos k_x +\cos\frac{K_y}{2}\cos k_y)\right]^{-1}
\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} dk_z {\cal R}_2(
\widetilde{\zeta},K_x,
K_y),
\label{r3}\end{aligned}$$ where $$8t(\widetilde{\zeta} +1)=12t(\zeta+1)-4t(1-\cos\frac{K_z}{2}
\cos k_z).
\label{tilde}$$ Using the analytic expression found for ${\cal R}_2$, ${\cal R}_3$ can be calculated by numerical integration of (\[r3\]).
The next step is to obtain $F(\zeta)$ as given in (\[fdef\]) by integrating over $\vec{K}$. This is done numerically using Monte Carlo integration. The result is a function $F(\zeta)$ that is equal to $-\pi$ for $\zeta < -1$, where ${\cal R}_d$ is real and negative, equal to $0$ for $\zeta > 1$, where ${\cal R}_d$ is real and positive, and that is in between these two values for $\zeta \in [-1,1]$, where ${\cal R}_d$ is complex. It follows from the symmetry of ${\cal R}_d$ that $$F(-\zeta)=-\pi-F(\zeta).
\label{sym}$$ Figures \[f2\] and \[f3\] show $F(\zeta)$ for the square and cubic lattices.
Using $F(\zeta)$, $b_2^{\rm int}$ can be found from equations (\[b2e2\]) and (\[rhof\]) $$b_2^{\rm int}=-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-1}^{1} d\zeta \left(
\frac{\partial}{\partial \zeta} F(\zeta)\right) e^{-4d\beta
t(\zeta +1)}.
\label{mdb2}$$ Partially integrating, we find $$\begin{aligned}
b_2^{\rm int}&=&-e^{-4d\beta t} \left\{
e^{4d\beta t}+\frac{4d\beta t}{\pi} \int_{-1}^{1} d\zeta
F(\zeta) e^{-4d\beta t\zeta}\right\}\nonumber\\
&=&-e^{-4d\beta t} \left\{1-
\frac{8d\beta t}{\pi} \int_0^{1} d\zeta
F(\zeta) \sinh{4d\beta t\zeta}\right\}.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ To find $b_2^{\rm int}$, the last equation can be numerically integrated for various values of $\beta t$.
As before, we compare this with the result for the ideal lattice gas (\[bl0\]) $$b_2^0=\frac{1}{2}b_1(2\beta)=\frac{1}{2}e^{-4d\beta t}
[I_0(4\beta t)]^d.
\label{mdb20}$$ The ratio $b_2^{\rm int}/b_2^0$ is given by $$b_2^{\rm int}/b_2^0=
\frac{-2}{[I_0(4\beta t)]^d}\left\{1-\frac{8d\beta t}{\pi}
\int_0^1d\zeta
F(\zeta) \sinh 4d\beta t\zeta\right\}.
\label{ratio}$$ For $\beta t \rightarrow 0$, this ratio goes to $-2$. The second virial coefficient $b_2=b_2^0+b_2^{\rm int}$ thus approaches $-b_2^0$ for high temperatures. This is indicative of fermionic behaviour, which is indeed what one would expect: at high temperatures, the only important contribution to the free energy of the system is the entropy involved in distributing a certain number of hard core particles over the lattice. This is the same as for fermions. For $\beta t \rightarrow \infty$ the behaviour of (\[ratio\]) depends on the behaviour of $F(\zeta)$ for $\zeta\rightarrow 1$. In two dimensions, $F(\zeta)\propto
(1-\zeta)/\ln(1-\zeta)$, which leads to $b_2^{\rm int}/b_2^0$ going to zero like $-1/\ln(\beta t)$ as $\beta t \rightarrow \infty$. The same low-temperature behaviour is found for quantum hard disks [@Schick]. In three dimensions, $F(\zeta) \propto (1-\zeta)^2$, which gives $b_2^{\rm int}/b_2^0 \propto -1/\sqrt{\beta t}$ for $\beta t
\rightarrow
\infty$, just as for quantum hard spheres [@Uhl]. So in both cases, $b_2$ approaches the value for the ideal Bose gas at low temperatures. This shows that when the thermal wavelength (\[lambda\]) exceeds the lattice constant $a(=1)$, the effects of the Bose statistics starts to dominate. Plots of $b_2/b_2^0$ versus $\beta t$ for two and three dimensions are given in figures \[rat2\] and \[rat3\].
Conclusion
==========
The pressure and density of a gas of quantum particles on a lattice can be expressed in fugacity expansions, $$\begin{aligned}
p&=&\frac{1}{\beta v_0} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} b_{\ell}
e^{-\ell\beta\Delta},
\label{pee}\\
n&=&\frac{1}{v_0} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty} \ell b_{\ell}
e^{-\ell\beta\Delta}.
\label{en}\end{aligned}$$ For bosons with a hard-core interaction, the first two coefficients, $b_1$ and $b_2$, can be calculated. It turns out that the effect of the hard-core interaction on $b_2$ depends strongly on temperature and on the transfer integral $t$. For small $\beta t$ it is fermionic in character, as far as $b_2$ is concerned. For large $\beta t$ the effect of the hard-core disappears, and only the Bose character remains.
The system of vacancies that exists in solid $^4$He should behave to a good approximation like this simple model: the vacancies move through the crystal lattice by a tunneling process, they are bosons, and they have a hard-core repulsion. The gas of vacancies has been experimentally studied by probing the attenuation and the velocity shift of sound in a $^4$He crystal [@Goodk]. Very pure hcp Helium was used, so that the effects of both the phonons and the delocalized, bosonic vacancies could be observed. Treating the vacancies as a gas of free particles, it was seen that they obey Bose statistics. For the expressions (\[pee\]) and (\[en\]) this means that not only the first term, but at least also the second is experimentally observable. One can use the expressions (\[b1l\]) and (\[bl0\]) for a gas of free, ideal bosons to estimate the order of magnitude of the various terms in (\[pee\]) and (\[en\]). One finds that $b_{\ell}^0=
v_0/\ell^{5/2}\lambda^3$, so that $$\begin{aligned}
p&=&\frac{1}{\beta \lambda^3} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}
\frac{e^{-\ell\beta\Delta}}{\ell^{5/2}},
\label{peef}\\
n&=&\frac{1}{\lambda^3} \sum_{\ell=1}^{\infty}
\frac{e^{-\ell\beta\Delta}}{\ell^{3/2}}.
\label{enf}\end{aligned}$$ Using the value $\Delta/k_B=0.71 {\rm K}$ found in [@Goodk], and the maximum temperature $T= 0.85 {\rm K}$ at which the experiments were performed, this shows that the ratio between the second and first terms in (\[enf\]) is $0.15$, and that between the third and first terms is $0.04$.
If experiments can be done that detect the contribution of $15\%$ of the second term in (\[enf\]), it is also possible to detect the effects of the hard-core on the coefficient $b_2$ in (\[en\]). As can be seen from figure \[rat3\], it varies considerably with $\beta t$, and it can even change sign. However, it is difficult to extract this information from the attenuation experiment, since there it is not clear what exactly the relation between the measured quantities and the vacancy density is. It would be necessary to directly measure, say, the pressure due to the vacancies [@Steve], and then compare this with (\[pee\]). In such an experiment it would be crucial to take the hard-core effects into account. Work is in progress to calculate the coefficient $b_2$ for the hcp lattice; however, the results are not expected to differ much from those given for the simpler cubic lattice here.
The results for the two-dimensional system might have relevance for low-density $^4$He films on textured substrates [@Rehr]. There, the presence of adsorption sites localizes the Helium particles on the points of a two-dimensional lattice, defined by the substrate. Thus the tight-binding approach used in this paper becomes applicable. The adsorption sites cannot hold more than one particle, so that the hard-core repulsion is also present.
The authors thank J. Goodkind for making available some of his experimental data, and for useful discussions; useful discussions with A.F. Andreev and S. Steel are also acknowledged. Part of this research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the ‘Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie’ (FOM), which is financially supported by the ‘Stichting Nederlands Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek’ (NWO).
The integral (\[2dr\]) can be expressed in terms of elliptic integrals as follows [@Mor; @Mont]. ${\cal R}_2$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal R}_2(\zeta,\vec{K})&=&\frac{1}{16t\pi}\int_{A^2>B^2} dk_y
\, \frac{\mathop{\rm sgn} (A)}{\sqrt{A^2-B^2}}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{i}{16t\pi}\int
_{A^2<B^2} dk_y \frac{1}{\sqrt{B^2-A^2}},
\label{twoint}\end{aligned}$$ where $k_y\in [0,\pi]$. On making the substitution $p=\cos k_y$, and writing $$A^2-B^2=\frac{\cos^2 (K_y/2)}{4}(q_1-p)(q_2-p),
\label{ab}$$ where $$q_1=\frac{-2\zeta + \cos (K_x/2)}{\cos (K_y/2)}, ~~~~~
q_2=\frac{-2\zeta - \cos (K_x/2)}{\cos (K_y/2)},
\label{qs}$$ we end up with integrals of the type $$\int dp \frac{1}{\sqrt{|w|}},
\label{wint}$$ where $w=(1-p)(1+p)(q_1-p)(q_2-p)$ and $p\in [-1,1]$. By defining $$q_-=\min (q_1,q_2),~~~~~q_+=\max (q_1,q_2),
\label{+-}$$ we see that values of $p \in [q_-,q_+]$ give $A^2 < B^2$, and thus contribute to the imaginary part of ${\cal R}_2$. Values of $p$ outside this interval give $A^2 > B^2$ and thus contribute to the real part, for $p<q_-$ with $\mathop{\rm sgn} (A)=-\mathop{\rm sgn}
(\cos(K_y/2))$, and for $p>q_+$ with $\mathop{\rm sgn} (A)=\mathop{\rm sgn}
(\cos(K_y/2))$. The result is a sum of integrals of the type (\[wint\]) between limits that are consecutive zeroes of $w$. These integrals can all be expressed in terms of the complete elliptic integral of the first kind, $K(x)$ [@G+R], $$K(x)=\int_0^1 dp \frac{1}{\sqrt{(1-p^2)(1-x^2p^2)}}
{}~~~~~~(x\in [0,1]).
\label{ka}$$ There are several cases to be considered:
$q_-,q_+ < -1$ (1a) or $q_-,q_+ > 1$ (1b)
-----------------------------------------
$${\cal R}_2(\zeta,\vec{K}) =\frac{\epsilon}{4t\pi\cos(K_y/2)}
\frac{K(r_1)}{\sqrt{(q_+-1)(q_-+1)}} ,
\label{one}$$
where $\epsilon=+$ for (1a) and $\epsilon =-$ for (1b).
$q_-<-1, q_+>1$ or $q_-,q_+ \in [-1,1]$
---------------------------------------
$${\cal R}_2(\zeta,\vec{K}) =\frac{-i}{4t\pi|\cos(K_y/2)|}
\frac{K(r_2)}{\sqrt{(q_++1)(1-q_-)}} .\label{two}$$
$q_-<-1,q_+\in[-1,1]$ (3a)\
or $q_-\in[-1,1],
q_+ > 1$ (3b)
---------------------------
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal R}_2(\zeta,\vec{K}) &=&\frac{\epsilon}{4t\pi\cos(K_y/2)}
\frac{K(1/r_1)}{\sqrt{2(q_+-q_-)}}\nonumber\\
&&
-\frac{i}{4t\pi|\cos(K_y/2)|}
\frac{K(1/r_2)}{\sqrt{2(q_+-q_-)}},
\label{three}\end{aligned}$$
where $\epsilon=+$ for (3a) and $\epsilon =-$ for (3b). In the above, $r_1$ and $r_2$ are given by $$r_1=\sqrt{\frac{2(q_+-q_-)}{(q_+-1)(q_-+1)}},~~~~~
r_2=\sqrt{\frac{2(q_+-q_-)}{(q_++1)(1-q_-)}}.
\label{rs}$$
A.F. Andreev, in: [*Progress in Low Temperature Physics*]{}, Vol. 8 (D.F. Brewer, ed.), North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982. A.F. Andreev and I.M. Lifshitz, Zh. Exp.Teor. Fiz. 2057 (1969) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**29**]{} 1107 (1969)\]. T. Matsubara and H. Matsuda, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**16**]{} 569 (1956); H. Matsuda and T. Matsubara, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**17**]{} 19 (1957). G.A. Lengua and J.M. Goodkind, J. Low Temp. Phys. 251 (1990). K. Huang, [*Statistical Mechanics*]{} (2nd edition), Wiley, New York, 1987. R.L. Siddon and M. Schick, Phys. Rev. A [**9**]{} 907 (1974); W.G. Gibson, Mol. Phys. [**49**]{} 103 (1983). G.E. Uhlenbeck and E. Beth, Physica [**3**]{} 729 (1936). S. Steel, to be published J.J. Rehr and M. Tejwani, Phys. Rev. B [**20**]{} 345 (1979). T. Morita and T. Horiguchi, J. Math. Phys. [**12**]{} 986 (1971). E.W. Montroll, in: [*Proceedings of the third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability*]{}, Vol. 3 (J. Neyman, ed.), University of California Press, Berkeley, 1955. I.S. Gradshteyn and I.M. Ryzhik, [*Table of Integrals, Series, and Products*]{}, Academic Press, San Diego, 1980.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In many application areas such as large-scale disaster detection, IoT networks connote the characteristics of LLN (Low power and Lossy Network). With few exceptions, prior work on RPL(Routing Protocol for LLN), a standard routing protocol standardized in the IETF, has focused on the evaluation of various aspects of routing performances and control overheads. In this paper, we address the problem of DODAG (Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph) created by direct application of RPL. We first evaluate the skewness of DODAG both via numerical simulations and via actual large-scale testbed. RPL secures its flexibility and wide applicability by allowing the adoption of implementer-specific rank definitions and parent selection criteria. In addition to the metrics used in ContikiRPL and TinyRPL, the two most widely used open source implementations, we evaluated the skewness of RPL trees generated by applying various routing metrics. Performance analysis results show that RPL trees suffer from severe skewness regardless of routing metrics in both randomly generated networks and in real-world networks. We propose a novel routing protocol that may improve the balance of RPL trees. Rigorous performance analysis based on computer simulations shows that our algorithm improves the tree balance significantly.'
author:
- 'Duc-Lam Nguyen, and Chong-Kwon Kim, [^1] [^2] [^3]'
title: Towards Skewness and Balancing of RPL Trees for the Internet of Things
---
RPL, Low Power and Lossy Network (LLN), Routing, IPv6, DODAG, Load Balancing, Wireless Sensor Networks, Internet of Things.
Introduction
============
Overview
--------
With great progress and development made in information and communication technology, Internet of Things (IoT) and Machine-to-Machine (M2M)[@iot] have merged to provide ubiquitous communication of smart embedded devices, so that retrieving real-time information can become possible[@in40][@gungor]. Due to the great potential brought by M2M and IoT communication, they are being considered as the evolutionary change in the field of wireless communications. A potential large number of nodes is able to establish low-power short-range wireless links, thus forming a capillary network infrastructure that can be connected to the global Internet[@50b]. A new class of multi-hop wireless sensor network has emerged that is generally characterized by a resource constrained failure-prone architecture and subsequently has given rise to new challenges to provide robustness and resilience [@ieee802154; @wirelesshart]. These types of WSN are used in natural disaster monitoring, surveillance and industrial management where a certain reliability should be guaranteed while providing robustness in the presence of harsh surroundings[@ieee802154; @wirelesshart; @rpl; @culler; @icoin; @anci; @ko; @lam]. The analysis of the different application scenarios has demonstrated that the routing protocol for LLNs should be able to cope with resource-constraint, quality of service and scalability issues. Several routing protocols have been introduced to figure out these issues such as AODV[@aodv], Collection Tree Protocol[@ctp], and LOAD[@load]. In order to achieve reliable and energy efficient data collection, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has proposed RPL [@rpl] as an IoT routing standard for IPv6 Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs). RPL is an oriented distance vector routing protocol that allows users to establish logical routing topology known as a Destination-Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG) structure, meaning that each node may have one or more than one parent towards the sink. RPL is designed to meet the different requirements of 6LoWPANs, it guarantees a fast network establishment which allows the efficient monitoring of critical applications. RPL is one of the most promising routing solution for a wide range of network types as well as industrial applications such as Smart Gird[@smartgrid], Building Automation[@bldauto], Home Automation[@Home], and Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)[@ami].
Motivation
----------
Recently, RPL provisions several robust features such as self-healing, loop-free network, and exiguous delay. However, the load balancing has been considered as a weakness in the RPL standard. The routing protocol for LLNs should be lightweight, specifically in LLNs in which nodes are equipped with highly resource-constraints and featured short range communication abilities. Thus, high protocol overhead associated with path maintenance and discovery might drain resources quickly and interfere with data transmission.
On the one hand, depending on the specific requirements, different routing metrics and constraints[@metrics] can be adopted such as hop-count[@of0], latency, energy consumption or expected transmission count (ETX)[@etx]. Routing path construction relying solely on a single pairwise transmission quality metric may not be able to capture the real communication scenarios. The sizes of the networks necessitate the need to communicate over multiple hops requiring higher layer protocol support. Reliable and efficient of communications in large LLNs has yet to be sufficiently addressed[@50b]. Potential future applications will inevitably require the need to communicate beyond the range of sinks and require larger networks than that are supported recently. The fact that large-scale LLNs are not common is likely due to lack of support from current protocols and approaches, so motivating our research.
On the other hand, LLNs are resource-constraint networks, it is a requirement of RPL to be energy efficiency. So that, RPL needs to balance not only the traffic load but also the number of connections of each node to provide fair energy consumption among nodes. RPL is designed for LLNs and performs routing in a distributed way, however, the load balancing feature is missing in RPL. Without load balancing the data traffic and the distribution of wireless sensor nodes in LLNs may result in significant unbalance for those nodes that have more neighbor nodes than others. As mentioned above, in large-scale networks, the nodes close to the gateway often handle heavy traffic load even others generate lightly traffic load. Thus, this results in gaps and holes in the whole network and causes the disconnected of the network connection. It leads to RPL needs to address the load imbalance problem.
Key Idea
--------
The key idea of this study is that we investigate the topology construction of RPL not only using casual metrics as standard RPL but also exploiting the skewness and balancing to apply the combination of metrics. We achieved the balance and the stability by taking into account the size of DODAG subtrees for selecting each parent candidate in the parent selection procedure. We defined a new specific metric representing for the influence of parent candidates to new joining nodes for routing procedure. In detail, a node willing to join DODAG should consider both the link quality with parent candidates and the influence of parent candidates to joining node, so the stability and balancing of routing path are guaranteed and reliable. The detail is described in Section III.
![**An example of IoT multi-hop LLN**. The LLN is connected to Wide Area Network (WAN) which might be public global Internet via LBR (LLN Border Router). In this example, the LLN includes one sink (DODAG root), 10 source nodes, and several subtrees namely ST1 ($ST_{(c)}$), ST2 $ST_{(b)}$, ST3 ($ST_{(a)}$), ST4 ($ST_{(d)}$) and so on.[]{data-label="fig:example"}](lln.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Contributions
-------------
With the aforementioned motivations and ideas, we propose SB-RPL, standing for kewness and alancing of PL Trees for IoT networks, a new extension of RPL that provides enhanced support for large-scale network and incorporates the load balance mechanism into RPL. SB-RPL is able to effectively increase the end-to-end reliability as well as the network balance.
We implemented SB-RPL in ContikiOS [@contiki] and conducted extensive numerical simulations using Contiki Cooja simulator and experiments using actual large-scale testbed FIT-IoT-Lab [@iotlab] with 100 nodes Arm-M3-Cortex[@arm]. In total, our evaluation based on around hundreds of individual simulations and experiments, the duration is from one to two hour per experiment[^4]. Our evaluation shows that SB-RPL improves not only skewness and balancing of RPL trees but also reliability and end-to-end delay significantly in comparison with existing RPL studies in both practical experiments and simulations.
The main contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows:
1. We proposed SB-RPL, the first work that investigates skewness and balancing and evaluates the performance in both Cooja simulation environment and practical large-scale FIT-IoT-Lab platform of Lille, France. SB-RPL exploits the combination of multiple metrics and skewness for routing efficiency in RPL DODAG (Section III.D).
2. SB-RPL uses extended control message structures based on the standard structure defined in the specification of RPL. This makes sure that our proposed scheme SB-RPL is interoperable with standard RPL, thus LLN devices using standard RPL or SB-RPL can operate together seamlessly in a hybrid environment (Section III.C).
3. Our proposed scheme SB-RPL not only improves the skewness and balancing among subtrees in a DODAG but also supports adaptivity and mobility of the network without requiring specific statical assumptions on the Objective Functions. This factor is convenient for implementation in the actual environment because Objective Functions in IoT applications can be widely dissimilar. On the other hand, there is no any constraint on the designs of Objective Functions in the specification of RPL, it keeps opening for new researches (Section IV).
4. We implemented SB-RPL in ContikiOS which is an open source operating system for IoT and LLNs. Via extensive computer simulations using Contiki’s network simulator and real-world experiments on the FIT IoT-LAB testbed, we proved that our proposed scheme significantly outperforms the existing methods in terms of reliability, adaptability to network balance of LLNs under various scenarios(Section IV).
Paper Organization
------------------
The remainder of our paper is structured as follows: Section II provides prior works in this area. Our proposed scheme named SB-RPL is described in Section III. In particular, it covers high level detail of RPL protocol and we describe our SB-RPL protocol more specific. Section IV presents results from the performance evaluation of SB-RPL and discusses issues that may have a significant impact on its behaviors. The detail of our evaluation method such as information of testbed, simulator, evaluation metrics are explained in detail. Finally, we conclude the paper in Section V.
Related Work
============
In this section, we review earlier works on objective functions and load balancing problems in low-power wireless networks.
Recently, RPL has received significant attention from academic and industrial communities. Although there is a lot of studies about new objective functions as well as performance evaluation of RPL[@wang; @clausen; @triphathi; @gaddour; @potsch; @herberg; @hui; @khan], still there is a lack of studies about load balancing in RPL over actual large-scale multi-hop LLNs. We review previous studies in two categories: (1) RPL Objective Functions, (2) Balance Routing protocols.
### RPL Objective Functions
RPL standard does not force the use of any specific objective function or any specific metric keeping in open for research. There are various objective functions that are used in the RPL network, the two most important objective functions are the Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function (MRHOF) and Objective Function Zero (OF0). Several approaches were proposed in the literature attempting to develop objective functions for RPL [@of0],[@etx],[@todoli]. In order to handle congestion problems that occur in terms of heavy data transmission, the work in [@caof] introduced a congestion-aware objective function CA-OF which considered buffer occupancy as the routing factor. CA-OF showed an improvement of packet delivery ratio by avoiding congested nodes in routing paths in case of heavy data traffic. However, the routing stability is not considered in this research.
Iova et al. [@lova] proposed a new metric named Expected Lifetime and combined it in the calculation with data traffic load and link reliability when estimating how long a node could stay before exhausting its own residual energy. The purpose of this method was to maximize the lifetime of most constrained nodes. However, the proposed method showed a high computational overhead that is unfeasible in LLNs environment. To address the limitations of network scalability, Songhua et al. [@songhua] proposed a Qos-aware fuzzy logic objective function. This objective function includes four metrics namely hop count, delay, ETX and battery level which can estimate the path quality using fuzzy logic techniques. Several studies introduced the different mechanism to optimize routing metrics efficiently and new objective functions for RPL to meet vary requirements in specific application environments [@qurpl],[@gonzizi].
### Balance Routing Protocols
The RPL balancing problem has been investigated in several prior studies such as [@xliu; @boubekeur; @lodhi; @nassiri]. In [@nassiri], the authors proposed a new parent selection procedure. In which, generated parent set considers both the Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) and residual energy, the proposed method selects probabilistically the parent node for every data transmission. The authors in [@qurpl] combined queue information with Objective Function Zero to enhance load-balancing of RPL routing under heavy traffic scenarios. Manually setting parameters, as suggested in QU-RPL, is challenging in dynamic and large-scale IoT networks and it is limited to OF0. To address the load imbalance of ORPL [@orpl], Michel et al. [@michel] proposed ORPL-LB which achieved load balancing by using a sleep interval control mechanism and selective ACK transmission. Via various experiments, the authors proved that ORPL-LB has a better battery lifetime among nodes than standard RPL and ORPL.
The authors [@xliu] proposed LB-RPL which improves load balancing of RPL by allowing a node to prioritize its parent candidates based on their queue utilization. The queue utilization information is collected from its neighbor nodes through DIO transmission. If congestion is detected, then the nodes delay the dissemination of routing information. M-RPL [@lodhi] detects traffic congestion problem by using RPL control messages and provides two preferred parent nodes for traffic distribution. The work in [@alabamo], ALABAMO was proposed which supports MRHOF in load balancing capacity. With ALABAMO, RPL nodes consider parent selection process using both ETX and traffic load value. Through actual experiments, the authors demonstrated the improvement in load balancing of ALABAMO but they did not consider a duty cycling mechanism for evaluation and they assumed simply that fair relay burden can balance routing lifetime.
\[t!\]
**Notations** **Descriptions**
------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathcal{N}$ Number of sensor nodes
$\mathcal{L}$ The set of all wireless links
$\mathcal{S}$ Sink of DODAG
$\mathcal{R}_n(t)$ Rank of node $n$ at timeslot $t$
$c_{n,p}(t)$ Logical Link-layer channel capacity between node $n$ and node $p$
$c^{max}$ maximum channel capacity value
$l_{n,p}(t)$ Link characteristics between node $n$ and node $p$
$\mathcal{P}_{n,p}(t)$ Node $p$ is preferred parent of node $n$
$\mathcal{RT}^S$ Routing Subtree
$N^S$ Set of sensor nodes in a subtree
$L^S$ Set of direct links in a subtree
$ST_{p}(t)$ Subtree size of node $p$ at timeslot $t$
$ST^{max}_{p}(t)$ Maximum subtree size of node $p$ at timeslot $t$
$ST^{min}_{p}(t)$ Minimum subtree size of node $p$ at timeslot $t$
$ST^{avr}_{p}(t)$ Average subtree size of node $p$ at timeslot $t$
$NI_{n,p}(t)$ Node Influence of potential parent $p$ to the new joining node $n$ at time $t$
$\mathcal{NB}_n(t)$ Set of neighbors that node $n$ can communicate during timeslot $t$
$PRR_{n,p}(t)$ Packet Reception Ratio between node $n$ and node $p$
$\mathcal{M}1$ Skewness metric 1
$\mathcal{M}2$ Skewness metric 2
$\mathcal{M}3$ Skewness metric 3
$\mathcal{M}4$ Skewness metric 4
: Notations
SB-RPL Design
=============
In this section, we model RPL in detail and describe our proposed named SB-RPL, aiming to enhance the skewness and balancing of RPL DODAG as well as improve the performance of RPL in terms of reliability, end-to-end delay, and adaptivity to the dynamics of resource-constraint networks.
System Models
-------------
The suggested SB-RPL approach is designed for LLN networks organized in a single DODAG. Thus, we consider a LLN as a set of multiple IoT devices. The LLN $\mathcal{G} = (\mathcal{N}, \mathcal{L})$ includes $\mathcal{N}$ standing for set of sensor nodes and $\mathcal{L}$ standing for set of direct links. The network operates in discrete time slots (e.g., seconds): t = {0,1,2,3,...m}.
### Low-Power and Lossy Network (LLN)
To model the unreliable and lossy wireless transmissions, we use packet reception ratio (PRR) over the wireless link from node $n$ to node $p$ as (n,p), $0 \leq PRR_{n,p}(t) \leq 1$. The PRR is as the probability of successfully transmitting a packet and then receiving an acknowledgment between node $n$ and node $p$ at timeslot $t$. For RPL, we can calculate $ETX$ (Expected Transmission Count) from PRR. $ETX$ is the measure for determining the total number of retransmissions required to successfully transmit data packet to next node with an acknowledge. Considering a given PRR value between node $n$ and node $p$ as $PRR_{n,p}(t)$, the corresponding ETX value $ETX_{n,p}(t)$ can be achieved as followed: $$\begin{aligned}
ETX_{n,p}(t) = \frac{1}{PRR_{n,p}(t)}\end{aligned}$$ RPL smooths ETX using an exponential weighted moving average (EWMA) filter[@ewma] which is widely used method to update statistics such as average and standard deviation, making it robust to sudden changes in RPL DODAG. It updates ETX as: $$ETX_{n,p}(\mathrm{new}) = \gamma ETX_{n,p}(\mathrm{current}) + (1-\gamma)ETX_{n,p}(\mathrm{packet})$$ where $ETX_{n,p}(current)$ is the ETX metric that node $n$ currently has for its parent node $p$, and $ETX_{n,p}(new)$ is the ETX value obtained from the last single transmission from the child nodes. The default value of $\gamma$ is set to 0.1.
We define the logical link-layer channel capacity $c_{n,p}(t)$ of a wireless link from node $n$ to node $p$ at time slot $t$ as followed: $$c_{n,p}(t) = c^{\max}_{n,p}PRR_{n,p}(t) = \frac{c^{\max}_{n,p}}{ETX_{n,p}(t)}$$ $c_{n,p}(t)$ presents the number of acknowledgment packets transmitted from node $n$ to node $p$ with timeslot $t$, $c^{\max}_{n,p} \geq c_{n,p}(t) \geq 0$ with $c^{max}(n,p)$ is the maximum value of $c_{n,p}(t), \forall t$. If capacity channel value $c_{n,p}(t)>0$, it means that node $n$ and node $p$ are in communication at time slot $t$; otherwise, they are not in communication at timeslot $t$.
We denote that $\mathcal{NB}_{n}(t)$ is set of all neighbors that node $n$ can communicate during timeslot $t$, $\mathcal{NB}_{n}(t) \in \mathcal{N}$ : $$\mathcal{NB}_{n}(t) := \{p | c_{n,p}(t) > 0, c_{p,n}(t) > 0, p \in \mathcal{N} - \{n\}\}$$
As the specification of original RPL, neighbor table have several main policies as followed:
**NP1**: *A node $n$ adds the neighbor $k$ if there is an indication that this is a better parent than the worst of the current parent.*
**NP2:** *When a node $n$ have empty neighbor table $\mathcal{NB}_{n}(t)$, it can always add new neighboring nodes to its neighbor table.*
**NP3:** *Node $n$ will add node $k\in\mathcal{NB}_n(t)$ to its neighbor table if there is enough space for other children and send a DAO-ACK message. The nodes already in the table of node $n$ are not deleted except the lifetime timeout is expired.*
**NP4:** *When node $n$ receives a DIS message of node $k$, if this DIS is a unicast transmission, node $n$ will add node $k$ to $\mathcal{NB}_n(t)$; otherwise, node $n$ ignores the DIS.*
The state of low-power and lossy network at a given timeslot $t>0$ can be presented as a directed and modeled as a time-varying weighted graph $\mathcal{G(N, L}, c(t))$ where $\mathcal{N}$ is the set of sensor nodes and $\mathcal{L}$ is all possible links for all nodes pairs in $\mathcal{N}$.
Each RPL node n recognizes its neighbors by receiving DIO messages. Then, each node generates its own parent candidate set $P_n$ from its neighbor set $\mathcal{NB}_{n}(t)$ as followed:
$$\mathcal{P}_n(t) = \{p \in \mathcal{NB}_{n}(t) | \mathcal{R}_n < \mathcal{R}_p, ETX_{n,p}(t) < \delta \}$$
where $\delta$ is a threshold to remove neighbors which are connected through unreliable links.
### RPL Objective Function
RPL constructs a DODAG by using a specific Objective Function which defines a routing optimization objective that translates one or more metrics and constraints such as latency, minimizing energy consumption or ETX into a value called rank. RPL defines rank to indicate the routing distance from a node to sink, which is attached in DIO messages and used to parent selection procedure. In ContikiRPL, MRHOF is used as default objective function where rank is computed based on ETX information.
The rank value of new device $n\in \mathcal{N}$ is determined by the following formula: $$\mathcal{R}_n(t) =\left\{\begin{IEEEeqnarraybox}[\relax][c]{l's}
\min_{p\in \mathcal{NB}_n(t)}(l_{n,p}(t) + \mathcal{R}_p(t)) & $n \neq \mathcal{S} $ \\
R_\mathcal{S} & $n=\mathcal{S}$
\end{IEEEeqnarraybox}\right.$$ where $\mathcal{R}_n(t)$ is the rank of node $n$, $\mathcal{R}_p(t)$ is the rank of the potential parent DODAG node $p$ of the node $n$, and $l_{n,p(t)}$ is a function of the characteristics of node $p$ and of the link between node $n$ and node $p$ at timeslot $t$. $\mathcal{R}_\mathcal{S} \geq 0$ is rank of the sink, the smallest rank value in the DODAG architecture. Thus, when a new device $n$ willing to join DODAG, its rank is computed by searching a one-hop neighbor that gives the smallest sum of link characteristic $l_{n,p}(t)$ and neighbor rank $\mathcal{R}_p(t)$. In ContikiRPL, $l_{n,p}(t)$ represents for $ETX_{n,p}(t)$.
In the parent selection process, each node selects its best parent $\mathcal{P'}_n$ from parent candidate set $\mathcal{P}_n$: $$P'_n(t) = \arg \min_{p\in \mathcal{P}_n(t)} (\mathcal{R}_p(t))$$
If the smallest path cost for paths through the candidate neighbors is smaller than the current path cost by less than a threshold, the node may continue to use the current preferred parent. This is considered as a hysteresis component of MRHOF objective function. Then a node may change its preferred parent if its information on parent candidates has been changed if: $$\mathcal{R}(P'_n) < \mathcal{R}(\mathcal{P}_n) + \sigma$$ where $\sigma$ is a stability bound to mitigate unnecessarily and inefficiently the parent change, which is set to 96 by default. This $\sigma$ is the difference between ETX of the route through the preferred parent and the minimum-ETX route to trigger a new preferred parent procedure. Each RPL node selects a parent node which has a reliable link or minimum hop distance to the sink, regardless of traffic load and balancing for DODAG.
The RPL objective functions have several main properties as follows:
**P1**: *If there is a change of $\mathcal{NB}_n(t)$ such as adding or removing entries or the entries are changed, then the node $n$ will eventually re-compute $\mathcal{R}_n(t)$ and re-select $P'_n(t)$.*
**P2**: *When the node $n$ re-selects its preferred parent $P'_n(t)$ and $\mathcal{R}_n(t)$, a non-sink node adopts *NULL* as $P'_n(t)$ if it also adopts infinite rank. There are the initial values of preferred parent and rank at the non-sink node when the node needs to (re)start.*
**P3**: *Similarly, when the node $n$ re-selects its preferred parent $P'_n(t)$ and $\mathcal{R}_n(t)$, the sink adopt *NULL* and *MinHopRankIncrease*, respectively.*
**P4**: **P5**: *The $R_n(t)$ and $\mathcal{P}_n(t)$ change only as a result of re-selection of the node’s death and reset; otherwise they keep stably.*
![**RPL DIO control message structure in SB-RPL**[]{data-label="fig:diostructure"}](dio){width="0.9\linewidth" height="0.18\textheight"}
Topology-aware Node Influence
-----------------------------
We define *Routing Subtree* $\mathcal{RT}^S$ for each destination-oriented tree graph $\mathcal{RT}^S =(N^S, L^S,c(t))$, rooted at the LLN sink, $s = \{1,2,3, ... \mathcal{N}\}$ with $\mathcal{RT}^S \subseteq \mathcal{G}$, $N^S \subseteq \mathcal{N}, L^S \subseteq \mathcal{L}$. Note that $N^S = \{ N_1, N_2, ..., N_S\}$ is a partition of the set of all sensor nodes $N^S$ and $L^S$ is the set of direct links between each node $i$ to preferred parent $p_i$, so $|L^S|= |N^S|-1$. For each node $n \in \mathcal{N}$, we can identify the subtree size of node $n$, $ST_n(t)$ is composed by all the nodes connected to $n$ through multi-hop paths. $$ST_n(t) = |N^S_n|$$ We define the notion of *Node Influence* $NI_{n,p}(t)$ to measure the influence of parent candidate $p$ to new joining node $n$ at time $t$. Intuitively, the *Node Influence* is determined by sum of the subtree size of potential preferred parent and ETX value between the new joining node and the parent candidate. $$NI_{n,p}(t) = \alpha ST_p(t) + \beta ETX_{n,p}(t)$$ As the above equation, *Node Influence* of potential parent $p$ to new joining node $n$ is a combination of subtree size of node $p$, $ST_p(t)$, and link quality between $n$ and $p$, $ETX_{n,p}(t)$. We use two weighted number $\alpha$ and $\beta$ to control the interaction between the skew of DODAG subtrees and path quality, this problem is described in more detail in Section IV.
RPL Control Message DIO extension in support of balancing routing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically, RPL supports various routing metric such as hop-count, ETX, latency, and energy. In order to construct a DODAG, the root broadcasts Destination Information Object (DIO) control messages to the other nodes in the downward direction. It plays an important role by helping nodes in discovering RPL Instances with their configuration parameters and in constructing a DODAG. The structure of the DIO message is described in Fig. \[fig:diostructure\].
In order to achieve topology balance, RPL control message DIO[^5] is exploited to broadcast *Routing Subtree* size information $ST_p(t)$ of a node to its own neighbors. SB-RPL makes all nodes transmit amended RPL DIO messages to its neighboring nodes. When a node $k$ receives a DIO message from a neighbor $n_k$, it records *Routing Subtree* size information $ST_n(t)$ in its neighbor table and uses this value of the received DIO message as a metric to build a multi-hop topology that is free from load imbalance problem.
SB-RPL uses the Trickle Timer to control the broadcasting rate of DIO messages as well. Each node needs to broadcast its updated DIO messages to its one-hop neighbors. In this case, global repair mechanism is not required to perform. Generally, SB-RPL is a fully distributed routing protocol as RPL.
SB-RPL Design
-------------
Received DIO messages The balance among DODAG subtrees
**Calculation** *n $\leftarrow$ DIO*; */\*Node n receives a DIO message\*/* $P_n$ $\rightarrow$ n
$C_n$ $\leftarrow$ $C_n$ $+$ 1\
$\mathcal{R}_n$ = $\mathcal{R}_{n,p}$ + $NI_{n,p}(t)$\
Maintain the location of node n in the DODAG **break**; */\*Get the parent with lower rank\
Discard the current rank\*/*
$\mathcal{R}_{n,p1} \leftarrow$ *parent$\_$path$\_$metric(p1)* $\mathcal{R}_{n,p2}\leftarrow$ *parent$\_$path$\_$metric(p2)*
**return** $P'$ */\*Preferred parent\*/* **Broadcast** the updated DIO messages.
At the beginning, the DODAG sink propagates DIO messages periodically to its neighbors, with the information mentioned in section II. After a node receives this DIO message, it will decide whether it will join the DODAG or not and computes its own rank once it joins DODAG.
In this part, we describe the detail of proposed scheme SB-RPL. In order to optimize the balanced of DODAG routing topology, we exploit the new metric, *Node Influence* $NI_{n,p}(t)$ which is introduced above (Equation 10). *Node Influence* $NI_{n,p}(t)$ is considered as a new constraint in the DAG Metric Container included in the DIO control message. In which, the subtree size information is included, and SB-RPL use the $ST_p(t)$ to avoid traffic congestion as well as balance the DODAG subtrees. For updating ETX and *Subtree Size*, SB-RPL uses the same EWMA filter as in standard RPL. SB-RPL uses a hysteresis mechanism similar to the one employed in MRHOF to prevent unstable changes during fast fluctuations in routing.
Then, each node generates a parent candidate set from its own neighbors according to equation 5, and selects the best parent node according to equation 11. For SB-RPL, SB-RPL nodes compute rank as followed: $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{R}_n(t) & = \mathcal{R}_{p}(t) + NI_{n,p}(t) \\
& = \mathcal{R}_{p}(t) + \alpha ST_p(t) + \beta ETX_{n,p}(t)
\end{split}$$
In standard RPL, the DIO transmission procedure based on *Trickle Timer* which is reset to a minimum when there are changes in routing topology. Being a preferred parent of many children results in more traffic overhead and imbalanced problem, consequently consuming its own power much faster than other candidate parents. In order to figure out the problem, we exploit the vital information of DODAG subtree sizes as well as consider the quality of the transmission medium. In other words, the parent with the fewer number of children will be priority selected as the preferred parent. The skewness and balancing of RPL are achieved by reducing the number of children within each subtree of the overloaded bottleneck node. Consequently, joining node will prefer choosing parent according to the dedicated routing metric and guaranteed that the preferred parent has less number of children, equivalent to less size of the subtree. Besides, SB-RPL also considers the link characteristic in the routing procedure. Therefore, SB-RPL guarantees the balance of DODAG trees as well as enhances the reliability. The SB-RPL protocol is described in Algorithm 1.
Performance Evaluation
======================
In this section, we perform an extensive experimental evaluation of the proposed scheme. We compare our proposed scheme to the state-of-the-art, including Objective Function Zero, MRHOF in various scenarios with the numerical simulation environment and real-world platform.
Methodology
-----------
We evaluate the performance of compared routing strategy by employing both testbed experiments and simulations.
### Testbed Experiments
Setting up a complete WSN deployment is a very complex task. In this part, we present our study on the FIT IoT-LAB testbed. In our experiments, we used the platform installed in Lille site, France. We used 100 nodes (M3 ARM-Cortex) from Lille site offered by the FIT IoT-Lab testbed, shown in Fig. \[fig:lilleIoTLab\]. The topology includes 1 sink located at the center and 99 random sensor nodes generating UDP packets on a predefined time interval. The M3 node has one ARM M3-Cortex micro-controller, one 64kB RAM, one IEEE 802.15.4 radio AT86RF231, one rechargeable 3.7V LiPo Battery and several types of sensors. In order to ensure multi-hop topology is constructed, we set transmission power to -17dBm as in the tutorial of FIT IoT-Lab testbed. The detail of parameters is described in Table II.
### Cooja Simulation
To compare our proposed scheme against prior works with full control in network conditions, we use Cooja - the network simulator of Contiki. Cooja provides three different radio models namely UDGM(Unit Disc Graph Mode) - distance loss, UDGM(Unit Disc Graph Model)- constant loss, Multi-Path Ray-Tracer Medium (MRM). In this paper, we use the MRM model because MRM is the most realistic model for wireless sensor network implementation. MRM considers concepts such as reflection, refraction, diffraction, and fading[@cooja]. Cooja emulates nodes running compiled MSP430 firmware. Cooja allows us to have completed control over network conditions and emulate varying connectivity. However, as soon as the growth up of network scales, the neighbor tables of nodes start falling apart. Therefore, a straightforward method to solve this issue is to scale up the RAM beyond the expected size of the network. Running simulation with lots of nodes is very CPU consuming. To speed up Cooja simulator, we run all out non-GUI simulations on cloud servers. Each server runs Ubuntu 13.04 LTS with 32 GB of RAM. We evaluate the impact of network scale and density to DODAG topology constructing as well as skewness in various scenarios.
{width="0.95\linewidth"}
. \[fig:lilleIoTLab\]
Compared Objective Functions
----------------------------
We compare our proposed scheme to Objective Function Zero, MRHOF using ETX and MRHOF using $ETX^2$, three state-of-the-art objective functions, which are all implemented in ContikiOS.
- Objective Function Zero (OF0): OF0 uses hop-count as a routing metric. A node calculates its rank by adding a positive and indirectly normalized scalar value to its preferred parent rank. This objective function can also be called as minimum hop-count objective function.
- Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function using ETX (MH$\_$ETX): MRHOF selects routes that minimize additive routing metrics such as energy, latency, and ETX. In addition, MRHOF uses hysteresis to reduce instability due to small metric changes. In ContikiOS, MRHOF is used with ETX routing metric as default objective function.
- Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function using $ETX^2$ (MH$\_$ETXSQ): An extended version of MRHOF, however, MH$\_$ETXSQ uses $ETX^2$ as the routing metric.
The source code of objective functions is fairly provided on ContikiOS homepage[@contikisource].
Metrics
-------
We focus on 3 types of metrics to compare the performance of the objective functions: skewness metrics, reliability and latency.
### Skewness Indexes
In order to compare the skewness of our proposed routing scheme to existing objective functions of RPL standard(OF0, MRHOF), we define 4 skewness indexes namely $\mathcal{M}1$, $\mathcal{M}2$, $\mathcal{M}3$, and $\mathcal{M}4$ for each rank of DODAG. The skewness indexes determine the extension of asymmetry or lack of symmetry among subtrees of a DODAG. The definitions of skewness indexes are defined as follows:
$$\mathcal{M}1 = \frac{ST^{\max}(t) - ST^{\min}(t)}{ST^{avr}(t)}; \quad\quad\quad\quad
\mathcal{M}3 = \frac{ST^{\max}(t)}{ST^{\min}(t)} \\$$ $$\mathcal{M}2 = \frac{ \sum_{i=1}{\left|ST_i(t) - ST^{avr}(t) \right|}}{ST^{avr}(t)};\quad
\mathcal{M}4 = \frac{ST^{\max}(t) - ST^{\min}(t)}{ST^{\min}(t)} \\$$
where $ST^{max}(t)$, $ST^{min}(t)$, and $ST^{avr}(t)$ are the maximum value, minimum value and average value of the subtree sizes in a DODAG, respectively. $\mathcal{M}1$, $\mathcal{M}2$, $\mathcal{M}3$, and $\mathcal{M}4$ are used to measure the skew and balancing of DODAG. The minimum value of skewness indexes are 0 when the size of subtrees are ideally equal, and a smaller $\mathcal{M}1$, $\mathcal{M}2$, $\mathcal{M}3$ and $\mathcal{M}4$ values indicate better balancing performance. For example, in Fig. 1, DODAG includes 1 RPL sink and 10 source nodes. Nodes $\{a,b,c\}$ are level 1, nodes $\{d,e,f,g\}$ are level 2 and nodes $\{h,i\}$ are level 3. For level 1 at time $t$, $ST^{max} =ST_{(a)} = 3$, $ST_{min} = ST_{(b)} = ST_{(c)}= 2$, $ST^{avr} = 2.34$, so $\mathcal{M}1=0.43$ , $\mathcal{M}2=0.86$, $\mathcal{M}3=1.5$ and $\mathcal{M}4=0.5$. The skewness value of higher is computed similarly. In this paper, we compute the skewness values of three levels $\{1,2,3\}$ and aim to minimize the value of skewness indexes. In this paper, we aim to minimize the four skewness indexes subject to number of nodes in each DODAG subtree. In our experiments, we also use two specify metrics namely Packet Delivery Ratio and Latency to evaluate the performance of SB-RPL.
**Experimental Parameters** **Values**
------------------------------ ------------------------------
Environment Indoor
Network Scale 99 nodes and 1 sink (center)
Node spacement uniform random
Deployed nodes 100 random nodes
Platform ContikiOS/M3 Cortex ARM
Duration 60 min per instance
Application Traffic UDP/IPv6 traffic
Payload size 16 bytes
Number of hops Multihop
Embedded network stack ContikiMAC
Number of Retransmissions 10 Retransmissions
Compared Objective Functions RPL (OF0, MRHOF), SB-RPL
**Hardware Parameters** **Values**
Antenna Model Omni-directional
MAC 802.15.4 beacon enabled
Radio Chip TI CC2420
Radio propagation 2.4 GHz
Transmission Power -17 dBm
RX RSSI threshold -69 dBm
: FIT-IoT-Lab Experimental Setup[]{data-label="table2"}
### Packet Delivery Ratio
(PDR) is the ratio of the number of packets that are successfully delivered to a destination over the number of packets that are sent by the transmitter in an end-to-end communication. PDR represents the reliability of the routing protocol. In most cases, PDR is the important evaluation metric of a network. $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Average PDR} = \frac{\text{Total Packets Received}}{\text{Total Packets Sent}}* 100
\end{aligned}$$
### Average Latency
represents the end-to-end latency on the application. Latency is the time elapsed from the application on the source node handling the packet to the MAC layer until the packet arrives at the sink’s collection application. Minimizing latency is one of the main targets of routing protocol design. $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Average Latency} = \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{m}(\text{RecvTime(k)-SentTime(k)}} {\text{Total Packet Received}}
\end{aligned}$$ where *m* is the total number of packet received successfully. In the simulations, we use the timing information provided by Cooja Simulator.
Testbed Experiments
-------------------
The extensive experiments were conducted to compare practical performance of the proposed scheme to existing RPL routing standards based on random 100-node topologies in the FIT IoT-LAB tested.
![**RPL DODAG Routing Topologies**. Snapshots of routing topologies of Objective Functions implemented on FIT-IoT-Lab platform. OF0 and MRHOF show an unbalance among subtrees in DODAG because they use simple routing metrics for parent selection procedure, while SB-RPL not only considers the reliability of data transmission but also the skew and balance of DODAG.[]{data-label="fig:TopoComparison"}](TopoComparison){width="0.95\linewidth"}
### Impact of $\alpha$ and $\beta$
We investigate the impact of the design parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ values on the performance of SB-RPL. Through extensive experiments with different values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in a range from $0.1$ to $2$ (Fig. \[fig:impactpdrdelay\] and Fig. \[fig:abSkew\]), it shows the trade-off between link quality from new devices willing to join DODAG to parent candidates and the balance of the subtrees. First of all, Fig. \[fig:impactpdrdelay\] shows that the PDR first increases with $\beta$, however the PDR also depends on the value of $\alpha$. This is due to the trade-off between the routing direction and congestion control. For a large value of $\beta$, a node would mainly consider link quality ETX to potential preferred parent when selecting the best link quality. This leads to a parent node have to handle many child nodes and the length of paths from the source nodes to the sink might be stressed through many links. Thus, traffic congestion easily occurs. However, a node may select a path that is longer than the shortest path by considering which parent candidate node has the smallest number of children in the routing table, and connect to that parent node to avoid traffic congestion. This shows the trade-off between load balancing and link quality in the routing procedure. The FIT-IoTLab platform allows writing the printouts of each device to a log along with a corresponding timestamp. The timestamp of the time the log is written and totally ordered. Therefore, this introduces some latency regarding when the log is written to file. Fig. \[fig:impactpdrdelay\](b) demonstrates that the end-to-end latency of SB-RPL is impacted by the varying of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, SB-RPL reduces the end-to-end delay with respect to original RPL. Thanks to *Node Influence*, the node not only considers the “good enough” link quality path but also refers to the number of connections to the parent candidate for parent selection procedure. Thus, the nodes have fewer children to manage and packet transmission is easy performed without extra waiting time.
We believe that both parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ do significant impact on the performance of SB-RPL, and they can be optimized empirically by regarding network performance. Fig. \[fig:impactpdrdelay\] demonstrates that SB-RPL achieves highest PDR when $\alpha=1.0$ and $\beta=1.0$. Besides, the latency is significant differentiate among pair values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. In terms of selecting a longer path to avoid traffic congestion, the latency is slightly higher than selecting the shortest path. Therefore, we have exploited these values throughout our practical experiment in actual testbed FIT-IoT Lab as well as simulations and performance evaluation section. Fig. \[fig:abSkew\] compares the skewness indexes of SB-RPL in terms of varying $\alpha$ and $\beta$ from 0.1 to 2. We evaluate the average skewness indexes in three levels of DODAG. First of all, we observe that the skewness indexes increase as the decrease of $\alpha$, however in order to achieve a good performance, the impact of $\beta$ is required. Because when using the large value of $\alpha$, the skewness indexes also decrease, the SB-RPL mainly focus on exploiting the balanced perspective in the routing procedure, the DODAG tree willing to reach balancing. However, when the ratio between $\alpha ST_p(t)$ and $\beta ETX_{n,p}(t)$ grows up remarkably, the nodes willing to join DODAG only might not select the preferred parent with good link quality enough for data transmission.
### Objective Function Comparison
We compare our proposed scheme to standard RPL objective functions in terms of skewness and balancing via the practical FIT-IoT-Lab platform. Fig. \[fig:ofComparison\] demonstrates that the average skewness indexes of SB-RPL outperform to the rest objective functions in three levels. With 100-node topologies, the average $\mathcal{M}1$ of SB-RPL is around 1 in three levels while OF0, MH$\_$ETX, and MH$\_$ETXSQ are around 3, 2, and 2.5 respectively. Similarly, the skewness indexes $\mathcal{M}2$, $\mathcal{M}3$, and $\mathcal{M}4$ of SB-RPL is less than around 3 times in comparison with other methods. This is because both OF0 and MRHOF use simple routing metrics such as hop count or ETX for the path calculation and parent selection, meanwhile SB-RPL considers the skew and balance among subtrees and combines multiple metrics for routing efficiency in RPL DODAG.
---------------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
**Compared Schemes** 60 *pkts/s* 40 *pkts/s* 20 *pkts/s*
RPL-OF0 62.3% 87.1% 91.2%
RPL-MH$\_$ETX 63.5% 88.4% 92.2%
RPL-MH$\_$ETXSQ 65.6% 89.2% 92.4%
SB-RPL 79.6% 94.7% 96.6%
---------------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
: Average PDR of compared Objective Functions (Unit: %)[]{data-label="tab:table1"}
Table III compares the average PDR of routing schemes in three different traffic rates (20 packets per second, 40 packets per second, and 60 packets per second). With SB-RPL, the packet reception rate is enhanced by almost 10% compared to the original RPL. The loss of packets in real test-bed might be due to the interference from the external world. Higher the PDR of the network means that the packets lost in the network are less and the link between the nodes are stable.
### DODAG Routing Topology
Fig. \[fig:TopoComparison\] shows an example of routing topologies of compared objective functions. In this experiment, we selected randomly 100 nodes in Lille side of FIT-IoT-Lab platform with the sink was located at the center.
In cases of standard objective functions OF0, MRHOF, many nodes have selected same one node as their parent and the number of nodes belongs the subtree of this node becomes larger and larger. With OF0, the nodes choose the preferred parent based on the hop-distance to the sink, so the probability of selecting the same preferred parent which has the shortest path to the sink is high. Meanwhile, MRHOF scheme prefers to choose the path with the lowest ETX value, so the length of route from the source node to the sink might be too long. Consequently, the parent node experiences a significant overload and drops a lot of packets transmitted from its child nodes which results significant in reliability degradation.
By contrast, SB-RPL considers the balance among subtrees in the DODAG to achieve balanced traffic load distribution. The new nodes willing to join DODAG obtain the *Subtree Size* information from neighbor nodes and select parent candidate list. From the parent candidate list, nodes compute their own rank by combing multiple factors, in which *Subtree Size* is considered seriously to prevent connecting to a parent node which has too many children. The smart use of SB-RPL results in traffic congestion degradation as well as achieves load balancing of network.
\
\
Cooja-based Simulations
-----------------------
Contiki’s network simulator named Cooja is used to provide detail insights about the performance of the proposed scheme under other network conditions. First, these simulations compare the performance of the proposed scheme for a network following various network sizes with 50, 100, 200, 400 and 800 nodes. Then, we demonstrate that the proposed scheme is outstanding performance under low, medium and dense networks compared to prior approaches.
### Impact of Network Scales
Fig. \[fig:NWSize\] illustrates the impact of network sizes (50,100, 200, 400, and 800 nodes) to skewness indexes of RPL DODAG topology. As is observed from the graph, the skewness indexes including $\mathcal{M}1$, $\mathcal{M}2$, $\mathcal{M}3$, and $\mathcal{M}4$ in three separate levels (1,2,3) of existing routing strategies are higher almost three times our proposed scheme. Overall, the skewness values $\mathcal{M}1$, $\mathcal{M}2$, $\mathcal{M}3$, and $\mathcal{M}4$ of SB-RPL are significantly lower than the existing objective functions such as OF0, MRHOF. As the increase of the number of nodes, the skewness indexes of OF0 and MRHOF also raise remarkably while the ones of SB-RPL go up slightly. From Fig. \[fig:NWSize\](a), Fig. \[fig:NWSize\](b), Fig. \[fig:NWSize\](c) and Fig. \[fig:NWSize\](d), we compare the average values of $\mathcal{M}1$, $\mathcal{M}2$, $\mathcal{M}3$, and $\mathcal{M}4$ at the same Level 1. The skewness indexes $\mathcal{M}1$, $\mathcal{M}2$, $\mathcal{M}3$, and $\mathcal{M}4$ of RPL-OF0, RPL-MH$\_$ETX, RPL-MH$\_$ETXSQ are quite similar and much higher than the ones of SB-RPL. Even when the network size is large as 400-node networks and 800-node networks, the balancing within SB-RPL DODAG is still quite stable. The reason for this is because SB-RPL considers the skewness and balanced metric in parent selection procedure to balance the size among subtrees in RPL.
\
\
\
### Impact of Network Densities
One of the challenges which effects the stable of DODAG is network density. As the number of sensor node increases, each node will have more connections with neighbors. Fig. \[fig:NwDensity\] compares the average skewness indexes under various types of topologies with different densities 4, 8 and 16 which equivalent to low, medium, and dense networks respectively. Overall, the skewness indexes increase exponentially as the increase of density. Fig. \[fig:NwDensity\](a), Fig. \[fig:NwDensity\](b), Fig. \[fig:NwDensity\](c), and Fig. \[fig:NwDensity\](d) compare the averages skewness indexes in level 1 of DODAG. The average value of skewness indexes increases rapidly as the increment of density in low and medium density. Then the skewness indexes increase slightly when the density increases from 8 to 16. At level 1, in dense networks, the skewness indexes show the big gap between SB-RPL and other schemes. At level 2 and level 2, the nodes are distributed widely, the skewness indexes of OF0, MH$\_$ETX, and MH$\_$ETXSQ still rise gradually. Meanwhile, the $\mathcal{M}1$, $\mathcal{M}2$, $\mathcal{M}3$, and $\mathcal{M}4$ of SB-RPL keep stably in various types of networks. When the network becomes denser, all existing routing schemes perform significantly better in terms of end-to-end latency, meanwhile slightly worse in terms of packet loss ratio and overhead. However, SB-RPL significantly outperforms other protocols. First, thanks to $ST_p(t)$ metric which indicates the size of the subtree, the skewness among subtrees in DODAG remains stably and avoids traffic congestion for thoroughly topologies. Second, besides *Subtree Size*, the efficiency of routing procedure relies on considering the link quality from joining node and parent candidate to guarantee quality for data transmission, remaining the stable for RPL. Consequently, the skewness indexes of SB-RPL is always less than 3 times to existing schemes in low, medium, and dense network environments.
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, we discussed the load balancing problem which is the key issue but it has not addressed efficiently when designing objective functions for RPL, given that scalability, energy efficiency and resource constrained are main characteristics of Low-Power and Lossy Networks. In effect, the load imbalance problems of RPL decrease the performance as well as waste network resources.
To remedy these problems, we proposed a light-weight but effective solution, called SB-RPL, that aims to achieve balanced workload distribution among nodes in large-scale low power and lossy networks by exploiting the combination of multiple routing metrics as well as the skewness and balance among subtrees in RPL DODAG in support routing procedure.
We implemented SB-RPL in ContikiOS and conducted an extensive evaluation using computer simulation and on large-scale real-world testbed. We demonstrated that the practicality of SB-RPL and its ability to consistently achieve the great balancing RPL trees and high end-to-end packet delivery performance by alleviating the congestion and providing the ability to support large networks.
As a part of future work, we are studying resource fairness issues among multiple RPL DODAGs and we intend to define a SDN-based[@icoin] mechanism in support RPL routing operation.
[99]{}
Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S. and Palaniswami, M., 2013. Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future generation computer systems, 29(7), pp.1645-1660.
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, “Project of the future: Industry 4.0,” \[Online\]. Available: http://www.bmbf. de/en/19955.php
V. Gungor and G. Hancke, “Industrial wireless sensor networks: Challenges, design principles, and technical approaches,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 4258–4265, Oct. 2009
Evans, Dave. “The internet of things: How the next evolution of the internet is changing everything.” CISCO white paper 1, no. 2011 (2011): 1-11.
$“$IEEE Standard for Information technology$—$Telecommunications and information exchange between systems$—$Local and metropolitan area networks. Specific requirements$—$Part 15.4:Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low$-$Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANs)$,”$ IEEE Standard 802.11-2007, May2003. \[Online\]. Available:http://www.ieee802.org/15/pub/TG4.html
H. C. Foundation. WirelessHART Specification 75: TDMA Data-Link Layer, 2008. HCF SPEC-75.
T. Winter (Ed.), P. Thubert (Ed.), and RPL Author Team. RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks, Mar. 2012. RFC 6550.
G. Montenegro, N. Kushalnagar, J. Hui, and D. Culler, “Transmission of IPv6 packets over IEEE 802.15.4 networks,” RFC 4944, Sep. 2007
Nguyen, Lam Duc, Naeon Kim, Seohyang Kim, and Chong-Kwon Kim. “RT-VNE: A real-time strategy for Virtual Network Embedding towards resource efficiency.” In Information Networking (ICOIN), 2017 International Conference on, pp. 185-190. IEEE, 2017.
Ancillotti, E., Bruno, R. and Conti, M., 2013. The role of the RPL routing protocol for smart grid communications. IEEE Communications Magazine, 51(1), pp.75-83.
Ko, Jeong Gil, Jong Hyun Lim, Yin Chen, Rvăzvan Musvaloiu-E, Andreas Terzis, Gerald M. Masson, Tia Gao, Walt Destler, Leo Selavo, and Richard P. Dutton. “MEDiSN: Medical emergency detection in sensor networks.” ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS) 10, no. 1 (2010): 11.
Nguyen, Duc-Lam, Hyungho Byun, Naeon Kim, and Chong-Kwon Kim. “Toward efficient dynamic virtual network embedding strategy for cloud networks.” International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 14, no. 3 (2018): 1550147718764789.
Chakeres, I.D. and Belding-Royer, E.M., 2004, March. AODV routing protocol implementation design. In Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, 2004. Proceedings. 24th International Conference on (pp. 698-703). IEEE.
Gnawali, O., Fonseca, R., Jamieson, K., Moss, D. and Levis, P., 2009, November. Collection tree protocol. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on embedded networked sensor systems (pp. 1-14). ACM.
Kim, K., Park, S.D., Montenegro, G., Yoo, S. and Kushalnagar, N., 2007. 6LoWPAN ad hoc on-demand distance vector routing (LOAD). Network WG Internet Draft (work in progress), 19.
V. C. Gungor, D. Sahin, T. Kocak, S. Ergut, C. Buccella, C. Cecati, and G. P. Hancke, “Smart Grid technologies: communication technologies and standards,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 529–539, 2011.
J. Martocci, P. Mil, N. Riou, and W. Vermeylen, “Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks,” IETF RFC 5867, 2010.
A. Brandt and J. Buron, “Home Automation Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks,” IETF RFC 5826, 2010.
G. Iyer, P. Agrawal, E. Monnerie, and R. S. Cardozo, “Performance analysis of wireless mesh routing protocols for smart utility networks,” in IEEE SmartGridComm, 2011, pp. 114–119.
Vasseur, J.P., Kim, M., Pister, K., Dejean, N. and Barthel, D., 2012. Routing metrics used for path calculation in low-power and lossy networks (No. RFC 6551).
P. Thubert, “Objective Function Zero for the Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)”, RFC 6552, IETF, March 2012.
O. Gnawali and P. Levis, “The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function,” RFC 6719, Sep. 2012.
A. Dunkels, B. Gronvall, and T. Voigt. Contiki - A Lightweight and Flexible Operating System for Tiny Networked Sensors. In Proceedings of the Conference on Local Computer Networks (IEEE LCN), 2004.
\[Online\]. FIT-IoT-Lab Platform Available: https://www.iot-lab.info
Yiu, J., 2009. The definitive guide to the ARM Cortex-M3. Newnes.
D. Wang, Z. Tao, J. Zhang, and A. Abouzeid, “RPL based routing for advanced metering infrastructure in smart grid,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops, May 2010, pp. 1–6.
T. Clausen, U. Herberg, and M. Philipp, “A critical evaluation of the IPv6 routing protocol for low power and lossy networks (RPL),” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Wireless Mobile Comput. Netw. Commun., Oct. 2011, pp. 365–372.
Tripathi J, de Oliveira JC, Vasseur JP. A performance evaluation study of rpl: Routing protocol for low power and lossy networks. In Information Sciences and Systems (CISS), 2010 44th Annual Conference on 2010 Mar 17 (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Gaddour O, Koubaa A, Chaudhry S, Tezeghdanti M, Chaari R, Abid M. Simulation and performance evaluation of DAG construction with RPL. InCommunications and Networking (ComNet), 2012 Third International Conference on 2012 Mar 29 (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
Pötsch T, Kuladinithi K, Becker M, Trenkamp P, Goerg C. Performance evaluation of CoAP using RPL and LPL in TinyOS. In New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS), 2012 5th International Conference on 2012 May 7 (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
U. Herberg and T. Clausen, “A comparative performance study of the routing protocols load and RPL with bi-directional traffic in low power and lossy networks,” in Proc. 8th ACM Symp. Performance Evaluation Wireless Ad Hoc Sensor Ubiquitous Netw., 2011, pp. 73–80.
J.W. Hui , D. Culler , The dynamic behavior of a data dissemination protocol for network programming at scale, in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, ACM, 2004, pp. 81–94 .
I. Khan , F. Belqasmi , R. Glitho , N. Crespi , M. Morrow , P. Polakos , Wireless sen- sor network virtualization: a survey, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tut. 18 (1) (2016) 553–576 .
D. Todoli-Ferrandis, S. Santonja-Climent, V. Sempere-Payá and J.Silvestre-Blanes, “RPL routing in a real life scenario with an energy efficient objective function,” 2015 23rd Telecommunications Forum Telfor (TELFOR), Belgrade, 2015, pp. 285-288.
Al-Kashoash HA, Hafeez M, Kemp AH. Congestion control for 6LoWPAN networks: A game theoretic framework. IEEE Internet of Things Journal. 2017 Jun;4(3):760-71.
Iova, O., Theoleyre, F. and Noel, T., 2015. Using multi parent routing in RPL to increase the stability and the lifetime of the network. Ad Hoc Networks, 29, pp.45-62.
L.Songhua, W. Muqing, C. Chuanfeng, L. Bo and L. Simu. A high-throughput routing metric for multi-hop Ad hoc networks based on real time testbed. Proceeding of the TENCON, pp.1-4, 2013.
Kim, H.S., Kim, H., Paek, J. and Bahk, S., 2017. Load balancing under heavy traffic in RPL routing protocol for low power and lossy networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 16(4), pp.964-979.ss
P. Gonizzi, R. Monica, and G. Ferrari. Design and evaluation of a delay-efficient RPL routing metric. Proceedings of the 9th International IEEE Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC), pp. 1573-1577, 2013.
X. Liu, J. Guo, G. Bhatti, P. Orlik, and K. Parsons, “Load balanced routing for low power and lossy networks,” in IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), Apr. 2013.
F. Boubekeur, L. Blin, R. Leone, and P. Medagliani, “Bounding Degrees on RPL,” in ACM International Symposium on QoS and Security for Wireless and Mobile Networks, 2015.
M. A. Lodhi, A. Rehman, M. M. Khan, and F. B. Hussain, “Multiple Path RPL for Low Power Lossy Networks,” in IEEE Asia Pacific Conference on Wireless and Mobile, 2015
M. Nassiri, M. Boujari, and S. V. Azhari, “Energy-aware and Load Balanced Parent Selection in RPL Routing for Wireless Sensor Networks,” International Journal of Wireless and Mobile Computing, vol. 9, no. 3, 2015
Duquennoy S, Landsiedel O, Voigt T. Let the tree bloom: Scalable opportunistic routing with orpl. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems 2013 Nov 11 (p. 2). ACM.
M. Michel, S. Duquennoy, B. Quoitin, and T. Voigt, “Load-Balanced Data Collection through Opportunistic Routing,” in IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS), Jun. 2015.
T. B. Oliveira, P. H. Gomes, D. G. Gomes, and B. Krishnamachari, “ALABAMO: A LoAd BAlancing MOdel for RPL,” in Brazilian Symposium on Computer Networks and Distributed Systems (SBRC), Jun. 2016.
\[Online\] Contiki OS Website Available: https://github.com/contiki-os
Woo, A., Tong, T. and Culler, D., 2003, November. Taming the underlying challenges of reliable multi-hop routing in sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems (pp. 14-27). ACM.
Anuj S. Using the Contiki Cooja Simulator. Computer Science. Germany: Jacobs University Bremen; 2013. p. 1-7.
Albers, Susanne. “Better bounds for online scheduling.” SIAM Journal on Computing 29.2 (1999): 459-473.
[^1]: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korean Government (MSIP) (No.2016R1A5A1012966, and No. NRF-2015R1A2A1A01007400) and by Institute for Information & communications Technology Promotion(IITP) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (No.2015-0-00557, Resilient/Fault-Tolerant Autonomic Networking Based on Physicality, Relationship and Service Semantic of IoT Devices). Also, this work was partly supported by the Institute for Industrial Systems Innovation of Seoul National University *(Corresponding author: Duc-Lam Nguyen, Chong-Kwon Kim)*.
[^2]: Duc-Lam Nguyen is with Social Computer & Networks Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea. Email: [email protected].
[^3]: Chong-Kwon Kim is with the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea. Email: [email protected].
[^4]: In terms of simulation, with the large-scale networks, one hour in simulator can equivalent to several hours in real-life.
[^5]: DIO has 16 reserved bits, we use 8 bits to deliver *Routing Subtree* size information, representing the number of child nodes
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
**Modelling linguistic taxonomic dynamics**
S[ø]{}ren Wichmann$^{1,2}$, Dietrich Stauffer$^3$, F. Welington S. Lima$^4$, and Christian Schulze$^3$
$^1$ Department of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
$^2$ Languages and Cultures of Indian America (TCIA), P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
$^3$ Institute for Theoretical Physics, Cologne University, D-50923 Köln, Euroland
$^4$ Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal do Piauí, 57072-970 Teresina - PI, Brazil
Abstract
[This paper presents the results of the application of a bit-string model of languages (Schulze and Stauffer 2005) to problems of taxonomic patterns. The questions addressed include the following: (1) Which parameters are minimally needed for the development of a taxonomic dynamics leading to the type of distribution of language family sizes currently attested (as measured in the number of languages per family), which appears to be a power-law? (2) How may such a model be coupled with one of the dynamics of speaker populations leading to the type of language size seen today, which appears to follow a log-normal distribution?]{}
Introduction
============
With few exceptions, such as Nettle (1999a,b), linguists have been little concerned with quantitative modeling and simulation, possibly due to the myriad of qualitative phenomena that scholars must analyze. An immense amount of structural differences exist not only from one language to the next, but also among different kinds of sociolinguistic situations. More recently, however, scholars belonging to the entirely different discipline of physics have taken an interest in simulating the aspect of historical sociolinguistics which concerns the competition among languages and have looked at how such competition may lead to various patterns of growth or extermination (see Schulze and Stauffer 2006 for a review). This interest among physicists for modeling language competition was triggered by Abrams and Strogatz (2003), who use differential equations to describe the vanishing of one language due to the dominance of another. Since then, a series of articles have appeared. For instance, Patriarca and Leppänen (2004) applied the Abrams-Strogatz model to a geographical situation where two languages, X and Y, may dominate in each their region, resulting in the survival of both, rather as in the original model where only one language will survive. Oliveira et al. (2006a,b) have looked at models in which speakers of small languages will tend to switch to geographically more widespread ones, to account for the fact that real geographical areas tend not to show equally-sized languages. Along the lines of the broader cultural model of Axelrod (1997), Teşileanu and Meyer-Ortmanns (2006) looked at the consequences of the possibility that a greater similarity among languages might further language shift. We build on some of this work, but so far the present paper is to our knowledge the first in this recent tradition to address the issue of taxonomic dynamics.
Why simulate
============
Human languages have existed for at least about $10^4$ years, possible much longer. Only a few percent of this development is to some extent documented through writing, while another few percent may be inferred by comparative linguistic methods. Thus, we have no clues to aspects of the development of languages for 80% or more of their history other than what we might infer from abstract extrapolation or from simulations. Like the distant past, the future is also empirically impenetrable. Two aspects of simulations are important. First, we may hope to identify a minimal number of parameters that account for the present state of affairs seen as a result of a long development. Secondly, we may adjust these parameters to test the predictions that different models provide. It should be stressed that simulations are not necessarily suited to prove any particular model or to make predictions about what is in store for the languages of today; they can only represent tests of different models. Nor can the parameters identified be translated into direct explanatory factors for actual distributions. For instance, a simulation of language competition might restrict its parameters to, say, the relative size of languages and it might stipulate some simple mode of interaction, such as the tendency for speakers of smaller languages to shift to contiguous larger ones. Such a model might lead to a plausible picture of language distributions, perhaps even one resembling the current state of affairs. But this does not mean that this distribution is explained by language sizes and competition alone. The growth of a given language relates to socioeconomic, historical, geographical, ecological and many other circumstances. Since a primary aim of simulation is to reduce the set of parameters, it cannot and should not, however, take into account all relevant factors, but must remain an abstraction.
The aim of the investigation
============================
Wichmann (2005) made some simple observations about the present-day quantitative distribution of language family sizes, as measured in numbers of languages per family, and about the distribution of language sizes, as measured in numbers of speakers per language (data drawn from *Ethnologue*). It was found that language family sizes approximate a so-called ‘power-law’, that is, a distribution described by the equation $y = ax^b$, which corresponds to a straight line on a log-log plot. Such distributions are frequent in both nature and the social world (cf. Newman 2005 for an excellent overview). The slope of the curve on the rank-by-size plot is described by the exponent $b$, which was found to be $-1.905$. (For a histogram of the number $n(S)$ of languages versus their size S this corresponds to another power-law with exponent $-1-1/1.905$, and if this histogram sums the raw numbers into bins whose size is proportional to the language size, then the exponent is $-1/1.905$.)
When testing for the distribution of language sizes, however, no power-law emerged. The absence of a power-law distribution also comes out of studies by Novotny and Drozd (2000) and Sutherland (2003). (Gomes et al. 1999: 493) had earlier plotted the same data on a graph showing the cumulative size distribution, $n( > S)$, corresponding to the number of languages with a size greater than S. Cutting the curve up into different regions and describing each by a separate equation they then made the problematical claim of the existence of a “composite power-law”). The present paper takes up the challenge of Wichmann (2005: 139) to test, using computer simulations, what the expected past and future distributions of language family sizes and language sizes might look like. The question was raised whether the present distribution of language sizes might be characteristic of a stage of disequilibrium while the expected equilibrium might correspond to a power-law. Stauffer et al. (2006) supported the hypothesis of a disequilibrium. In the present paper we also report on language families.
The bit-string model
====================
The model used is one eminently suited to computation. It is a variant of that of Schulze and Stauffer (2005), which operates with bit-strings of length L, where each bit has two values and where the total set of possible dialects has $2^L$ members. (A precursor to this kind of modelling is Wang and Minett 2005, which used strings of integers to simulate branching by the mutation and transfer of numbers.)
Each bit may be interpreted as the presence or absence of some characteristic grammatical feature. Under this interpretation we might imagine that a number of diagnostic features were identified, the presence or absence of each of which would be sufficient to distinguish among the grammars of the world’s languages. This number corresponds to the length of the bit-string.
An alternative model of language competition, also allowing for thousands of different languages, is that of de Oliveira et al (2006a,b). There, however, languages are characterized merely by consecutive numbers 1, 2, 3, ..., which is not suitable for simulating different taxonomic levels. In this model, language families would have to be determined by the history of language dynamics and their genealogical tree (Schulze and Stauffer 2006), and testing this approach is outside the scope of the present work. The other recent models of language competition to our knowledge allow only a relatively small number of languages and are, for this reason, also less suitable for taxonomy.
We test two different variants of the model. In one, which we might call the “hierarchical” variant, the bit-string is divided into subsections corresponding to different taxonomic levels. Two languages are defined as belonging to the same family if their “family” parts of the bit-strings agree. In the other, “flat” variant, there is no such partitioning of the string. Instead, taxonomic levels are achieved by defined a certain threshold $k$ of differences among languages. Differences are measured by comparing two strings and noting the number of positions for which the two strings differ. If the difference is greater than $k$, the two languages are said to belong to different taxa. In both versions of the model we only operate with two taxonomic levels, but both could be extended to include more levels. In the following, each variant is described in more detail.
The hierarchical variant
------------------------
This model achieves two taxonomic levels by partitioning the bit-string. The two levels may be conceptualized as corresponding to language families and languages within one family, respectively, but need not be translated exactly into these concepts (which are themselves not very well defined). The languages of individuals may be classified by comparing the bit-strings representing each individual. In the following we illustrate how the model works if we use a bit-string of length 64. People speaking the same language have to agree in all bits. In our implementation we have chosen to stipulate that people speaking languages belonging to the same family have to agree in the leftmost 19 bits. For example,
01101010011110101010-11101010010101101010010111010101010011100001
01101010011110101010-11101010010101101010010111010101010011101001
are two different (even if potentially closely related) languages, while
00101001101010100011-10100101011011010101110101010110101010100111
00101001101010100011-01011010001011000110010101110000110101001100
are two different languages belonging to the same family and
10100110100101011010-10010110101010101111010101101001110001010001
01011011010101101010-10100011110101011010101000110101010011101101
are two different languages belong to two different families. In these examples the dash “-” just indicates the boundary between the two segments of the string, analogously to the convention for phone numbers, which are structured much like our bit-string model.
The choice of lengths of the whole string and its parts is of course arbitrary, and need not be 19 + 45 = 64. Nevertheless, various considerations led to single out certain lengths as more suitable than other. First, the model is computationally most effective for bit-string lengths which are powers of 2. Second, a shorter string is to be preferred to a longer one, all else being equal—again for computational reasons. Third, the string should not be so short that the sheer length imposes artificial constraints on the results. In earlier simulations the effect of different lengths ($L = 8$, 16, 32, and 64) were tested. Since it was found that the results were qualitatively similar for $L = 16$, 32, and 64, all values of $L$ higher than or equal to 16 would be equally suitable. Adding the criterion of minimal computation cost would single out $L = 16$ as preferable. However, we found that for this length a maximum number of languages was reached before a meaningfully interpretable distribution was found. (Unlike the 32 and 64 bit-string models and the real-life present-day distribution, see section 5 below, this did not lead to a power-law distribution, since power-laws require the absence of upper bounds. At a point where either all possible languages or all possible families are filled, the power-law distribution breaks down.) Instead, we have chosen a string with the larger length of 32 bits, of which the leading 10 bits define families and the remaining 22 define languages, yielding $2^{10} = 1024$ possible ‘families’ and $2^{22} = 4,194,304$ posssible ‘languages’). Using an ample $L$ also ensures that accidental ‘back mutation’, i.e. the phenomenon whereby, by chance, an identical bit-string occurs after some mutations–something which would not happen in real life–will occur so exceedingly rarely that its effects are completely negligible. (Even for $L = 8$ this situation occurs rarely, cf. Schulze and Stauffer 2006). Simulations using 64 bits, of which 19 bits are reserved for families and the remaining 45 bits for languages were also made (allowing for $2^19 = 524,288$ possible ‘families’ and $2^45 = 35,184,372,088,832$ possible ‘languages’). The results were qualitatively similar.
Differentiation is simulated by setting the probability of the change in a bit to 0.0001 per iteration. An iteration is equivalent to a certain, average time step. After some time steps, a bit in either the family sub-string or the language bit-string will change, meaning the creation of a new entity at one of these levels. Given that there are fewer bits in the family bit-string, there is a smaller probability of a change in this part of the string per iteration, and there will therefore be a slower dynamics of families than of languages. In practice, with probability $0.0001 L$ at each iteration, one of the $L$ bits is selected randomly and then reverted, i.e. changed from 0 to 1 or from 1 to 0. In this process, analogously to biological mutations, all bit positions are equivalent and neither 0 nor 1 is in any way preferred.
We neglect here for simplicity the diffusion of features from one language to the other used in other simulations involving this model. We assume a shift from small to large populations stipulating that at each iteration with probability $(1-x)^2$ or $(1-x^2)$ each individual gives up his/her old language and instead selects the language of one randomly selected individual of the whole population. Individuals get one child per iteration, and everybody dies with a Verhulst probability proportional to the current population size, something which takes into account factors such as limited food and space. We usually start with a population corresponding roughly to the equilibrium size determined by these Verhulst deaths, where everybody starts with a randomly selected language. After some time, one language may dominate and be spoken by more than 80 percent of the population. Stauffer et al. (2006a) list a complete Fortran program. The histograms of the number of languages spoken by a given number of people are smoothened by random multiplicative noise as in Stauffer et al. (2006b), which may correspond to external perturbations caused by migrations of individuals, intermarriage, changing political circumstances, and other non-systematic factors.
The flat variant
----------------
This model is in all but one major respect similar to the hierarchical model. The difference is that taxonomic levels are achieved not by partitioning the string, but by stipulating that two languages which differ in more than one bit belong to different families. The size of each language family (i.e., the numbers of languages in each) is then measured by the number of languages that differ by just one bit from one reference language. We sum over all reference languages, and also over many samples, to get out final statistics. The definition allows one language to belong to different families, just as one person can belong to different friendship groups. Instead, one would get a clear separation into different families without such overlaps if we demand all languages within one family to be separated directly or indirectly by not more than one bit flip. But since we can move from each bit-string of 64 bits to every other possible bit-string through at most 64 such changes of single bits, this definition would mean that all possible languages form one huge family, which is not what we want. (Analogously, on a square lattice we can define a neighbourhood as the set of four nearest neighbours of a given site; then every lattice site belongs to several neighbourhoods. Alternatively, a cluster can be defined as the set of all sites connected directly or indirectly with a given site; then the whole lattice forms one large cluster. Neither definition leads to what we would like to have, which is non-overlapping clusters, corresponding to non-overlapping language families. A further disadvantage of the model is that its equilibrium is either dominance of one language spoken by most people, or fragmentation into numerous languages of about equal size; thus for dominance there is not much to analyze and for fragmentation nearly all languages could form one cluster, meaning that these more sophisticated definitions might not work better in equilibrium.)
Results
=======
Results for the application of the hierarchical model
-----------------------------------------------------
The major results are shown in figs. 1-2 and 4-5. The interest of these are the shapes of the various curves, not the absolute numbers corresponding to each point. The mismatch between large numbers of families and small sizes of languages as compared to the real-world situation is due to the summation over iterations and could be normalized, but this would only serve presentational purposes.
In fig. 1 it is shown how size histograms of families strongly depend on the temporal factor. At the initial stage of the simulation ($t = 1$) we see something close to a normal distribution (the rightmost curve in the diagram). At $t = 10$ the distribution forms a parabola (curve connecting x’s). This distribution is close to what the present-day *language* size distribution looks like (see fig. 6). At $t = 60$ (stars) a curve resembling the present-day distribution of *language family* sizes (fig. 3) is obtained, but it has a large hump on the right region of the curve. The real-life distribution also has a hump, but it is much smaller. At 300 iterations (squares) there is a discontinuous distribution with a number of small families and a leap up to a number of larger ones, which form a narrow normal distribution. Fig. 2a focuses on the range $20 \le t \le 150$, where the distribution most closely resembles the present-day one, and varies the population size $N$ to see the dependency on the graph on that variable. It appears that there is not much influence of $N$, provided $t$ is increased with increasing $N$. Moreover, fig. 2a suggests that the closest approximation to the present-day distribution is found around $10^2$ iterations. Statistically solid results for a long run of the 64-bit model in fig. 2b provide similar results.
We now turn to the results for language sizes. Fig. 4 shows the sizes for the same number of iterations as in fig. 1. Since the simulations start with fragmentation, $t = 1$ represents a situation with many languages spoken by single speakers (single +). At $t = 10$ (x symbols) a curve roughly like a parabola and already strongly reminiscent of the present-day situation (fig. 6) has begun to form. At $t = 60$ (stars) this distribution is beginning to disrupt, as evidenced by the right tail. This situation further develops into one with many large languages and many small ones, with a large gap for language sizes in between, as shown by the curve for $t = 300$ (squares). Again we narrow in on the range, $20 \le t \le 60$, where the best approximation of the present situation (fig. 6) is found and vary the population size (fig. 5). For $t = 40$ and $N = 50,000$ the distribution closely approximates the present-day one.
By comparing the curves for $t = 40$ in figs. 2a and 5 an interesting observation is obtained: at identical time steps the curve for language family sizes may approximate a power-law while the curve for language sizes does not, but rather something close to a parabola, as in real life. Wichmann (2005: 128) hypothesized that both curves should approximate a power-law, but the simulations rather suggest that this is only the case for language family sizes, at least given the model and the setting of parameters assumed here.
The overall result, then, suggests that neither the present-day distribution of language family sizes nor that of language sizes are unexpected and that both may have been obtained for a long time and may continue to be obtained. Eventually a dominance of just one large language accompanied by other slightly different languages is possible, but this situation has not yet set in.
Results for the application of the flat model
---------------------------------------------
For investigating the distance among languages the ‘flat’ model is most useful because the distance among two languages belonging to two different families in the hierarchical model cannot easily be measured. (The hierarchical bit-strings representing languages in any two languages belong to two different families are not comparable since the positions no longer mean the same when one moves up one taxonomic level.) Thus we measured differences in simulations implementing the non-hierarchical model, i.e. the standard model of Schulze and Stauffer (2005, 2006) where all bits are equivalent. As in most of our previous studies, only short bit-strings of 8 or 16 bits were used, and the random multiplicative noise was omitted; for these studies we waited until a stationary state after about $10^3$ iterations was established.
The distance measure used is the so-called ‘Hamming distances’, also investigated by Teşileanu and Meyer-Ortmanns (2006). The Hamming distance between two bit-strings is the number of bits which are different in a position-by-position comparison of the two strings. For example, the Hamming distance between 01001101 and 11000011 is four.
As explained above, we define a language family in this model as a set of languages differing from a given reference language by not more then $k$ bits, in this case setting $k$ to one bit. The results of the simulations of bit-strings of lengths 8 and 16 are shown in fig. 7; as in fig. 2 above, the simulations represent states of non-equilibrium, i.e., they were stopped at some intermediate time and not let run until the distribution no longer changed apart from random fluctuations. These results are not very different from those shown in fig. 2 for the 64 bits string in the hierarchical model.
More on Hamming distances
-------------------------
The above results were obtained by stopping the simulations at a suitable time such that the results are closest to reality. In this section we report on the equilibrium properties for longer times where the distributions no longer change appreciably and where we will have either dominance of one language or fragmentation of the whole population into many different languages.
Fig. 8 nicely shows the phase transition between dominance at low and fragmentation at high mutation rate $p$ per bit-string when we vary the mutation rate instead of fixing it to only 0.0001 mutations per bit and per iteration. For dominance, nearly everybody speaks one language, and most of the others speak a language differing in only one bit from this dominating language. Fragmentation happens for larger mutation rates; then all possible languages are represented about equally. We see in fig. 8 that dominance is characterized by a small average Hamming distance while for fragmentation the average Hamming distance is about 1/2 (here it is normalized by the length of the bit-string such that two random bit-strings have on average a distance 1/2.) This effect is already seen if one looks only at the two largest languages in the population, as done by Teşileanu and Meyer-Ortmanns (2006).
For fragmentation, the distribution of Hamming distances between two pairs of speakers is roughly Gaussian (normal), shown by a parabola in the semi-logarithmic plot (stars in fig. 8). In the case of dominance, as observed for two lower mutation rates $p$ in fig. 9, the most probable Hamming distance is zero, and for higher distances the probability to observe them decays very rapidly.
In these simulations we started with one language only and used the probability $1-x^2$ for the shift from small to large languages. We got qualitatively similar results when we started from a population fragmented into many languages, except that then the probability of a shift was set to $(1-x)^2$, to allow for a possible transition from fragmentation to dominance.
Conclusion
==========
The primary aim of our simulations was to capture, within one and the same model, how two different empirically observed distributions might arise, i.e. a roughly log-normal distribution of language sizes and an approximate power-law for the family sizes. With reasonable lengths of bit-strings, populations and observation times we could, indeed, find the two different behaviours in the same simulation. This suggests, contrary to the hypothesis of Wichmann (2005), that the present-day distribution of language family sizes in combination with that of language sizes may not be unexpected.
In terms of simulation techniques the major contribution of the present paper has been the introduction of new models into the area of linguistic taxonomic dynamics, an area which, to our knowledge, has not previously been investigated by means of computer simulations. The best results were obtained in implementations of the hierarchical bitstring, a model which also has the advantage of being versatile and easy to implement.
The investigations, however, also revealed some problems with the model. If for a fixed length of the bit-strings the population size N goes to infinity, then in the parameter region of fragmentation all possible languages will be spoken, and all possible families will exist, making taxonomy a mathematical triviality without connection to reality. Thus simulations of large but finite populations, as presented here, may be better than mathematically exact solutions for infinite populations. Moreover, we did find an effective power-law for the family size distribution, but that distribution decayed much faster with increasing number of languages than the real distribution, shown fig. 3. Thus future research should aim at also applying and testing other models, such as that of de Oliveira et al. (2006a,b), to problems of linguistic taxonomic dynamic.
[**References**]{}
Abrams, Daniel and Steven H. Strogatz. 2003. Modelling the dynamics of language death. *Nature* 424: 900.
Axelrod, Robert. 1997. The dissimination of culture: a model with local convergence and global polarization. *The Journal of Conflict Resolution* 41: 203-226.
*Ethnologue: Languages of the World* (14th edn. edited by Grimes, Barbara F. 2000, 15th edition edited by Raymond, G. Gordon 2005). Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Gomes, Marcelo A. F., G. L. Vasconcelos, I. J. Tsang, and Ing Ren Tsang. 1999. Scaling relations for diversity of languages. *Physica A* 271: 489-495.
Nettle, Daniel. 1999a. Linguistic diversity of the Americas can be reconciled with a recent colonization. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A.* 96: 3325-3329.
Nettle, Daniel. 1999b. Using social impact theory to simulate language change. *Lingua* 108: 95-117.
Newman, Mark E. J. 2005. Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. *Contemporary Physics* 46: 323-351.
Novotny, Vojtech and Pavel Drozd. 2000. The size distribution of conspecific populations. *Proceedings of the Royal Society of London* B267: 947-952.
Oliveira, Viviane M. de, Marcelo A. F. Gomes, and Ing Ren Tsang. 2006a. Theoretical model for the evolution of the linguistic diversity. *Physica A* 361: 361-370.
Oliveira, Viviane M. de, Paulo R. A. Campos, Marcelo A. F. Gomes, and Ing Ren Tsang. 2006b. Bounded fitness landscapes and the evolution of the linguistic diversity, e-print physics 0510249 for *Physica A*.
Patriarca, Marco and Teemu Leppänen. 2004. Modeling language competition. *Physica A* 338: 296-299.
Schulze, Christian and Dietrich Stauffer. 2005. Monte Carlo simulation of the rise and fall of languages. *International Journal of Modern Physics C* 16: 781-787.
Schulze, Christian and Dietrich Stauffer. 2006. Computer simulation of language competition by physicists. In: Chakrabarti, B. K., A. Chakraborti and A. Chatterjee (eds.), *Econophysics and Sociophysics: Trends and Perspectives*. Weinheim: WILEY-VCH Verlag; and: Recent developments in computer simulations of language competition, Computing in Science and Engineering 8 (May/June) 86-93.
Stauffer, Dietrich, Suzana Moss de Oliveira, Paulo Murilo C. de Oliveira, Jorge S. Sá Martins. 2006a. *Biology, Sociology, Geology by Computational Physicists*. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Stauffer, Dietrich, Christian Schulze, F. Welington S. Lima, Søren Wichmann, and Sorin Solomon. 2006b. Non-equilibrium and irreversible simulation of competition among languages. *Physica A*. (In press).
Sutherland, William J. 2003. Parallel extinction risk and global distribution of languages and species. *Nature* 423: 276-279.
Tesşileanu, Tiberiu and Hildegard Meyer-Ortmanns. 2006. Competition and languages and their Hamming distance. arXiv:physics/0508229, *International Journal of Modern Physics C* 17: 259-278.
Wang, William S. Y. and James W. Minett. 2005. The invasion of language: emergence, change and death. *Trends in Ecology and Evolution* 20.5: 263-296.
Wichmann, S[ø]{}ren. 2005. On the power-law distribution of language family sizes. *Journal of Linguistics* 41: 117-131.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Jeremy C. Adcock'
- 'Sam Morley-Short'
- 'Joshua W. Silverstone[^1]'
- 'Mark G. Thompson'
bibliography:
- 'hardlimits.bib'
date: June 2018
title: Hard limits on the postselectability of optical graph states
---
**Coherent control of large entangled graph states enables a wide variety of quantum information processing tasks, including error-corrected quantum computation. The linear optical approach offers excellent control and coherence, but today most photon sources and entangling gates—required for the construction of large graph states—are probabilistic and rely on postselection. In this work, we provide proofs and heuristics to aid experimental design using postselection. We analyse experiments that use photons from postselected photon-pair sources, and lower bound the number of accessible classes of graph state entanglement in the non-degenerate case—graph state entanglement classes that contain a tree are are always accessible. The proportion of graph states accessible by postselection shrinks rapidly, however. We list accessible classes for various resource states up to 9 qubits. Finally, we apply these methods to near-term multi-photon experiments.**
Introduction
============
has been a testbed for fundamental quantum phenomena since its inception [@freedman1972experimental; @sychev2017enlargement; @peruzzo2012quantum; @kwiat1995experimental; @aspect1982experimental; @bouwmeester1999observation] and although it has been shown that large-scale linear-optical quantum computing is possible in principle, it requires mid-computation measurement and feed-forward [@knill2001scheme; @gimeno2015three; @morley2017physical; @pant2017percolation]. Modern schemes rely on the generation of large entangled states, on which measurement-based quantum computation is performed [@raussendorf2001one]. Integrated quantum photonics [@silverstone2016silicon; @crespi2016suppression; @wang2018multidimensional] is one exciting route to large-scale applications, but it requires the on-chip generation of many-qubit quantum states.
Photons are notoriously difficult to both produce and interact on-demand. This has led to slow improvements in photon number [@bouwmeester1999observation; @pan2001experimental; @walther2005experimental; @lu2007experimental; @yao2012observation; @wang2016experimental]. Today, the most common way to produce quantum states of light is via what we will refer to as entangled postselected pair (EPP) sources, such those based on parametric down-conversion or spontaneous four-wave mixing. These processes can produce pair-wise entanglement and have been ubiquitous in photonic quantum information experiments over the last thirty years [@shalm2015strong; @giustina2015significant; @hong1987measurement; @aspect1982experimental].
Large entangled states remain a challenge, however. Two common ways to generate entanglement in linear optics are: the postselected controlled-$Z$ () gate [@hofmann2002quantum; @ralph2002linear]; and the postselected fusion gate [@browne2005resource]. So far, up to ten photons have been entangled in this way [@wang2016experimental], though ambitious large-scale proposals exist [@bodiya2006scalable; @lin2011weaving]. References [@krenn2017quantum] and [@gu2018quantum] use graph theory to determine which high-dimensional Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) state is produced by any configuration of EPP sources.
Probabilistic gates are provably the only way to generate entanglement using linear optics [@knill2001scheme], and are a central component of modern linear-optical quantum computing schemes [@gimeno2015three; @morley2017physical; @li2015resource; @pant2017percolation]. Currently, postselected entangling gates (PEGs) are the only way to test linear optical devices and techniques in the multi-photon regime. The complexity of generating graph-states using linear optics has not yet been analysed [@mhalla2004complexity; @cabello2011optimal].
Here, we analyse connected graph states of “dual-rail” photonic qubits and show that postselected gates, as well as having exponential time complexity, are fundamentally limited in which types of entanglement they can produce. This limitation, combined with the result of ref. [@knill2001scheme], signals the end of passive linear optics as the universal testbed for quantum phenomena—
Graph states from linear optics {#sec:gsfromlo}
===============================
We first introduce graph states and the special graph operation, local complementation.
Graph states are $n$-qubit stabiliser states which have a direct correspondence to undirected $n$-vertex (order $n$) graphs. A graph state, ${\ensuremath{|G\mkern-1mu\rangle}}$, corresponding to the graph $G=(V,E)$ with vertices $V$, and edges $E$, is written: $${\ensuremath{|G\mkern-1mu\rangle}} = \prod_{(i,j) \in E} \cz_{ij} {\ensuremath{|\text{+}\mkern-1mu\rangle}}^{\otimes |V|}$$ Where ${\ensuremath{|+\mkern-1mu\rangle}} = ({\ensuremath{|0\mkern-1mu\rangle}} + {\ensuremath{|1\mkern-1mu\rangle}})/\sqrt{2}$ and $ \cz = {\ensuremath{|00\rangle\mkern-3mu\langle 00|}} + {\ensuremath{|01\rangle\mkern-3mu\langle 01|}} + {\ensuremath{|10\rangle\mkern-3mu\langle 10|}} - {\ensuremath{|11\rangle\mkern-3mu\langle 11|}} $. Graph states are thus real, equal-weight states.
All stabiliser states can be transformed into some graph state using local operations [@anders2006fast]. It is well known, for example, that star-type graph states are locally equivalent to GHZ states. Most states, though, are not locally equivalent to a graph.
{width="100.00000%"}
Local complementation
---------------------
Local complementation provides a link between changes in the graph picture and local operations on the corresponding graph *state*. Graphs which can be transformed into one another by successive applications of local complementation (LC) are locally equivalent—i.e. separated by single-qubit operations only [@hein2004multiparty; @van2004graphical]. On a graph, $\text{LC}_{\alpha}$ acts to complement the neighbourhood of some vertex $\alpha$ (see figure \[graphdef\]a). Specifically, successive application of the following local unitary, which implements $\text{LC}_{\alpha}$ on a graph $G$, can produce the entire set of states that are local unitary (LU) equivalent: $$\text{LC}_{\alpha} = \sqrt{-iX_{\alpha}} \bigotimes_{i \in {N_G(\alpha)}} \sqrt{i Z_{i}}$$ where $\sqrt{-i X} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{psmallmatrix}1 & -i\\ -i & 1\end{psmallmatrix} $ and $\sqrt{i Z} = e^{\frac{i\pi}{4}}\begin{psmallmatrix}1 & 0\\ 0 & i\end{psmallmatrix} $. In optics, this local operation is implemented experimentally with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer between the two rails of qubit $\alpha$ (the neighbourhood of $\alpha$, $N_G(\alpha)$, must be known). We use $\text{LC}_{\alpha}({\ensuremath{|G\mkern-1mu\rangle}})$, describing a unitary operation on quantum state ${\ensuremath{|G\mkern-1mu\rangle}}$, and $\text{LC}_{\alpha}G$, the graph operation on graph $G$, interchangeably: ${\ensuremath{|\text{LC}_{\alpha} (G)\mkern-1mu\rangle}} = \text{LC}_{\alpha} {\ensuremath{|G\mkern-1mu\rangle}}$ .
In graph-theoretic terms, local complementation realises, $\text{LC}_{\alpha} (G(V,E)):\rightarrow G(V,E')$, $E' = E \cup K_{N_G(\alpha)} - E \cap K_{N_G(\alpha)} $, for some graph $G(V,E)$, where $K_{N_G(\alpha)}$ is the set of edges of the complete graph on the vertex set $N_G(\alpha)$. The subgraph $G[N_G(\alpha)]$, induced by the vertex set $N_G(\alpha)$, is complemented (has its edges toggled), leaving the rest of $G$ unchanged.
A repeated application of local complementation allows us to fully explore any class of locally equivalent graph states, given any member of that class [@hein2004multiparty; @van2004graphical]. For a full treatment of single qubit operations on graph states, see refs. and .
{width="55.00000%"}
Postselected entangling gates
-----------------------------
A gate configuration is postselectable if and only if all possible gate failure combinations can be detected, and ignored—when the postselected success signal is observed, all gates have performed as desired.
We distinguish two types of entangling gate in used linear optics—postselected gates (PEG) and heralded gates—both of which are probabilistic. Postselected gates have no auxiliary photons, and consume no photons on success. Heralded gates, on the other hand, either consume auxiliary photons as a resource (such as in the Knill-Laflamme-Milburn scheme [@knill2001scheme]), or consume one or more of the input-state photons (such as the cannonical fusion gate [@browne2005resource]). In both cases, the measurement outcome “heralds” the result of the gate.
Using measurement and feed-forward, heralded gates remove any non-qubit components of the state, whereas PEGs produce a state which contains terms outside of the qubit subspace. These terms are ultimately filtered out by the measurement configuration, or in post-processing. Note that heralded gates with feedforward are sufficient for universal quantum computation [@knill2001scheme], whilst postselected gates are not. Reference discusses which photon-number state transformations are possible without postselection. Here, we only consider postselected gates.
PEGs are interferometers which couple modes between qubit mode pairs, implementing the desired operation on the qubit subspace, $\mathcal{Q}$. Components of the state in the “junk” non-qubit subspace, $\mathcal{J}$, are discarded. Here, $\mathcal{J} = \mathcal{F} - \mathcal{Q}$, where $\mathcal{F}$ is the space of all Fock states with $n$ or fewer photons, and $\mathcal{Q}$ is the qubit subspace, defined below. The output state of a PEG has components in both $\mathcal{Q}$ and in $\mathcal{J}$.
In the dual-rail encoding, a pair of optical Fock modes $f$ constitute each logical qubit $i$: ${\ensuremath{|0\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_i \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{|01\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f$, ${\ensuremath{|1\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_i \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{|10\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f$. Then $\mathcal{Q}_i = \text{span}(\{{\ensuremath{|0\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_i,{\ensuremath{|1\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_i\})$ and $\mathcal{Q}= \bigotimes_i \mathcal{Q}_i$. To postselect, we project on to $\mathcal{Q}$ with projector $P_\mathcal{Q}$.
We consider the postselected (success probability $1/9$) [@hofmann2002quantum; @ralph2002linear], which we denote , and a postselected version of the fusion gate, $F$ (success probability $1/2$) [@bodiya2006scalable; @browne2005resource]. These gates can both be implemented by the reconfigurable postselected entangling gate (), shown in Figure \[graphdef\]b. The consists of three Mach-Zehnder interferometers (MZIs) over six modes.
Interferometers implement linear mode (Bogoliubov) transformations, which map Fock states to other Fock states unitarily. We can use postselection (via $P_\mathcal{Q}$) to understand the effect of and $F$ on qubit states. To understand their effect on qubit basis inputs (in $\mathcal{Q}$) we apply $P_\mathcal{Q}$ on the right-hand side as well. can be realised with the $\rpeg$ by setting $\phi = \arccos(\frac{1}{3})$, yielding: $$P_{\mathcal{Q}} \czlo P_{\mathcal{Q}} = \frac{1}{3} \cz,$$ equivalent to the cannonical gate, after renormalisation. The postselected fusion gate, $F$, swaps ${\ensuremath{|1\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_1$ and ${\ensuremath{|1\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_2$ of its two input qubits, and applies a Hadamard gate to qubit 1, as shown in Figure \[graphdef\]b [@bodiya2006scalable; @bell2012experimental; @yao2012observation]. This non-unitary operation deletes ${\ensuremath{|01\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_{12}$ or ${\ensuremath{|10\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_{12}$ qubit components of the state by transforming them to two-photon-per-qubit components in $\mathcal{J}$, which are filtered by postselection $P_\mathcal{Q}$ (coincidence detection). Fusion may be written in the qubit basis as: $$P_{\mathcal{Q}} F P_{\mathcal{Q}} = ({\ensuremath{|+0\rangle\mkern-3mu\langle 00|}} \mkern+3mu + \mkern+3mu {\ensuremath{|-1\rangle\mkern-3mu\langle 11|}}).$$ This is an entangling operation, and succeeds with probability $1/2$. For example, the action of this gate on the separable state ${\ensuremath{|\text{++}\mkern-1mu\rangle}}$ results in the (subnormalised) entangled two-qubit graph state $P_{\mathcal{Q}} F {\ensuremath{|++\mkern-1mu\rangle}} = \frac{1}{2}({\ensuremath{|+0\mkern-1mu\rangle}}+{\ensuremath{|-1\mkern-1mu\rangle}})$. Figure \[graphdef\]b describes the action of both and $F$ gates on graphs.
{width="100.00000%"}
The limits of postselection {#sec:pslimits}
===========================
In this section we demonstrate why certain arrangements of gates (PEGs) and photon-pair sources (EPPs) are not postselectable, and derive a simple test to inform postselectable experiment design. This is done by drawing the experiment as a graph, which we call a scheme.
Criterion for gate postselectability
------------------------------------
Which gate arrangements are postselectable? Convention holds that sequential PEGs lead to gate failure, masked as success (i.e. are not postselectable). In this section, we derive a condition on the arrangement of these gates for this failure.
We wish to understand when a given combination of gates is not postselectable. To do so, we analyse the evolution of junk states (in $\mathcal{J}$) produced by PEGs. Since coincidence detection ensures that we only count output states with one photon in every qubit, we disregard parts of $\mathcal J$ with fewer than $n$ photons (for $n$ qubits in $2n$ modes). Here, we use “qubit” to refer to a pair of modes, whether they are occupied by photons, or not.
First, we discuss some properties of PEGs. When a gate fails, it produces an output state in $\mathcal{J}$, resulting in a qubit with no photons, and another with excess photons—one is photon-poor, and the other is photon-rich. Gates can also move states from $\mathcal J$ back into $\mathcal Q$. Generally, they can redistribute photons so that different qubits become photon-poor and photon-rich, throughout the circuit. If an arrangement of gates can move the state out of the qubit basis, $\mathcal Q$, and subsequently return the state to it, we say this gate arrangement is not postselectable, as the gate failure is masked (see Figure \[failures\]a-b). Equally, the information of whether a the gate succeeded or failed is lost.
To re-enter $\mathcal Q$, the photon-poor and photon-rich qubits must meet again—after being generated together—by taking different paths through the experiment. Together, their paths form a loop. If we draw the gate configuration as a graph (with vertices as qubits, and edges as gates), then this loop corresponds to a cycle in that graph. We call this graph the experiment’s scheme. Such a cycle is the only way the state can leave and subsequently re-enter $\mathcal{Q}$. Thus, configurations with cycles are not postselectable.
This holds for any time-ordering of the gates. In a cycle of gates, each gate’s output is connected to an input of another gate. Junk is produced by all of the first time-step gates, re-entering $\mathcal Q$ by any subsequent gates that link them. A concrete example is shown in Figure \[failures\]b.
As an example, if we apply three postselected gates to ${\ensuremath{|\text{+++}\mkern-1mu\rangle}}$, in an attempt to produce a three qubit “triangle” graph state (as in Figure \[failures\]a) we find a corrupted result: $$\begin{split}
{\ensuremath{|\psi\mkern-1mu\rangle}} &= \mkern+5mu P_\mathcal{Q} \: \czlo_{31} \: \czlo_{23} \: \czlo_{12} \: {\ensuremath{|\text{+++}\mkern-1mu\rangle}}\\
&= \frac{1}{108} \left(\sqrt{2}+4 \sqrt{3}\right) {\ensuremath{|000\mkern-1mu\rangle}} \\
&+ \frac{1}{54 \sqrt{2}} \left({\ensuremath{|001\mkern-1mu\rangle}} + {\ensuremath{|010\mkern-1mu\rangle}} - {\ensuremath{|011\mkern-1mu\rangle}} + {\ensuremath{|100\mkern-1mu\rangle}} - {\ensuremath{|101\mkern-1mu\rangle}} - {\ensuremath{|110\mkern-1mu\rangle}} \right) \\
&+ \frac{1}{324} \left(4 \sqrt{3}-3 \sqrt{2}\right){\ensuremath{|111\mkern-1mu\rangle}}
\end{split}$$ The generated state, ${\ensuremath{|\psi\mkern-1mu\rangle}}$, differs significantly from the (unnormalised) desired state, which has equal weights of $1/(27 \cdot 2\sqrt{2})$ with signs $\{+,+,+,-,+,-,-,-\}$. Junk terms produced by earlier gates are returned to the postselected subspace by subsequent gates. The squared amplitude of this postselected state is well above the expected success probability: $ |\mkern-\thinmuskip{\ensuremath{\psi}}\mkern-\thinmuskip|^2 \approx 0.00706 > (\frac{1}{9})^3 \approx 0.00137$; the state is dominated by terms which have re-entered $\mathcal{Q}$, scrambling the state. Cycles of fusion gates similarly scramble the state, resulting in states which are dominated by junk components which have re-entered $\mathcal{Q}$.
Therefore, a sufficient condition for successful gate postselection is: *experiments containing cycles of PEGs are not postselectable*. We will refer to this as the “gate cycles rule”.
{width="50.00000%"}
We are unaware of any PEG that does not lead to two-photon-per-qubit terms, and indeed, such a gate would require there to be no photonic path between the modes of its input qubits. Such a gate will be postselectable even when used in cycles. To our knowledge, LCs, postselected CZ and postselected fusion represent the full known capability of postselective linear optics’ to produce graphs states—all two-qubit Clifford gates can be decomposed into a CZ with LCs [@anders2006fast]. We also note that in ref. it is claimed that any graph state can be produced using postselected fusion only (with a focus on 2d lattice states). We can now see this claim to be unwarranted, since the proposed experiment violates the gate cycles rule.
Combining degenerate postselected pair sources and gates {#sec:degen}
--------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we will examine experiments that utilise entangled postselected pair sources that produce degenerate (indistinguishable) pairs of photons. Ensembles of $m$ EPP sources produce states which are mostly in $\mathcal{J}$—for $m$ coherently pumped sources producing exactly $m$ pairs, a superposition of all $\begin{psmallmatrix}2m-1\\m\end{psmallmatrix}$ permutations are produced. Only one of these terms is in $\mathcal{Q}$—the term in which one pair is produced by each source—the rest are in $\mathcal{J}$ (see Appendix 1.5). Experiments combining EPPs and gates may not be postselectable even in the absence of cycles of gates, because the input superposition already contains junk. The gate cycles rule alone is insufficient in these situations. Experiments involving EPP sources can also be drawn as a graph, where both EPP sources and gates are represented by different types of edges. Example schemes are shown in In Figures \[failures\], \[venn\] and \[alg\], where standard edges represent gates and pink ellipses represent source-edges.
The lowest-order junk state produced by $m$ pair sources is one with two photon-rich qubits (from source $i$) and two photon-poor qubits (from source $j\neq i$). These terms cause gates that disjointly connect the qubits from source $i$ to the qubits from source $j$ to mask gate failure. By disjointly, we mean that the two paths do not share gates (edges), however they may share vertices. The excess photons from source $i$ can travel via gates to the qubits of source $j$ and hence re-enter $\mathcal Q$ (causing postselection failure). This is depicted in Figure \[venn\]b. Hence, *experiments containing a pair of disjoint paths in the scheme that connect the qubits from one EPP source with the qubits from another, are not postselectable*. We will call this the “paths rule”. Because each gate acts independently—simply moving a photon toward the photon-poor qubit—postselection fails no matter the gate order.
{width="100.00000%"}
Unfortunately, a sufficient condition for postselectability of combinations of PEGs and degenerate EPP sources is not forthcoming. In section 4, we apply numerical methods to evaluate postselectability, determining which graph states are postselectable for a variety of different source types.
{width="100.00000%"}
Non-degenerate nonlinear sources and postselected gates
-------------------------------------------------------
Which graph states are postselectable? {#sec:whichps}
======================================
Now that we are familiar with the rules of postselecting graph states, we can establish which states can be accessed, and which states cannot.
First, we lower bound the number of classes that are accessible from the popular resource state of $n$ non-degenerate pair sources, with the number of trees (non-cyclic graphs). This follows from the fact that trees can always be constructed from this resource (see Appendix 1.1), and that there is at most one tree in each entanglement class [@bouchet1988transforming]. Figure \[plotgraphno\] compares the number of trees to the number of entanglement classes for increasing qubit (vertex) number, and reveals a super-exponential divergence [@OEISA000055; @bergeron1998combinatorial; @danielsen2006classification].
Because of the combinatoral number of possible experiments using PEGs and LCs, we turn to numerical methods to discover exactly which classes of entanglement are accessible to postselective linear optics given a certain resource state. Our approach is to sample allowed combinations of entangling gates and local complementations, and catalogue the graph states which result. By using LCs, postselected CZ and fusion gates, we span the currently known capability of postselective linear optics’ to produce graphs states; though gates can only be applied in trees, the use of LCs allows access to a wider variety of graph state classes—including those not containing trees. Note that all two-qubit Clifford gates can be decomposed into a CZ with LCs [@anders2006fast]. We use the canonical indexing provided by Hein, Cabello, *et al.* in refs. and . We denote the set of graph state class indices that can be accessed by a given resource state $R$ by $\mathcal{L}_R$. In this section we establish methods to find which graph states are postselectable using different kinds of photon source. The results of this are shown in Table \[table1\], whilst a complete list six-qubit graph states, showing which are postselectable is shown in Figure \[6qub\].
Numerical Methods
-----------------
In [@danielsen2006classification; @cabello2011optimal], tables of representative members for each entanglement class up to $n=12$ are provided. Starting from these supplied graphs, we take random walks to explore each LU class (which are of known size). We denote the $j^\text{th}$ $n$-vertex graph of entanglement class $i$ as $S^n_{ij}$, where $S^n_{i}$ is the set of all graphs in that entanglement class and $S^n$ is the set of all $n$-vertex classes, $S^n = \cup_i S^n_i$. Note $S^n_a \cap S^n_b \neq \emptyset \quad \forall a,b$.
We explore which graph states are accessible to linear optics and PEGs with our algorithm <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FindAccessibleClasses</span> (visually depicted in Figure \[alg\] and provided in Appendix 1.2). This algorithm enumerates accessible entanglement classes for a given resource state $R$, and stores the list of accessible classes as $\mathcal{L}_R' \approx \mathcal{L}_R$. The results of our investigation using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FindAccessibleClasses</span> are shown in Table \[table1\]. To aid the classification of any newly found graphs, $S^n$ is stored in memory. We provide plain-text and Mathematica representations of $S^n$, up to $n=9$ qubits, as well as a Mathematica implementation of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FindAccessibleClasses</span>. These can be found in the Appendix [@adcock2018supp].
Each iteration of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FindAccessibleClasses</span> starts with a resource graph state $R$, and a randomly chosen $n$-qubit schemesatisfying out postselection rules. This $n$-vertex gate arrangement is a graph, $t$, which corresponds to a linear optical experiment composed of PEGs. $t$ is generated randomly from a set $T$, which depends on the resource (see Section 4.2). Each edge of $t$ is randomly assigned either a or an $F$ gate, and a random time ordering. Random combinations of relevant s are interspersed between gates (see section 4.3). As the state transformations are encoded as operations on graphs, we avoid the exponential memory requirement of simulating quantum states. This Monte-Carlo approach is designed to fairly sample postselected linear optical graph-state generation experiments.
After all specified entangling operations have been performed, we store the entanglement class that has been reached, in $\mathcal{L}_R'$. We store the gates and local complementations used, in $H^R$ ($H^R_i$ is the *recipe* for accessing entanglement class $i$ with resource state $R$). These recipes are overwritten when a more efficient one is found. We keep sampling, until no more novel classes are found, at which point we assume we have sampled them all: $\mathcal{L}_R'\approx \mathcal{L}_R$.
Resource States
---------------
To fairly sample from postselectable experiments, the sets of allowed gate arrangements, $T$, varies for the different classes of resource: heralded states, degenerate EPPs and non-degenerate EPPs. In all cases, relevant LCs are interspersed between the gates.
For a heralded resource (one not involving postselected sources), our algorithm must sample from all possible experiments that do not contain a cycle of PEGs. Hence $T$ is the set of all connected trees with $n$ vertices. There are $2^{n-1} n^{n-2} (n-1)!$ such experiments. This is the number of labelled trees [@cayley1889theorem] multiplied by both the number of possible edge labellings $\{\cz, \text{F}\}$ and the number of gate orderings. Labelled trees are fairly sampled by the Pruefer sequence method [@prufer1918neuer]. We sample from the set of all isomorphisms (labellings) of every tree, as to consider only one labelling of the resource state.
For a heralded resource that has some entanglement, not all of the gates represented by $t \in T$ need be applied to obtain $n$-partite entanglement. In <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FindAccessibleClasses</span>, the number of gates applied are chosen at random, where the minimum number of gates could still feasibly output an $n$-qubit connected graph. For example starting with 3 heralded entangled pairs, only two gates are needed to produce a 6-qubit state, however more entanglement classes are accessible by using up to $5$ gates. Hence, we randomise over the different number of gates. An example member of $t \in T$ is shown in Figure \[alg\], with its ordered edge-labelling. The set of trial gate arrangement trees, $T$, can also be tailored to encode any restriction in gate topology, for example where only nearest-neighbour gates are permitted.
For schemes with $m$ non-degenerate EPP sources, $m-1$ gates are required to globally entangle the state. Further, these are not postselectable with $m$ gates, as a cycle will form between sources. In this case, the number of gates is fixed, and we only sample over the trees of order $m$. Since $m=n/2$, and the number of trees scales exponentially with $n$, the search space for non-degenerate pairs is drastically smaller than for any other input resource.
In the case of a resource state of degenerate EPPs, postselectability of a particular gate arrangement must be evaluated directly, since we have no sufficient postselection rule rely on in this case. We evaluate many random (non-interacting) photon scattering through the gate arrangement, for each source term in $\mathcal{J}$. If the photons can return to a one-per-qubit state, in $\mathcal{Q}$, then the gate combination is discarded, as it is unpostselectable. Although this method is not exhaustive, a sufficiently large number of iterations can guarantee accuracy. Due to the extra cost associated with this subroutine, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FindAccessibleClasses</span> evaluates the postselectability of one experiment, then permutes the choice of gate (CZ or F), as well as the LCs applied, for 50 experiments which share the topology. This greatly increases the efficiency of class discovery, and is analogous to finding all of the classes accessible by a single scheme which utilises the reconfigurable PEG of Figure \[graphdef\]b, then moving to another scheme.
Sampling linear optical graph experiments
-----------------------------------------
Applying local operations between gates can yield a wider variety of accessible graph states. Just a few operations are sufficient. After a $\cz_{ij}$ operation, s need only be applied to qubits $i$ and $j$, since commutes with in all other cases. After a $F_{ij}$ operation, s need only be applied to qubits in $\{N_G(i) \cup N_G(j) + \{i\} + \{j\}\}$, for the same reason, where $N_G(i)$ is the graph neighbourhood of vertex and qubit $i$. Furthermore, $\leq 5$ randomly chosen operations are needed after a gate, since around two vertices is periodic with period 6 [@danielsen2008edge]. Similarly, $ \leq 14$ s are needed after a fusion, as this is the largest number of operations needed to traverse the widest class for $n\leq9$ qubits (from numerics). Higher qubit numbers will require concomitantly larger numbers of post-fusion LCs. Proofs are shown in Appendix 1.1.
The size of the configuration space for a resource of heralded single photons is $O(2^{n-1}d_n^{n-2}n^{n-2}(n-1)!)$, where $d_n$ is the diameter of the orbit of the largest $n$-qubit entanglement classes ($d_9=14$). For $n=8$ qubits the size of this configuration space is $\approx 1.3\times 10^{18}$; for $n=10$ it explodes to $\approx 2.7\times 10^{25}$. This makes an exhaustive search impossible, and motivates our use of sampling methods.
Each newly found $n$-vertex graph, $G$, is likely to be isomorphic, not identical, to the corresponding graph in the stored database of entanglement classes, $S^n$. Consequently, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GraphIsomorphism</span>, which is computationally hard, must be computed for a range of graphs so that the candidate graph can be properly catalogued. For small numbers of vertices, however, the problem is tractable.
Which classes are accessible?
-----------------------------
We have enumerated the entanglement classes that are accessible using certain resource states and PEGs. The results are shown in Table \[table1\]. Interestingly, those states which are inaccessible tend to have higher canonical indices, ordered both by vertex degree, and by the minimum number of edges on a graph in the class. This also correlates with known bounds on the Schmidt rank [@hein2004multiparty; @cabello2011optimal].
Without exploring the entire space, there is no guarantee that all classes have been found, however <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FindAccessibleClasses</span> appears to converge after sampling a minuscule fraction of configurations. For the results in Table \[table1\], the algorithm was terminated when no new classes were found in the last 5/6 of the total number of iterations. For the 8-qubit graphs, this corresponds to sampling about one in every $10^{5}$ possible configurations.
Our exploration using $n\leq9$ was performed using the (un-compiled, single-threaded) Mathematica implementation, on a standard desktop PC. We anticipate that, by using parallel, compiled code, up to $n=12$ vertex graphs can be investigated.
Designing graph state generators
--------------------------------
Efficient experimental generation of graph states using photonics is a challenge. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FindAccessibleClasses</span> can also be used for experiment design. To find a recipe which produces the desired graph state in class $i$, repeat <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FindAccessibleClasses</span> with a reasonable resource state input $R$, maximising the probability of generation, $P^R_i$, and recording the recipe, $H^R_i$. Modify $R$ until a satisfactory experiment is found: increase $P^R_i$ by using a more practical $R$ or increase it (especially in the case where no graphs in $i$ are found) by using a more entangled $R$. The recipe $H^R_i$ yields an experiment which produces a graph in the target class $i$. using an $\rpeg$ to realise each PEG (see Figure \[graphdef\]), where the single-qubit interferometers can perform the necessary local complementations, the circuit is simple to assemble. The optical depth of such circuits is $O(n)$ for $n$ qubits.
Conversely, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FindAccessibleClasses</span> can enumerate the graph states that a given interferometer can access, by fixing $t$ and searching over different combinations of LC and gate type. In this way, combining the rules of postselection, and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FindAccessibleClasses</span> and the R-PEG allows new graph generating experiments to rapidly checked for feasibility, and designed with maximum versatility.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
Gate cycles rule:
:
Paths rule:
:
Source cycle parity rule:
:
Further, we have tabulated which graph states can be accessed using linear optics and PEGs for $n\leq 9 $, and demonstrated that the number of states available to postselected systems diminishes rapidly with increasing qubit number. We have provided algorithms to calculate which states are accessible for graphs up to $n=12$, limited by the availability of class catalogue data.
Postselectable graph states that can be produced from EPPs are of interest, with experiments with up to 12 photons possible in the near future [@wang2016experimental]. Whilst we have not found an analytic condition on postselectability for the combined postselection of degenerate EPPs and PEGs, our numerics show that a wide variety of states are nonetheless available to this resource—the majority of classes are accessible for $n\leq 8$, though this fraction diminishes with increasing $n$. This is encouraging news for near-term demonstrations of entanglement using linear optics. Postselected sources and gates may still have some mileage before true single photon sources become a necessity.
Despite their widespread use, a vanishing fraction of graph states are accessible using non-degenerate postselected pairs, and these accessible states tend to have low Schmidt rank. With heralded single photons, many more LU classes become accessible, but this too is a diminishing fraction of the total, as qubit number increases. The end of the road for postselected quantum optics is now in sight. Heralded or deterministic gates for photon-photon interactions are not just a route to increased efficiency, but are a necessity if we are to access any appreciable fraction of multi-qubit entanglement classes using optics.
Several questions remain unanswered. Why are certain states accessible and others are not? Why does interspersed local complementation allow for the creation of a wider variety of states? What is the size of the space accessible to hybrid experiments, part postselected, part heralded? Can this reasoning be applied to hyper-entangled, or qudit photonic states? Is there a sufficient rule for the postselection of schemes of degenerate EPP sources?
The limits of postselection are indeed severe, but, with the tools and understanding developed here, planning quantum information experiments which reach these limits will be possible. Multi-photon experiments are often phrased with a measurement-based or state-preparation focus, both of which are enlightened by this work, in the context of postselection. These methods will allow experimenters to produce states with the minimum resource, and with the most efficient optical recipe, expediting progress toward large-scale quantum computation, with optics and otherwise.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to acknowledge Mercedes Gimeno-Segovia, Sam Pallister, Patrick M. Birchall, Stasja Stanisic, Will McCutcheon, and Raffaele Santagati for fruitful discussion and motivation. This work was supported by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). JCA and SMS are supported by EPSRC grant EP/L015730/1. JWS is supported by EPSRC grant and EP/L024020/1.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Proofs
------
All of the $n$-vertex graph states that are locally equivalent to a tree can be constructed from $\ceil{\frac{n}{2}}$ entangled postselected pairs (from postselected nonlinear pair sources) using only postselected and fusion gates.
The two distinct trees with $n=4$ vertices (the “star” and “line” graphs) correspond to performing $\text{CZ}^{LO}$ or fusion on two pairs respectively, which establishes the base case. The induction step is to show for any order $n+2$ tree, $t$, one can always find a feature of the tree that implies it could have been constructed from some order $n$ tree, and the two vertex connected graph (entangled pair), using an egde-add (CZ) or fusion operation.
These features of $t$ are as follows:
Feature 1:
: $t$ has two vertices in a line formation, where the second vertex is only adjacent to the first. This corresponds to a CZ (edge-add) of an order $n$ tree with the complete two-qubit graph.
Feature 2:
: Two leafs (vertices of degree 1) are adjacent to the same vertex of $t$ (but no others). This corresponds to a fusion of an order $n$ tree with the complete two-qubit graph.
To show that all trees have one of these Features, we perform another induction. All order $n+1$ trees can be constructed by adding a vertex (with connecting edge) to some $n$-vertex tree. We will show that these Features can disappear when adding a connected vertex, but only by creating the other Feature. Hence all trees have at least one of these features.
Feature 1 will disappear if a new vertex is connected to the degree-two vertex of the Feature. In this case, the new graph has Feature 2. Similarly, Feature 2 will disappear if a new vertex is connected to one of the vertices of Feature 1. This forms Feature 1. The only tree of three vertices has both of these features. Hence all trees have one of these two features.
Since all $n+2$ trees have one of these features, it is always possible to find a tree of order $n$ that can be used to construct a tree of order $n+2$, down to $n=4$ where we know how to make both of the trees.
Since each additional pair of vertices has only one gate acting on it, the postselection rules are not violated.
This completes the proof.
$[\text{CZ}_{ij}, \text{LC}_\alpha ]=0$ $\forall$ $\alpha \notin \{i,j\}$. ($\text{CZ}_{ij}$ commutes with applied to qubit $\alpha$, $\text{LC}_\alpha$ when $\alpha$ is not one of the qubits acted upon by the .)
If $i,j \notin N_G(\alpha)$ the unitaries (graph operations) act on different qubits (vertices) and therefore commute. We now examine $i,j \in N_G(\alpha)$. Note that complementation of a subgraph defined by a fixed set of vertices commutes with a operation, since both toggle the edges present in the graph (addition modulo 2). This can also be understood by examining the and unitaries. In $\text{LC}_\alpha$ for $i,j \in N(\alpha)$, qubits $i$ and $j$ undergo a $\sqrt{iZ}$ operation, which is diagonal. Since is also diagonal, these operations commute, that is $[\text{CZ}_{ij}, \sqrt{iZ_k} ]=0$ for $k=i,j$. Note that $\sqrt{iZ_k}\otimes \sqrt{iZ_l}$ is also diagonal. Since $N_G(\alpha)$, is unaffected by the , $\text{LC}_\alpha$ and commute if $i,j \notin N(\alpha)$.
Repeated on $i$ and $j$ on some graph $G$ has just one periodic path through the members of the LC class.
This is demonstrated independently in terms of edge-local complementation in [@danielsen2008edge], but we provide an alternate proof. Since $\text{LC}_{\alpha} \circ \text{LC}_{\alpha} = \mathds{1} $ there are only two ways uniquely apply LCs—alternating on $i$ and $j$, i.e. $\dots \text{LC}_i \circ \circ \text{LC}_j$ and $\dots \text{LC}_i \circ \text{LC}_LC_j$. This defines two paths through the members of the LC class.
We will now show these paths are periodic. In the following we denote the $k^{th}$ LC operation of one of these trajectories as, $\text{LC}^{k}$,
Since there are a finite number of graphs equivalent under LC, alternating LCs must reproduce the initial graph, or the path will end after $k-1$ LCs, i.e. when some graph is reached whereby LC has no effect. In this case, $\text{LC}^{k}= \mathds{1}$ and the series of LCs can be written $\ldots \text{LC}^{k+1}_i \circ \text{LC}^{k}_j \circ \text{LC}^{k-1}_i \circ \ldots \circ \text{LC}^{1}_j = \ldots \text{LC}^{k+1}_i \circ \text{LC}^{k-1}_i \circ \ldots \circ \text{LC}^{1}_j$. Since $\text{LC}_i \circ \text{LC}_i = \mathds{1}$, all LCs can be paired around $\text{LC}^k$ and cancelled, leaving the identity, i.e. the operation is periodic with period $2k-1$.
We will now show that these orbits are the inverse of one another. Take one of the two orbits (say the one that starts with $j$) and assume it has period $p$, then $\text{LC}^{p}_i \circ \text{LC}^{p-1}_j \circ \ldots \circ \text{LC}^1_j \> (G) = G$. Applying $LC_i$ here we find $\text{LC}^{1'}_i \> G = \text{LC} ^{1'}_i \circ \text{LC}^{p}_i \circ \text{LC}^{p-1}_j \circ\ldots \circ \text{LC}^1_j \> (G) = \text{LC}^{p-1}_j \circ \ldots \circ \text{LC}^1_j \> (G) $. Similarly to the above, each operation in the second orbit inverts an operation in the first orbit until we arrive back at the starting graph $G$. Hence, the second path, (begininning with $\text{LC}_i$ is the reverse or the first.
This implies that only one trajectory need be considered in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FindAccessibleClasses</span>. We henceforth always start the orbit with $\text{LC}_j$, which we will denote $\text{LC}^k$ for the $k^{th}$ of an orbit.
We now prove that such an orbit has period at most 6 for all graphs, independent of of the number of vertices.
Repeated application of on vertices $i$ and $j$ on some graph $G$ has period at most 6, independent of the number of vertices.
This is demonstrated independently in terms of edge-local complementation in [@danielsen2008edge], but we provide an alternate proof. Starting with some graph state $G=G^0$ let $G^k$ be the graph state after $k$ s. Next, we define three sets of vertices.
Firstly, The set of vertices which are in the neighbourhood of $i$, but not in the neighbourhood of $j$ and excluding $j$ and $i$, which we label $$\mathcal{X}^k = \{N_{G^k}(i) - N_{G^k}(j) - \{j\} -\{i\}\}$$ Secondly, the intersection of vertices which are in the neighbourhood of $i$ and the neighbourhood of $j$. $$\mathcal{Y}^k = \{N_{G^k}(i)\cap N_{G^k}(j)\}$$ And finally the set of vertices which are in the neighbourhood of $j$, but not in the neighbourhood of $i$ and excluding $i$ and $j$. $$\mathcal{Z}^k = \{N_{G^k}(j) - N_{G^k}(i) - \{i\} - \{j\}\}$$
Where for clarity we write $\mathcal{X}^0=\mathcal{X}$, $\mathcal{Y}^0=\mathcal{Y}$, $\mathcal{Z}^0=\mathcal{Z}$. Now we can examine the effect of the orbit on a graph $G=G^0$.
Since $i$ and $j$ are always neighbours, the effect of $\text{LC}_i$ on the $k^{th}$ member of the orbit is to swap the sets $\mathcal{X}^{k}$ and $\mathcal{Y}^{k}$, and the effect of the $\text{LC}_j$ is to swap sets $\mathcal{Y}^{k}$ and $\mathcal{Z}^{k}$, yielding the following, for $k=1,\dots,p$:
- For odd $k$, $\text{LC}^k$ complements the subgraph induced by the sets $N_{G^k}(j)=\mathcal{Y}^k\cap\mathcal{Z}^k + \{i\}$, setting $\mathcal{Y}^{k+1} = \mathcal{Z}^{k}$ and $\mathcal{Z}^{k+1} = \mathcal{Y}^{k}$.
- For even $k$, $\text{LC}^k$ complements the subgraph induced by the sets $=N_{G^k}(i)=\mathcal{X}^k\cap\mathcal{Y}^k + \{j\}$, setting $\mathcal{X}^{k+1} = \mathcal{Y}^{k}$ and $\mathcal{Y}^{k+1} = \mathcal{X}^{k}$.
By repeated application of the above rules, we find: $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{X}^6 = \mathcal{X} \qquad \mathcal{Y}^6 = \mathcal{Y} \qquad \mathcal{Z}^6 = \mathcal{Z}
\end{split}$$ We have shown the neighbourhoods of $i$ and $j$ have period at most 6. We have yet to show that the edges not involving $i$ or $j$, have undergone one period, which will will do now.
We write the complementation of a graph as an operation on a graph $C : G \rightarrow G^\mathsf{c}$. Further, we denote the complementation of subgraph induced by a set of vertices, $\mathcal{A}$ as $C_\mathcal{A} : G \rightarrow G_{\mathcal{A}^\mathsf{c}}$, where $G_{\mathcal{A}^\mathsf{c}}$ is the input graph $G$ but with the subgraph induced by the vertex set $\mathcal{A}$ complemented. We define $E[A,B]$ as the set of all bipartite edges in $E$ that run from a vertex in the set $A$ to a vertex in the set $B$, $E[\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}] = \{(a,b)\in E \; : \; a\in\mathcal{A}, \; b\in\mathcal{B}, \; a \neq b \}$.
Also, we use $C_{E[A , B]} : G \rightarrow G_{E[A,B]^\mathsf{c}}$ do denote bipartite complementation. That is, $G_{E[A,B]^\mathsf{c}}$ is the input graph $G$ but with the bipartite component between $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ complemented.
For odd $k$, $\text{LC}^k$ performs the operation $C_{N_{G^k}(j)} = C_{\mathcal{Y}^k\cup\mathcal{Z}^k+\{i\}}$, whilst for even $k$, $\text{LC}^k$ performs the operation $C_{N_{G^k}(i)} = C_{\mathcal{X}^k\cup\mathcal{Y}^k+\{j\}}$. To check the effect of the orbit on the edges of $G^k$ we examine the graph operations in terms of fixed sets of vertices, namely $\mathcal{X}$, $\mathcal{Y}$, $\mathcal{Z}$, using the relations above. Hence the successive operations can be written in the following way: $$\text{LC}^1 \;=\; C_{\mathcal{Y}\cup\mathcal{Z} \cup \{i\}} , \qquad \; \text{LC}^2 \;=\; C_{\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{Z} \cup \{j\}} ,\qquad \ldots\qquad , \qquad \text{etc.}$$ Continuing to apply the rules, we find $\text{LC}^l = \text{LC}^{l+6}$. Hence after 12 successive LCs each complementation $\text{LC}^l$ has cancelled with $\text{LC}^{l+6}$ (since complementation of a fixed set of vertices commutes) and the graph has undergone one period.
Note $C_{\mathcal{A} \cup \mathcal{B}} = C_{\mathcal{A}} \;\circ\; C_{\mathcal{B}} \;\circ\; C_{E[A , B]}$. Using this expansion, the first six operations of the orbit can be written $$\begin{split}
\text{LC}^1 \;=\; & C_{\mathcal{Y}} \;\circ\; C_{\mathcal{Z}} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{Y} , \{i\}]} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{Z} , \{i\}]} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{Y} , \mathcal{Z} ]} \\
\text{LC}^2 \;=\; & C_{\mathcal{X}} \;\circ\; C_{\mathcal{Z}} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{X} , \{j\}]} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{Z} , \{j\}]} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{X} , \mathcal{Z} ]} \\
\text{LC}^3 \;=\; & C_{\mathcal{X}} \;\circ\; C_{\mathcal{Y}} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{X} , \{i\}]} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{Y} , \{i\}]} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{X} , \mathcal{Y} ]} \\
\text{LC}^4 \;=\; & C_{\mathcal{Z}} \;\circ\; C_{\mathcal{Y}} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{Z} , \{j\}]} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{Y} , \{j\}]} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{Z} , \mathcal{Y} ]} \\
\text{LC}^5 \;=\; & C_{\mathcal{Z}} \;\circ\; C_{\mathcal{X}} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{Z} , \{i\}]} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{X} , \{i\}]} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{Z} , \mathcal{X} ]} \\
\text{LC}^6 \;=\; & C_{\mathcal{Y}} \;\circ\; C_{\mathcal{X}} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{Y} , \{j\}]} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{X} , \{j\}]} \;\circ\; C_{E[\mathcal{Y} , \mathcal{X} ]}
\end{split}$$ Noting $C_{E[\mathcal{B} , \mathcal{A} ]} = C_{E[\mathcal{A} , \mathcal{B} ]}$ (arguments of bipartite edges commute), $[C_\mathcal{A},C_\mathcal{B}] = 0$ (complementations of a fixed set of vertices commute with one another) and $C_\mathcal{A} \circ C_\mathcal{A} = \mathds{1} $ (complementation is self-inverse), we find $\text{LC}^1 \circ \text{LC}^2 \circ \text{LC}^3 \circ \text{LC}^4 \circ \text{LC}^5 \circ \text{LC}^6 = \mathds{1}$ since each complementation is performed twice. Hence operations on only two vertices have period six.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FindAccessibleClasses</span> Algorithm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathcal{L}_R', H^R ,P^R \leftarrow \emptyset$ $j \leftarrow 0$
$G \leftarrow R$ ()[$c < d \cdot j$]{}
$p \leftarrow 1$ $j \leftarrow j+1$ $t(E,V) \leftarrow \textsc{RandMember}(T)$ $L \leftarrow \textsc{RandInt}(n-1 - |E[G]|, |E[t]|) $ ()[$G(E,V)$ is not equivalent to any graph in classes $\mathcal{L}_R'$]{} [ Append $i$ to $\mathcal{L}_R'$ where $S^n_i$ is the equivalence class of $G(E,V)$ $H^R_j \leftarrow h$ $P^R_j \leftarrow p$ $c \leftarrow j$ ]{}
Return $\{ \mathcal{L}_R ', H \}$
{width="100.00000%"}
Enumeration of Graph States
---------------------------
{width="100.00000%"}
Example of postselected gate -
-------------------------------
The postselected $\text{CZ}^{LO}$ acting on ${\ensuremath{|\text{++}\mkern-1mu\rangle}}$ produces the following state: $$\begin{split}
\text{CZ}^{LO}{\ensuremath{|++\mkern-1mu\rangle}}= &\frac{1}{3}{\ensuremath{|101000\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f + \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}{\ensuremath{|100100\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f + \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}{\ensuremath{|100010\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f \\
+ & \frac{1}{3} {\ensuremath{|100001\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f + \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}} {\ensuremath{|011000\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f +\quad \; \frac{1}{6}{\ensuremath{|010100\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f \\
+ & \frac{1}{6}{\ensuremath{|010010\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f + \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}{\ensuremath{|010001\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f +\quad \; \frac{1}{6}{\ensuremath{|001100\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f \\
- & \frac{1}{6}{\ensuremath{|001010\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f -\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}{\ensuremath{|001001\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f -\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}{\ensuremath{|000110\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f\\
+ & \frac{1}{3} {\ensuremath{|000101\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f -\quad \; \; \frac{1}{3} {\ensuremath{|002000\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f +\quad \; \frac{1}{3}{\ensuremath{|000200\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f
\end{split}$$ Where the non-qubit terms in $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{J} = \text{span}( &{\ensuremath{|101000\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f,{\ensuremath{|100100\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f, {\ensuremath{|100010\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f, \\
& {\ensuremath{|100001\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f,{\ensuremath{|011000\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f, {\ensuremath{|010001\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f,\\
& {\ensuremath{|001001\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f,{\ensuremath{|000110\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f, {\ensuremath{|000101\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f,\\
&\qquad \: \: \: \: \qquad {\ensuremath{|002000\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f,{\ensuremath{|000200\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f )
\end{split}$$ are removed by postselection $P_\mathcal{Q}$. Hence $$\begin{split}
P_{\mathcal{Q}} \text{CZ}^{LO} {\ensuremath{|++\mkern-1mu\rangle}} = & \frac{1}{6}{\ensuremath{|010100\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f +\frac{1}{6}{\ensuremath{|010010\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f \\
+ & \frac{1}{6}{\ensuremath{|001100\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f -\frac{1}{6}{\ensuremath{|001010\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f \\
= & \frac{1}{6}{\ensuremath{|00\mkern-1mu\rangle}} + \frac{1}{6}{\ensuremath{|01\mkern-1mu\rangle}} + \frac{1}{6}{\ensuremath{|10\mkern-1mu\rangle}} - \frac{1}{6}{\ensuremath{|11\mkern-1mu\rangle}} \\
= & \frac{1}{3} \text{CZ} {\ensuremath{|++\mkern-1mu\rangle}}
\end{split}$$
Postselection of multiple entangled pairs from squeezed vacuum
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pairwise entangled states of $n$ pairs of photons are commonly generated by two postselecting the $n$-photon subspace of $\frac{n}{2}$ coherently pumped EPP source. Unfortunately, these states contain junk states affect postselectability. This is because it is not possible to distinguish the case where there were one pair of photons is generated in each source, and the case where when some sources produce more than one pair, which is at least as likely (for $n$ photons in total). To see this, take two (unnormalised) fock states produced by a EPP source.
$$\begin{split}
{\ensuremath{|\xi\mkern-1mu\rangle}}^{\otimes2} = ({\ensuremath{|0000\mkern-1mu\rangle}} +\gamma&{\ensuremath{|1010\mkern-1mu\rangle}} + \; \; \gamma{\ensuremath{|0101\mkern-1mu\rangle}} + \\
\gamma^2 & {\ensuremath{|2020\mkern-1mu\rangle}} + \gamma^2 {\ensuremath{|0202\mkern-1mu\rangle}} + \dots)^{\otimes2}
\end{split}$$
Where ${\ensuremath{|\Phi^+\mkern-1mu\rangle}} = {\ensuremath{|1010\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f +{\ensuremath{|0101\mkern-1mu\rangle}}_f$ for two pairs of two modes comprising two qubits. The $O(\gamma^2)$, four-photon terms: $$\begin{split}
{\ensuremath{|\xi\mkern-1mu\rangle}}^{\otimes2} = &\gamma^2{\ensuremath{|\Phi^+ \Phi^+\mkern-1mu\rangle}} + \gamma^2 {\ensuremath{|11110000\mkern-1mu\rangle}} + \gamma^2 {\ensuremath{|20200000\mkern-1mu\rangle}} \\
+ &\gamma^2 {\ensuremath{|02020000\mkern-1mu\rangle}} + \gamma^2 {\ensuremath{|00001111\mkern-1mu\rangle}} + \gamma^2 {\ensuremath{|00002020\mkern-1mu\rangle}} \\
+ &\gamma^2 {\ensuremath{|00000202\mkern-1mu\rangle}}
\end{split}$$ The postselected state, ${\ensuremath{|\Phi^+ \Phi^+\mkern-1mu\rangle}}$ makes up only a minority of the four photon state, and two-photon-per-qubit terms dominate. Similarly, for larger ensembles of sources, each permutation of pairs being produced the sources is present in the superposition, and must be considered. For example, in the six photon subspace of three sources, there are terms where all three pairs were produced in just one source, as well as terms where just one source produced an extra pair. Postselected sources produce mostly junk states, and how these traverse and experiment must be considered when evaluating whether an experiment will successfully postselect.
[^1]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We apply the @Sternberg2014 [hereafter S14] theoretical model to analyze and H$_2$ observations in the Perseus molecular cloud. We constrain the physical properties of the shielding envelopes and the nature of the transitions. Our analysis [@Bialy2015] implies that in addition to cold neutral gas (CNM), less dense thermally-unstable gas (UNM) significantly contributes to the shielding of the H$_2$ cores in Perseus.'
address:
- 'Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics & Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Israel; '
- 'Laboratoire AIM, CEA/IRFU/Service d’Astrophyque, Bat 709, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France'
- 'LERMA, Observatoire de Paris, PSL Research University, CNRS, UMR8112, F-92190 Meudon, France'
author:
- Shmuel Bialy
- Amiel Sternberg
- 'Min-Young Lee'
- Franck Le Petit
- Evelyne Roueff
title: 'H[I]{}-to-H$_2$ Transitions in the Perseus Molecular Cloud'
---
Introduction
============
Stars form in shielded molecular cores of giant molecular clouds. In Kennicutt-Schmidt relations, the star-formation rates correlate with molecular surface densities [e.g., @Leroy2008; @Genzel2013]. The conversion of atomic to molecular gas is also crucial for formation of other important molecular tracers and coolants such as CO, OH, and H$_2$O [e.g., @Bialy2015a]. Understanding the transition is important for star-formation and galaxy evolution theories, and for interpreting observations of the ISM.
H$_2$ molecules are photodissociated by far-ultraviolet (FUV) radiation within the Lyman-Werner (LW) band (11.2 - 13.6 eV). This occurs via a two-step process, in which a LW photon excites an electronic state, which in $\sim 12 \%$ of the cases decays to rovibrational continuum that leads to dissociation of the H$_2$ molecule. With increasing column density, the FUV radiation is absorbed, and the H$_2$ dissociation rate decreases. Once the column density is large enough so that the local H$_2$ dissociation rate becomes equal to the H$_2$ formation rate, an transition occurs.
What are the properties of transitions in molecular clouds, and what are the properties of the (predominantly) shielding columns?
Observations
============
The Perseus cloud is located at a distance of $\sim 300$ pc, with an angular extent of $6^0 \times 3^0$, and a total mass of $\sim 10^4$ [@Bally2008]. Perseus consists of several dark and star-forming regions, which form low and intermediate mass stars (later than B1). Thus the FUV radiation in Perseus is probably dominated by external sources [@Lee2012 hereafter L12].
L12 used 21 cm observations of the GALFA survey [@Peek2011], together with IRIS infrared data [@MivilleDeschenes2005] and the $A_V$ image from the COMPLETE Survey [@Ridge2006], to derive and surface densities (and $\sht$) towards B1, B1E, B5, IC348, and NGC1333, with a resolution of 0.4 pc. We use the data presented by @Lee2015, for which the columns were corrected for (up to 20 %) 21 cm depth effects.
Theoretical Framework
=====================
We apply the S14 theoretical model which assumes semi-infinite gas slabs irradiated by external FUV. S14 derived an analytic formula for the total accumulated surface column density, $$\label{eq: Sigma_HI}
\Sigma_{\rm HI} \ = \ 6.71 \ \Big(\frac{1.9}{\sgt}\Big) \ \ln \Big[ \frac{\aG}{3.2} \ + 1 \Big] \ \mpc ,$$ Importantly, is independent of the total gas column (or the cloud size), and is determined solely by the cloud physical parameters $\aG$ and $\sgt$.
Here, $\sgt$ is the dust cross section per hydrogen nucleus in units of $10^{-21}$ cm$^{2}$, and is typically $\approx 1.9$. is the (dimensionless) ratio of the H$_2$ [*shielded*]{} dissociation rate to H$_2$ formation rate. Assuming H$_2$ formation on dust grains $$\label{eq: aG}
\aG \ = \ 6 \ \Big( \frac{I_{UV}}{n/10 {\rm cm^{-3}}} \Big) \Big(\frac{w}{0.4} \Big) \ ,$$ where $I_{\rm UV}$ is the FUV intensity in units of the @Draine1978 field, $n$ is the volume density and $w$ is the fraction of LW photons that are absorbed in H$_2$-dust (see S14). For multiphased gas, the CNM density and $I_{\rm UV}$ are proportional [@Wolfire2003]. In this case $(\aG)_{\rm CNM} \approx 3$. In our analysis however, we do not assume [*a priori*]{} CNM conditions [as e.g. @Krumholz2009], but rather constrain $\aG$ directly using the observational data.
Results
=======
{width="100.00000%"}
In Fig. 1 (a) we test our theoretical prediction that $\so$ is independent of $\stot$ by fitting $\mathcal{R}\equiv\so/\sht$, for each of the five regions. The theory and observations are in excellent agreement. In Fig. 1 (b) we plot the columns as contours in the $\aG$ – $\sgt$ parameter space, using Equation (\[eq: Sigma\_HI\]). L12 obtained an elevated $A_V/N_{\rm H}$ ratio in Perseus, so $\sgt$ probably lies within 1.9 to 3.8 (dashed lines). For this realistic range in $\sgt$, $\aG$ spans from $\sim 5$ to $\sim 20$, a factor of 2 - 7 larger than $(\aG)_{\rm CNM}$ (grey strip). Therefore pure CNM shielding cannot explain the observed columns in Perseus.
We use Equation (\[eq: aG\]) to convert $\aG$ into volume densities $n$. Assuming $I_{\rm UV} \approx 1$ [@Tibbs2011 L12], we get $n \approx 2$ – 10 cm$^{-3}$ for the shielding layers in Perseus. These values are in-between the CNM and WNM densities, $n_{\rm CNM} \approx 100 n_{\rm WNM} \approx 22$ cm$^{-3}$ [@Wolfire2003].
Summary and Discussion
======================
We constrained the controlling parameter $\aG$ for the envelopes in Perseus. The $\aG$ and volume densities are in-between the CNM and WNM values, suggesting that the shielding layers are probably multiphased, where UNM (and perhaps some WNM) significantly contribute to the shielding of the H$_2$ cores. An alternative explanation is that the observations of are contaminated by large amounts of gas that does not participate in shielding. In this case $\so$ is effectively smaller, reducing the inferred $\aG$ and increasing $n$. However, unrealistically large amounts of the must be removed (50-90%) for all of the shielding gas to be CNM. Therefore pure CNM shielding cannot explain the observed columns in Perseus.
The situation in Perseus suggests that in addition to CNM, less dense UNM is important in controlling the transitions and Schmidt-Kennicutt thresholds in external galaxies. Full details of this work are in @Bialy2015.
Bally, J., Walawender, J., Johnstone, D., et al.: 2008, 4
Bialy, S. and Sternberg, A.: 2015, , 4424
Bialy, S., Sternberg, A., Lee, M.-Y., et al.: 2015, , 122
Draine, B. T.: 1978, , 595
, R., [Tacconi]{}, L. J., [Kurk]{}, J., et al.: 2013, , 68
Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., and Tumlinson, J.: 2009, , 216
Lee, M.-Y., Stanimirović, S., Douglas, K. A., et al.: 2012, , 75
, M.-Y., [Stanimirovic]{}, S., [Murray]{}, C. E., et al.: 2015, , 56
, A. K., [Walter]{}, F., [Brinks]{}, E., et al.: 2008, , 2782
, M.-A. and [Lagache]{}, G.: 2005, , 302
Peek, J. E. G., Heiles, C., Douglas, K. A., et al.: 2011, , 20
Ridge, N. A., [Di Francesco]{}, J., Kirk, H., et al.: 2006, , 2921
Sternberg, A., Petit, F. L., Roueff, E., and Bourlot, J. L.: 2014, , 10S
, C. T., [Flagey]{}, N., [Paladini]{}, R., et al.: 2011, , 1889
Wolfire, M. G., McKee, C. F., Hollenbach, D., and Tielens, A. G. G. M.: 2003, , 278
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We verify the *Invariance Conjectures* of tautological equations [@ypL2] in genus two. In particular, a uniform derivation of all known genus two equations is given.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA'
author:
- 'D. Arcara'
- 'Y.-P. Lee'
title: Tautological equations in genus $2$ via invariance conjectures
---
Introduction
============
The purpose of this paper is to verify the genus two case of *Invariance Conjectures* of tautological equations proposed in [@ypL2]. In particular, applying Theorem 5 in [@ypL3] (i.e. Conjecture 1 in [@ypL2]) and E. Getzler’s Hodge numbers calculations [@eG2], we are able to give a uniform derivation of all known genus two tautological equations: Mumford–Getzler’s equation, Getzler’s equation [@eG2] and Belorousski–Pandharipande’s equation [@BP]. This, combined with [@GL] in genus one and [@AL] in genus three, shows that this method generates and proves all known tautological equations.
Review of the Conjectures
-------------------------
Some ingredients in [@ypL2] are needed in our calculations.
- The elements in the ${\mathbb{Q}}$-tautological algebra $R^k({\overline{\mathcal{M}}}_{g,n})$ are the tautological classes of codimension $k$ in ${\overline{\mathcal{M}}}_{g,n}$. The notation $(g,n,k)$ will be used to denote the triple (genus, number of marked points, codimension).
- Any tautological class can be represented by a linear combination of decorated (and labeled) graph $\Gamma$. See Section 1 in [@ypL2]. We use a special notation of graphs, called *gwi*s, which are explained in Section 3.1 in [@ypL2].
- The operators $$\mathfrak{r}_l: R^k({\overline{\mathcal{M}}}_{g,n}) \to R^{k+l-1}({\overline{\mathcal{M}}}^{\bullet}_{g-1,n+2}),
\quad l=1,2,\ldots$$ are defined in Definition 2 of [@ypL2] as operations on decorated graphs. Note that the image lies in the moduli of possibly *disconnected* curves, with at most two connected components.
Let $\sum_i c_i \Gamma_i =0$ be a tautological equation in codimension $k$ strata in $\overline{M}_{g,n}$. The Invariance Conjectures in [@ypL2] are:
[([@ypL3], originally Conjecture 1)]{} For all $l$ $$\label{e:1}
\mathfrak{r}_l (\sum_i c_i \Gamma_i) =0.$$
Let $E=\sum_i c_i \Gamma_i$ be a given linear combination of codimension $k$ tautological strata in ${\overline{\mathcal{M}}}_{g,n}$ and $k < 3g-3+n$, with $c_i$ *unknown variables*.
If $\mathfrak{r}_l (E) =0$ for all $l$, then $E=0$ is a tautological equation.
Conjecture 2 will produce all tautological equations inductively.
The algorithm of finding tautological equations
-----------------------------------------------
A general algorithm of finding the tautological equations, based on Conjectures 2 and 3, is explained in [@ypL2] Section 2. Since these remain conjectural, one possible alternative to the general scheme is to
- Calculate the rank of $R^k({\overline{\mathcal{M}}}_{g,n})$ to see if there is any new equation.
- If there is one, then apply invariance condition equation to obtain the coefficients of the equation.
Since Theorem 1 gives a *necessary* condition, this proceedure gives a proof of the generated tautological equation.
Main results
------------
Invariance Conjectures hold for $(g,n,k)=(2,1,2),(2,2,2),(2,3,2)$. In particular, a uniform derivation of all known genus two tautological equations is given by invariance condition .
As explained in [@ypL2] and [@ypL3], our calculation in terms of gwis can be translated literally into one for any (axiomatic) Gromov–Witten theories. Therefore, it completes (the write-up of) a proof of the genus two case of Virasoro conjecture in the semisimple case and of Witten’s conjecture (on spin curves and Gelfand–Dickey hierarchies).
We wish to thank A. Bertram, E. Getzler, A. Givental, R. Pandharipande, and R. Vakil for many useful discussions. The final stage of this work was done during the second author’s visit to NCTS, whose hospitality is greatly appreciated.
Mumford–Getzler’s equation in $\ocM_{2,1}$
==========================================
In all calculations below, we will emply the “gwi” notations for decorated graphs. It is explained in [@ypL2] that gwis are equivalent to the decorated graphs, or a tautological class. The notations are obviously inspired by Gromov–Witten invariants.
Tautological classes of $R^2(\ocM_{2,1})$
-----------------------------------------
There are $8$ boundary strata of codimension $\leq 2$ in $\ocM_{2,1}$: $1$ stratum in codimension $0$, $2$ strata in codimension $1$, and $5$ strata in codimension $2$. If we insert $\psi$ classes, the $2$ boundary strata in codimension $1$ produce $5$ different tautological elements in codimension $2$. Note that the $\kappa$-classes can be expressed in terms of boundary and $\psi$-classes in genus two. So the only decoration one would need is the $\psi$-classes.
Here is a list of all the $11$ strata with $\psi$ classes in codimension $2$: $$\begin{split}
&\< \d^x_2 \>_2, \ \< \d^x \d^\mu_1 \d^\mu \>_1,
\< \d^x_1 \d^\mu \d^\mu \>_1, \
\< \d^x \d^\mu_1 \>_1 \< \d^\mu \>_1, \
\< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu_1 \>_1, \
\< \d^x_1 \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \>_1, \\
&\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>, \
\< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>, \
\< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>, \
\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>, \\
&\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>.
\end{split}$$
The $5$ strata with $\psi$-classes can be written in terms of the $5$ strata without $\psi$-classes using TRR’s, and therefore we only have $6$ terms which could be independent. A general element can be written as $$\begin{split}
E=&c_1 \< \d^x_2 \>_2 + c_2 \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
+ c_3 \< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \\
+ &c_4 \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
+ c_5 \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
+ c_6 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>.
\end{split}$$
Calculating $\mathfrak{r}_1(E)$
-------------------------------
*Throughout this paper, the labelings $i,j$ are assumed to be symmetrized for $l$ odd, and anti-symmetrized for $l$ even.*
$$\begin{aligned}
\< \d^x_2 \>_2 & \mapsto &
- \frac{1}{2} \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^j \d^\nu \>
- \frac{1}{48} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^j \d^\nu \>
\\ & &
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^j \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \>\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> & \mapsto &
\frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
+ \< \d^j \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\\ & &
- \frac{1}{2} \< \d^i \d^j \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
- \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> & \mapsto &
\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
\\ & &
- \frac{1}{2} \< \d^i \d^j \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
- \< \d^i \>_1 \< \d^j \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> & \mapsto &
2 \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^j \d^\nu \>
+ \frac{1}{12} \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^j \d^\nu \>
\\ & &
- \frac{1}{2} \< \d^i \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
- \< \d^i \>_1 \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> & \mapsto &
\frac{1}{12} \< \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^j \d^\nu \>
- \< \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^j \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> & \mapsto &
4 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
- 2 \< \d^i \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \\\end{aligned}$$
Setting $\mathfrak{r}_1(E)=0$
-----------------------------
Now we will pick a basis, and set its coordinates to zero.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1-1}
\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^j \d^\nu \>: \quad
- \frac{1}{2} c_1 + 2 c_4 - c_5 = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1-2}
\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
- c_2 + c_3 + \frac{1}{12} c_5 = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1-3}
\< \d^i \>_1 \< \d^j \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
- \frac{1}{24} c_1 + c_2 - c_3 - c_4 = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1-4}
\< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
\frac{1}{24} c_2 + \frac{1}{24} c_3 - 2 c_6 = 0.\end{aligned}$$
The remaining terms are related to each via WDVV as follows: $$\begin{split}
&\< \d^x \d^i \d^j \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \\
= & \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^j \d^\nu \>
+2 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
-2 \< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>, \\
&\< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \\
= & \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^j \d^\nu \>
+ \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
- \< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, among the $5$ vectors, only $3$ of them are linearly independent.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1-5}
\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^j \d^\nu \> : \quad
- \frac{1}{48} c_1 - \frac{1}{2} c_2 - \frac{1}{2} c_3 + 4 c_6 = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1-6}
\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \>: \quad
- \frac{1}{24} c_1 - \frac{1}{2} c_4 - c_3 + 4 c_6 = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1-7}
\< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu\>: \quad
c_3 + \frac{1}{12} c_4 - 4 c_6 = 0.\end{aligned}$$
The system of equations (\[eq1-1\]), (\[eq1-2\]), (\[eq1-3\]), (\[eq1-4\]), (\[eq1-5\]), (\[eq1-6\]), and (\[eq1-7\]) has a unique solution (up to scaling) $$c_2 = - \frac{13}{240} c_1,\
c_3 = \frac{1}{240} c_1,\
c_4 = - \frac{1}{10} c_1,\
c_5 = - \frac{7}{10} c_1,\
c_6 = - \frac{1}{960} c_1$$ We therefore obtain that, if we let $c_1=-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
& & - \< \d^x_2 \>_2
+ \frac{13}{240} \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
- \frac{1}{240} \< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \\
& & + \frac{1}{10} \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
+ \frac{7}{10} \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
+ \frac{1}{960} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> = 0,\end{aligned}$$ which is Mumford–Getzler’s equation.
Checking $\mathfrak{r}_2(E)=0$
------------------------------
Let us now calculate $\mathfrak{r}_2(E)$.
$$\begin{split}
\< \d^x_2 \>_2 &\mapsto
- \frac{1}{576} \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^\alpha \d^j \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \\
\< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\nu \>_1
&\mapsto
\frac{1}{24} \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\alpha \d^\nu \>
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^j \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \\
\< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
&\mapsto
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \< \d^x \d^\nu \d^\mu \> \\
\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
& \mapsto
- \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\alpha \d^\nu \>
- \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> .
\end{split}$$ The other graphs all have $\mathfrak{r}_2(\Gamma)=0.$
Therefore, $\mathfrak{r}_2(E)=0$ as $$\frac{1}{576} c_1 + \frac{1}{24} c_{3} + \frac{1}{24} c_{3} + \frac{1}{24} c_{4} - c_{6} - c_{6} = 0.$$
Getzler’s equation in $\ocM_{2,2}$
==================================
Tautological classes in $\ocM_{2,2}$ of codimension $2$ {#strata}
-------------------------------------------------------
A general linear combination of codimension $2$ tautological classes in $\ocM_{2,2}$ is, after removing the linearly dependent classes from the induced equations (TRR’s and Mumford–Getzler’s),
$$\begin{split}
E=
& c_1 \< \d^x_1 \d^y_1 \>_2
+ c_2 \< \d^\mu_1 \>_2 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \>
+ c_3 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
+ c_4 \< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \> \\
+ &c_5 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \>_1
+ c_6 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^\nu \>_1
+ c_7 \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\nu \>_1 \\
+ &c_8 \< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \>_1
+ c_9 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
+ c_{10} \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \\
+ &c_{11} \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
+ c_{12} \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\nu \>_1
+ c_{13} \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \>_1 \\
+ &c_{14} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^y \d^\nu \>_1
+ c_{15} \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\nu \>_1.
\end{split}$$
Setting $\mathfrak{r}_1 (E) =0$
-------------------------------
The routine calculation of $\mathfrak{r}_1 (E)$ is omitted. Again, a basis will be chosen and the components set to zero.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-1}
\< \d^x \d^i \>_1 \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^j \d^\mu \>: \quad
c_7 - c_8 - c_9 = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-2}
\< \d^y \d^i \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^j \d^\mu \>: \quad
c_6 - c_8 - c_{10} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-3}
\< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^y \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
- c_7 + c_8 + \frac{1}{24} c_{15} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-4}
\< \d^y \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
-c_6 + c_8 + \frac{1}{24} c_{14} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-5}
\< \d^i \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^y \d^j \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
- \frac{1}{240} c_2 - c_8 = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-6}
\< \d^i \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
- c_4 + \frac{1}{24} c_{12} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-7}
\< \d^i \>_1 \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^j \d^\mu \>: \quad
- 2 c_1 - c_2 + 2 c_{13} - c_{14} - c_{15} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-8}
\< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^y \d^i \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \>: \quad
\frac{1}{10} c_2 + c_4 + c_4 - c_{11} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-9}
\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^y \d^j \d^\nu \>: \quad
- c_1 - 2 c_{13} + c_{14} + c_{15} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-10}
\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^y \d^i \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \>: \quad
\frac{7}{10} c_2 + c_{12} - c_{13} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-11}
\< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^j \> \< \d^\nu \>_1: \quad
\frac{13}{240} c_2 + c_4 - c_5 + \frac{1}{24} c_{12} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-12}
\< \d^i \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^y \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \>_1: \quad
- \frac{1}{24} c_1 - c_5 + c_6 + \frac{1}{24} c_{15} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-13}
\< \d^i \d^y \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^x \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \>_1: \quad
- \frac{1}{24} c_1 - c_5 + c_7 + \frac{1}{24} c_{14} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-14}
\< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^j \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \>_1: \quad
- c_5 + c_8 + \frac{1}{12} c_{13} = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-19}
\< \d^x \d^y \d^i \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
\frac{1}{960} c_2 - c_3 + \frac{1}{24} c_4 = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-20}
\< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^y \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \> : \quad
- \frac{1}{576} c_1 - 2 c_3 + \frac{1}{24} c_6 + \frac{1}{24} c_7 = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2-21}
\< \d^x \d^y \d^i \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
- 2 c_3 + \frac{1}{24} c_5 + \frac{1}{24} c_8 = 0.\end{aligned}$$
The $7$ vectors $$\begin{split}
&\< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \>_1,\
\< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \>_1,\
\< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \>_1,\\
&\< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \>_1,\
\< \d^x \d^y \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \>_1,\
\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \>_1,\\
&\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^i \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \>_1
\end{split}$$ are related by WDVV equations. There are $4$ independent vectors. $$\label{eq2-15}
\< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \>_1: \quad
- \frac{1}{12} c_1 - c_7 + 2 c_5 - c_{11} - c_6 = 0.$$ $$\label{eq2-16}
\< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \>_1: \quad
- \frac{1}{12} c_1 - c_9 + 2 c_5 - c_{11} + c_{10} - 2 c_6 = 0.$$ $$\label{eq2-17}
\< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \>_1: \quad
-\frac{1}{24} c_2 - c_4 - c_5 + \frac{1}{24}c_{12} + c_{11} - c_{10} + c_6 =0.$$ $$\label{eq2-18}
\< \d^x \d^y \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \>_1: \quad
- c_8 - c_{10} + c_6 = 0.$$
All of the other remaining terms are related to each other via WDVV, TRR’s and Getzler’s genus one equation. After applying the above equations, one can write them in terms of a basis.
$$\label{eq12_xi}
\< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^y \d^j \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1: \quad
c_1 + c_2 + 20 c_4 - 24 c_5 + 24 c_7 + 2 c_9 + 26 c_{10} - 2 c_{11} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq12_xy}
\< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^j \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1: \quad
c_1 + \frac{1}{2} c_2 + 12 c_4 - 12 c_5 + 12 c_7 + 12 c_{10} - \frac{1}{2} c_{12} = 0.$$
$$\label{eqx1}
\< \d^y \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\nu \>_1: \quad
- c_1 - \frac{1}{2} c_2 - 10 c_4 + 12 c_5 - 12 c_7 + 2 c_9 - 12 c_{10} - \frac{1}{2} c_{15} = 0.$$
$$\label{eqy1}
\< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^\nu \>_1: \quad
- c_1 - \frac{1}{2} c_2 - 10 c_4 + 12 c_5 - 12 c_7 - 10 c_{10} - \frac{1}{2} c_{14} = 0.$$
$$\label{eqi1}
\< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \>_1: \quad
- 4 c_1 - 2 c_2 - 20 c_4 + 24 c_5 - 24 c_7 - 2 c_9 - 26 c_{10} + 2 c_{11} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq1_xj2}
\< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^y \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \>_1: \quad
- 3 c_1 - c_2 - 8 c_4 + 12 c_5 - 12 c_7 + 2 c_9 - 10 c_{10} - \frac{1}{2} c_{12} - c_{13} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq1_x12}
\< \d^y \d^i \d^j \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \>_1: \quad
\frac{3}{2} c_1 + \frac{1}{2} c_2 + 10 c_4 - 12 c_5 + 12 c_7 - 2 c_9 + 12 c_{10} + c_{13} - \frac{1}{2} c_{14} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq1_y12}
\< \d^y \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \>_1: \quad
- \frac{3}{2} c_1 - \frac{1}{2} c_2 + 2 c_4 + 2 c_9 - \frac{1}{2} c_{12} - \frac{1}{2} c_{15} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq1_i12}
\< \d^x \d^y \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \>_1: \quad
c_1 + c_2 + 8 c_4 - 12 c_5 + 12 c_7 + 12 c_{10} + 2 c_{11} + \frac{1}{2} c_{12} - c_{13} = 0.$$
$$\label{eqxy21}
\< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^j \d^\nu \>: \quad
\frac{1}{24} c_2 + \frac{5}{6} c_4 - \frac{5}{12} c_{11} = 0.$$
$$\label{eqxi21}
\< \d^x \d^i \d^\nu \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^j \d^\nu \>: \quad
- \frac{1}{8} c_1 - \frac{1}{24} c_2 + 4 c_3 - \frac{5}{6} c_4 - c_7 - c_{10} + \frac{1}{12} c_{11} = 0.$$
$$\label{eqx221}
\< \d^x \d^\nu \d^\nu \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^i \d^j \>: \quad
- \frac{1}{24} c_1 - \frac{1}{24} c_2 - \frac{5}{6} c_4 + c_5 - \frac{1}{2} c_6 - \frac{1}{2} c_7 - \frac{1}{12} c_{11} = 0.$$
$$\label{eqxi1}
\< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
- \frac{1}{16} c_1 - \frac{1}{48} c_2 - \frac{5}{12} c_4 - \frac{5}{12} c_{10} = 0.$$
$$\label{eqyi1}
\< \d^y \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
- \frac{5}{48} c_1 - \frac{1}{16} c_2 - \frac{5}{4} c_4 + c_5 - c_7 + \frac{1}{12} c_9 - \frac{1}{2} c_{10} - \frac{1}{12} c_{11} = 0.$$
$$\label{eqy21}
\< \d^y \d^\nu \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^i \d^j \d^\nu \>: \quad
\frac{1}{24} c_1 + \frac{1}{24} c_2 + \frac{5}{6} c_4 - c_5 + c_7 - \frac{1}{2} c_9 + \frac{1}{2} c_{10} + \frac{1}{12} c_{11} = 0.$$
$$\label{eqi21}
\< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^y \d^j \d^\nu \>: \quad
\frac{1}{12} c_1 + \frac{1}{12} c_2 + 4 c_3 + \frac{5}{3} c_4 - 2 c_5 + c_7 + c_{10} + \frac{1}{12} c_{11} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq221}
\< \d^\nu \d^\nu \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^y \d^i \d^j \>: \quad
- \frac{1}{24} c_1 - \frac{1}{24} c_2 - \frac{5}{6} c_4 + c_5 - \frac{1}{2} c_7 - \frac{1}{2} c_8 - \frac{1}{2} c_{10} - \frac{1}{12} c_{11} = 0.$$
Solving equations (\[eq2-1\])-(\[eq221\]), we can write all of the coefficients in terms of $c_1$: $$\begin{split}
&c_2 = - 3 c_1, \
c_3 = - \frac{1}{576} c_1, \
c_4 = \frac{1}{30} c_1, \
c_5 = - \frac{23}{240} c_1, \
c_6 = - \frac{1}{48} c_1, \
c_7 = - \frac{1}{48} c_1, \\
&c_8 = \frac{1}{80} c_1, \
c_9 = - \frac{1}{30} c_1, \
c_{10} = - \frac{1}{30} c_1, \
c_{11} = - \frac{7}{30} c_1, \
c_{12} = \frac{4}{5} c_1, \\
&c_{13} = - \frac{13}{10} c_1, \
c_{14} = - \frac{4}{5} c_1, \
c_{15} = - \frac{4}{5} c_1
\end{split}$$ and these are the coefficients of Getzler’s equation in $\ocM_{2,2}$.
Checking $\mathfrak{r}_2(E)=0$
------------------------------
Again, one has to pick a basis and check all components vanish.
$$\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^j \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>: \quad
\frac{1}{20} c_2 + c_4 - c_5 - c_8 + \frac{1}{24} c_{12} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^j \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> : \quad
\frac{1}{1152} c_2 - c_3 + \frac{1}{24} c_4 - \frac{1}{24} c_8 = 0.$$ $$\< \d^j \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> : \quad
\frac{1}{480} c_2 - 2 c_3 + \frac{1}{12} c_4 = 0.$$ $$\< \d^j \>_1 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> : \quad
- \frac{1}{12} c_1 - \frac{1}{24} c_2 - c_4 + c_5 - c_8 - c_9 - c_{10} + \frac{1}{24} c_{12} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\alpha \> : \quad
\frac{1}{12} c_1 + \frac{1}{24} c_2 - c_4 - c_5 + c_8 + \frac{1}{24} c_{12} + \frac{1}{24} c_{14} + \frac{1}{24} c_{15} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^j \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^x \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> : \quad
- \frac{1}{24} c_1 - c_5 + c_8 + c_{10} + \frac{1}{24} c_{15} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^j \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^y \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> : \quad
- \frac{1}{24} c_1 - c_5 + c_8 + c_9 + \frac{1}{24} c_{14} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^j \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^y \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> : \quad
- \frac{1}{576} c_1 - 2 c_3 + \frac{1}{24} c_6 + \frac{1}{24} c_8 + \frac{1}{24} c_9 = 0.$$ $$\< \d^j \d^y \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^x \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> : \quad
- \frac{1}{576} c_1 - 2 c_3 + \frac{1}{24} c_7 + \frac{1}{24} c_8 + \frac{1}{24} c_{10} = 0.$$
The $7$ vectors $$\begin{split}
&\< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>,
\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>, \\
&\< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>,
\< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> ,\\
&\< \d^i \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> ,
\< \d^i \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> , \\
&\< \d^i \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
\end{split}$$ are related by WDVV equations. $4$ of them are linear independent. $$\< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> : \quad
\frac{1}{288} c_1 + \frac{1}{576} c_2 - 2 c_3 + \frac{1}{12} c_8 + \frac{1}{24} c_9 + \frac{1}{24} c_{10} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> : \quad
\frac{1}{24} c_6 - \frac{1}{24} c_8 - \frac{1}{24} c_9 = 0.$$ $$\< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> : \quad
\frac{1}{24} c_7 - \frac{1}{24} c_8 - \frac{1}{24} c_{10} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> : \quad
\frac{1}{288} c_1 - 4 c_3 + \frac{1}{6} c_8 + \frac{1}{24} c_9 + \frac{1}{24} c_{10} + \frac{1}{24} c_{11} = 0.$$
All of the remaining strata are related by WDVV equations. Only $3$ of them are linearly independent. $$\< \d^x \d^j \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^i \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> : \quad
- 4 c_3 - \frac{5}{6} c_4 + c_8 + \frac{1}{6} c_9 + \frac{1}{6} c_{10} - \frac{1}{12} c_{11} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^x \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^y \d^\alpha \> : \quad
- \frac{5}{6} c_4 - \frac{5}{6} c_9 = 0.$$ $$\< \d^y \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^x \d^\alpha \> : \quad
- \frac{5}{6} c_4 - \frac{5}{6} c_{10} = 0.$$
Therefore, $\mathfrak{r}_2 (E)=0$.
Calculating $\mathfrak{r}_3 (E)$
--------------------------------
Since $l=3$ case is new, the calculation is presented.
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \< \d^x_1 \d^y_1 \>_2
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^y \d^\nu \d^j \> \< \d^x \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\nu \d^i \> \< \d^\mu \d^\beta \d^\beta \>
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^y \d^\nu \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^\alpha \d^j \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\nu \d^i \> \< \d^\mu \d^\beta \d^\beta \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^\alpha \d^j \> \< \d^\alpha \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^y \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^y \d^\alpha \d^j \> \< \d^\alpha \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^j \> \< \d^y \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \>
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^j \> \< \d^y \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{48} \< \d^\alpha \d^y \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^j \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^i \d^\alpha \>
+ \frac{1}{48} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\nu \d^y \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^j \> \< \d^\nu \d^i \d^\alpha \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{48} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\mu \d^j \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^y \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\nu \d^i \>
+ \frac{1}{48} \< \d^\alpha \d^y \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^j \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^i \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{48} \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^y \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^i \>
+ \frac{1}{48} \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^i \d^y \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{576} \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^i \d^\alpha \> \< \d^j \d^\beta \d^\beta \>
+ \frac{1}{576} \< \d^x \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^i \> \< \d^j \d^\beta \d^\beta \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{576} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^\alpha \d^\beta \> \< \d^\alpha \d^j \d^\beta \> \\\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \< \d^\mu_1 \>_2 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \>
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{5760} \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^j \>
+ \frac{1}{960} \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^j \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^\mu \d^j \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^i \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \>
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^j \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\mu \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{48} \< \d^\mu \d^\beta \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\beta \d^j \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^i \d^\alpha \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \>
+ \frac{1}{48} \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\mu \d^\beta \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\beta \d^\nu \d^i \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{576} \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\nu \d^i \d^\alpha \> \< \d^j \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \\\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ 4 \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\alpha \d^j \> \< \d^\alpha \d^x \d^y \>
- 2 \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- 4 \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
- 4 \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^y \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- 4 \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^x \d^\nu \>
- \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^x \d^y \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ 4 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
+ 2 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^y \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ 4 \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^y \d^\mu \> \\\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \>
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{12} \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^j \> \< \d^\mu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \>
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\nu \d^\mu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^j \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^j \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \>
+ \frac{1}{2} \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{2} \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \>
- \frac{1}{12} \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \>
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \< \d^j \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \> \\\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \>_1
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^j \> \< \d^i \d^y \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\nu \d^x \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
- \< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^y \> \< \d^\beta \d^j \d^x \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{2} \< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^x \>
+ \frac{1}{2} \< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^y \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^x \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^x \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^j \d^y \d^\nu \>
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^y \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^j \d^x \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^j \d^x \d^y \>
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \< \d^j \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^x \d^y \> \\\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{12} \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^x \> \< \d^\mu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \< \d^y \d^j \d^\nu \>
- \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^j \d^x \> \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{2} \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^x \> \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
+ \frac{1}{2} \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^x \> \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^x \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
- \frac{1}{12} \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^j \d^x \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \\\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \< \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{12} \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^y \> \< \d^\mu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \< \d^x \d^j \d^\nu \>
- \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^j \d^y \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{2} \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^y \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
+ \frac{1}{2} \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^y \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^y \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
- \frac{1}{12} \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^j \d^y \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \\\end{aligned}$$
The other graphs all have $\mathfrak{r}_3(\Gamma)=0$.
Checking $\mathfrak{r}_3 (E)=0$
-------------------------------
Now the $\mathfrak{r}_3(E)$ has only a few independent strata.
$$\< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\mu \> : \quad
\frac{1}{288} c_1 + \frac{1}{576} c_2 - 2 c_3 + \frac{1}{12} c_8 + \frac{1}{24} c_9 + \frac{1}{24} c_{10} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^i \d^x \d^y \>: \quad
\frac{1}{1152} c_2 - c_3 + \frac{1}{24} c_4 - \frac{1}{24} c_8 = 0.$$ $$\< \d^i \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^y \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \>: \quad
\frac{1}{576} c_1 + 2 c_3 - \frac{1}{12} c_8 - \frac{1}{24} c_9 - \frac{1}{24} c_{10} = 0.$$ The remaining strata, which are all equivalent as codimension $4$ classes in $\ocM_{1,4}$, have coefficient $$- \frac{1}{8} c_1 - \frac{1}{24} c_2 = 0.$$
The Belorousski-Pandharipande equation in $\ocM_{2,3}$
======================================================
Strata in $\ocM_{2,3}$ of codimension $2$
-----------------------------------------
*Throughout this section, we will always assume that the three external labelings $x,y,z$ are symmetrized.*
Using Mumford–Getzler’s and Getzler’s equations for genus $2$, all genus $2$ terms with more than one descendent can be rewritten in terms of the others. Also, using TRR’s, all genus $0$ or $1$ terms with a descendent can be rewritten in terms of the others. We are therefore left with $21$ strata which could be independent. [^1]
A general linear combination is $$\begin{aligned}
E = \sum_{S_3 (x,y,z)}
& & c_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^\nu \>_2
+ c_2 \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu_1 \>_2
+ c_3 \< \d^x_1 \d^\mu \>_2 \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \> \\
& & + c_4 \< \d^x \d^\mu_1 \>_2 \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
+ c_5 \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \>_1 \\
& & + c_6 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \d^z \>_1
+ c_7 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>_1 \\
& & + c_8 \< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^z \>_1
+ c_9 \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \>_1 \\
& & + c_{10} \< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>
+ c_{11} \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \> \\
& & + c_{12} \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \>_1
+ c_{13} \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^z \>_1 \\
& & + c_{14} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>_1
+ c_{15} \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \\
& & + c_{16} \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1
+ c_{17} \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^z \>_1 \\
& & + c_{18} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>_1
+ c_{19} \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>_1 \\
& & + c_{20} \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \d^z \>_1
+ c_{21} \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> = 0,\end{aligned}$$
Setting $\mathfrak{r}_1(E)=0$
-----------------------------
Again a basis is chosen for the output graphs of $\mathfrak{r}_1(E)$, and the coefficients are set to zero.
$$\label{eq231}
\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^j \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^i_1 \>_2 : \quad
c_1 + c_2 = 0.$$
$$\label{eq232}
\< \d^x \d^y \d^i \> \< \d^z \d^\mu \d^j \> \< \d^\mu_1 \>_2: \quad
- 3 c_2 + 3 c_3 + c_4 = 0.$$
$$\label{eq233}
\< \d^x \d^y \d^i \>_1 \< \d^z \d^j \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
c_{14} - 3 c_{15} - c_{18} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq234}
\< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^z \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
\frac{1}{24} c_7 - c_{14} + c_{15} + c_{15} + c_{15} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq235}
\< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^z \d^j \>: \quad
- \frac{1}{80} c_3 - \frac{1}{240} c_4 - 3 c_{15} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq236}
\< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
- c_{20} + \frac{1}{24} c_{11} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq237}
\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^z \d^j \>: \quad
\frac{1}{30} c_3 + \frac{1}{10} c_4 - c_{17} + c_{20} + c_{20} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq238}
\< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^z \d^j \>: \quad
\frac{1}{30} c_3 - c_{18} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq239}
\< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^z \d^j \>: \quad
c_{19} - c_{20} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2310}
\< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^i \d^\mu \> \< \d^y \d^z \d^j \>: \quad
- \frac{1}{30} c_3 - 2 c_{19} - c_{19} + c_{20} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2311}
\< \d^x \d^i \>_1 \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^y \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^j \d^\mu \>: \quad
- c_4 + c_6 - 2 c_7 + c_{10} - c_{11} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2312}
\< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^z \d^j \>: \quad
\frac{4}{5} c_3 + \frac{7}{5} c_4 - c_6 + c_{10} + c_{11} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2313}
\< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^i \> \< \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \d^z \d^j \>: \quad
- 2 c_6 + c_7 + c_7 + 2 c_8 = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2314}
\< \d^i \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^z \d^j \>: \quad
\frac{4}{5} c_3 - c_7 = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2315}
\< \d^i \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \d^z \d^j \>: \quad
- c_3 + c_{10} - c_{11} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2316}
\< \d^i \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^z \d^j \>: \quad
c_9 - c_{11} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2317}
\< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^x \d^i \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^z \d^j \>: \quad
- \frac{4}{5} c_3 - 2 c_9 - c_9 + c_{11} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2318}
\< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^j \>: \quad ,
\frac{1}{10} c_2 - c_{16} + c_{19} + c_{19} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2319}
\< \d^i \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^j \>: \quad ,
- \frac{1}{240} c_2 - c_{15} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2320}
\< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^y \d^z \d^j \>: \quad
\frac{1}{48}c_3 + \frac{13}{240}c_4 + \frac{1}{24} c_{10} - c_{13} + c_{20}=0.$$
$$\label{eq2321}
\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^j \>: \quad
\frac{7}{10} c_2 - c_5 + c_9 = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2322}
\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^j \>: \quad
\frac{13}{240} c_2 + \frac{1}{24} c_9 - c_{12} + c_{19} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2323}
\< \d^x \d^y \d^i \> \< \d^j \d^z \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
\frac{1}{576} c_3 + \frac{1}{960} c_4 + \frac{1}{24} c_{20} + 3 c_{21} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2324}
\< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^i \> \< \d^j \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
\frac{1}{24} c_{12} + \frac{1}{24} c_{15} + 2 c_{21} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2325}
\< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^i \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
\frac{1}{960} c_2 + \frac{1}{24} c_{19} + c_{21} = 0.$$
$$\label{eq2326}
\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^i \> \< \d^j \d^y \d^z \d^\nu \d^\nu \>: \quad
\frac{1}{24} c_{13} + \frac{1}{24} c_{14} + 6 c_{21} = 0.$$
The coefficients of the Belorousski-Pandharipande equation are the only solution of the equations (\[eq231\])-(\[eq2326\]).
Checking $\mathfrak{r}_2(E)=0$
------------------------------
Since the whole output graphs are far too numerous, we shall present the the coefficients of the following four (disconnected) graphs are zero: $$\begin{split}
\< \d^i \d^x \>_1 \< \d^j \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>, \quad
\< \d^i \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \\
\< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^x \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^y \d^z \>, \quad
\< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
\end{split}$$
In the following, the graphs $\Gamma$ appearing in BP equation such that $\mathfrak{r}_2(\Gamma)$ contain any of the above four graphs will be listed.
$$\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^\nu \>_2
\mapsto
\frac{1}{10} \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^x \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^y \d^z \>
+ \ldots .$$ $$\< \d^x_1 \d^\mu \>_2 \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
\mapsto
\frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
+ \ldots$$ $$\< \d^x \d^\mu_1 \>_2 \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
\mapsto
\frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^x \>_1 \< \d^j \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
+ \dots$$ $$\< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^z \>_1
\mapsto
- \frac{1}{12} \< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
+ \dots$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^x \>_1 \< \d^j \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
+ \dots \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^z \>_1
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \< \d^i \d^x \>_1 \< \d^j \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
+2 \< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
+ \dots \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
-6 \< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
+3 \< \d^i \d^x \>_1 \< \d^j \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
+ \dots \end{aligned}$$ $$\< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1
\mapsto
\< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^x \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^y \d^z \>
+ \dots$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>_1 \mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
2 \< \d^i \d^x \>_1 \< \d^j \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
-2 \< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
+ \dots \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \d^z \>_1 \mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
-2 \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^x \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^y \d^z \>
+ \< \d^i \d^x \>_1 \< \d^j \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \< \d^i \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
+ \dots \end{aligned}$$
Checking the coefficients: $$\< \d^i \d^x \>_1 \< \d^j \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> : \quad
\frac{1}{24} c_4 - \frac{1}{24} c_{10} - c_{13} +3 c_{15} +2 c_{18} + c_{20} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^i \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> : \quad
\frac{1}{24} c_3 - \frac{1}{24} c_{10} + c_{20} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^\mu \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^x \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^y \d^z \> : \quad
\frac{1}{10} c_{10} + c_{16} -2 c_{20} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^x \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> : \quad
- \frac{1}{12} c_8 +2 c_{13} -6 c_{15} -2 c_{18} = 0.$$
Checking $\mathfrak{r}_3 (E) =0$
--------------------------------
In the same spirit as the case $l=2$, only the following four disconnected output graphs will be presented here.
$$\< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^i \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\beta \d^\beta \>, \quad \quad
\< \d^i \>_1 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^i \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \>,$$ $$\< \d^i \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^y \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^j \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \>, \quad \quad
\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^x \> \< \d^y \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^j \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \>.$$ $$\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^\nu \>_2
\mapsto
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^j \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \>
+ \dots$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& & \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu_1 \>_2 \mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{5760} \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^j \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
+ \frac{1}{960} \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^j \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^\mu \>
+ \dots\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x_1 \d^\mu \>_2 \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^j \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^i \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^j \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^x \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
\\ & &\hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^\nu \d^j \> \< \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
- \frac{1}{576} \< \d^x \d^\nu \d^\nu \d^j \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
+ \dots\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^\mu_1 \>_2 \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^j \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^i \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^j \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^x \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\mu \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^x \> \< \d^\nu \d^\beta \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\beta \d^j \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>
+ \frac{1}{576} \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^x \> \< \d^\nu \d^\beta \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\beta \d^j \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>
+ \dots\end{aligned}$$ $$\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>_1
\mapsto
\frac{1}{24} \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^j \> \< \d^i \d^z \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\nu \d^y \> \< \d^\nu \d^\beta \d^\beta \>
+ \dots$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^\nu \>_1 \< \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
\frac{1}{24} \< \d^j \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\alpha \d^x \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^j \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>
+ \dots\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \>_1
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
\< \d^j \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^z \> \< \d^\beta \d^x \d^y \>
-3 \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^j \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^y \d^z \>
+ \dots\end{aligned}$$ $$\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>_1
\mapsto
\frac{1}{24} \< \d^j \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^y \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \>
+ \dots$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^j \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
- \< \d^j \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^z \> \< \d^\beta \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
\\ & &
+3 \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^x \> \< \d^j \d^\beta \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\beta \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
+ \frac{1}{8} \< \d^i \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\beta \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\beta \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
+ \dots\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>_1
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \< \d^j \>_1 \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^z \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^y \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
+2 \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^y \> \< \d^x \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\beta \d^z \> \< \d^\beta \d^\alpha \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{12} \< \d^i \d^y \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^x \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\beta \d^z \> \< \d^\beta \d^\alpha \d^\nu \>
+ \dots \end{aligned}$$ $$\< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>_1
\mapsto
\frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^j \> \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \>
+ \dots$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \d^z \>_1
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \d^z \>
- \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \>_1 \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^z \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^z \> \< \d^j \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\alpha \>
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^z \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^x \d^y \d^\alpha \>
+ \dots\end{aligned}$$
Checking the coefficients: $$\< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^i \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\beta \d^\beta \> : \quad
\frac{1}{1152} c_2 - \frac{1}{24} c_{15} + \frac{1}{24} c_{19} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^i \>_1 \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^i \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> : \quad
- \frac{1}{24} c_1 - \frac{1}{12} c_3 - \frac{1}{12} c_4 + \frac{1}{24} c_{11} + c_{12} - c_{15} - c_{18} - c_{20} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^i \d^x \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^y \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^j \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> : \quad
- \frac{1}{576} c_3 + \frac{1}{576} c_4 + \frac{1}{24} c_{14} + \frac{1}{8} c_{15} + \frac{1}{12} c_{18} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^i \d^x \> \< \d^y \d^z \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^j \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\beta \> : \quad
- \frac{1}{24} c_3 + \frac{1}{24} c_4 + \frac{1}{24} c_7 - \frac{1}{24} c_{11} -3 c_{12} +3 c_{15} +2 c_{18} + c_{20} = 0.$$
Checking $\mathfrak{r}_4(E)=0$
------------------------------
Since $l=4$ case is new, the calculation is presented.
$$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^\nu \>_2
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{5760} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^j \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{960} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^j \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\gamma \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{576} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x_1 \d^\mu \>_2 \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{1920} \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^x \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^y \d^z \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{720} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^y \d^z \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{576} \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\mu \> \< \d^\gamma \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^y \d^z \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{576} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^i \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{576} \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\gamma \d^x \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{576} \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^x \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^j \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \> \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^\mu_1 \>_2 \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{5760} \< \d^i \d^x \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^y \d^z \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{960} \< \d^i \d^x \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\nu \> \< \d^\gamma \d^\mu \d^\mu \> \< \d^j \d^y \d^z \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{576} \< \d^\mu \d^x \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^i \d^\beta \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{576} \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^x \> \< \d^\gamma \d^\mu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{576} \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^x \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^\mu \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^j \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \> \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \>_1 \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\beta \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^z \> \< \d^\gamma \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\mu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{8} \< \d^i \d^y \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^x \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^z \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{8} \< \d^i \d^\mu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^x \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{8} \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^x \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\mu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^z \> \< \d^\alpha \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^z \> \< \d^\gamma \d^x \d^y \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^y \d^z \>_1
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^y \d^z \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^x \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^y \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{12} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^y \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \>\< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^z \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^z \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^y \> \< \d^\gamma \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& &
\< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \d^z \>_1
\mapsto \\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^y \d^j \> \< \d^i \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\nu \d^\beta \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^z \> \< \d^\gamma \d^\mu \d^\mu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^z \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
- \frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^\mu \d^z \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\mu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^z \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\nu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^z \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\nu \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\mu \d^\nu \>
\\ & & \hspace{.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{24} \< \d^x \d^y \d^\mu \> \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^z \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\nu \> \< \d^\gamma \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>\end{aligned}$$
The other graphs all have $\mathfrak{r}_4(\Gamma)=0$.
Now let’s check all the coefficients: $$\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^j \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \>: \quad
\frac{1}{576} c_1 + \frac{1}{288} c_3 + \frac{1}{288} c_4 + \frac{1}{12} c_{15} + \frac{1}{24} c_{18} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^i \d^\nu \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^x \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \> \< \d^j \d^y \d^z \> : \quad
\frac{1}{384} c_3 + \frac{1}{1152} c_4 - \frac{1}{8} c_{15} - \frac{1}{24} c_{18} + \frac{1}{24} c_{20} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^x \d^\mu \d^j \> \< \d^\mu \d^y \d^z \> \< \d^i \d^\beta \d^\nu \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> \< \d^\nu \d^\alpha \d^\alpha \> : \quad
\frac{1}{1152} c_1 + \frac{1}{24} c_{15} - \frac{1}{24} c_{20} = 0.$$ $$\< \d^j \d^x \d^\mu \> \< \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \> \< \d^i \d^y \d^\alpha \> \< \d^\alpha \d^\beta \d^z \> \< \d^\beta \d^\gamma \d^\gamma \> : \quad
\frac{1}{576} c_3 - \frac{1}{576} c_4 - \frac{1}{4} c_{15} - \frac{1}{8} c_{18} = 0.$$
Conclusion
----------
By Lemma 1 in [@ypL2], $\mathfrak{r}_l(E)=0$ for $l \ge 3$ (respectively $4,5$) for $(g,n,k) = (2,1,2)$, (respectively $(2,2,2), (2,3,2)$). Therefore, Conjectures 1 and 2 are proved. By a Betti number calculation of E. Getzler [@eG2], they are the only tautological equations for the corresponding $(g,n,k)$. Therefore, Conjecture 3 also holds.
[Co2]{}
D. Arcara, Y.-P. Lee, *Tautological equation in ${\overline{\mathcal{M}}}_{3,1}$ via invariance conjecture*, math.AG/0503184.
P. Belorousski, R. Pandharipande, *A descendent relation in genus 2*, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) 29 (2000), no. 1, 171–191.
E. Getzler, *Intersection theory on $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{1,4}$ and elliptic Gromov-Witten invariants*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 10 (1997), no. 4, 973–998.
E. Getzler, *Topological recursion relations in genus $2$*, Integrable systems and algebraic geometry (Kobe/Kyoto, 1997), 73–106, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 1998.
A. Givental, Y.-P. Lee, preliminary draft.
Y.-P. Lee, *Witten’s conjecture and Virasoro conjecture up to genus two*, math.AG/0310442. To appear in the proceedings of the conference “Gromov-Witten Theory of Spin Curves and Orbifolds”, Contemp. Math., AMS.
Y.-P. Lee, *Invariance of tautological equations I: conjectures and applications*,math.AG/0604318.
Y.-P. Lee, *Invariance of tautological equations II: Gromov–Witten theory*, preprint available at http://www.math.utah.edu/\~yplee/research/.
Y.-P. Lee, *Witten’s conjecture, Virasoro conjecture, and invariance of tautological relations*, math.AG/0311100.
[^1]: We rewrote the strata here in the same order as in the Belorousski-Pandharipande equation, with the extra strata $\< \d^x \d^y \d^z \d^\mu \d^\mu \d^\nu \d^\nu \>$, which does not appear in the equation, at the end.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Every (left) linear function on a subspace of a finite-dimensional vector space over a (skew) field can be extended to a (left) linear function on the whole space. This paper explores the extent to what this basic fact of linear algebra is applicable to more general structures. Semifields with a similar property imposed on linear functions are called (left) exact, and we present a complete description of such semifields. Namely, we show that a semifield $S$ is left exact if and only if $S$ is either a skew field or an idempotent semiring.'
address: 'National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya Ulitsa, Moscow 101000, Russia'
author:
- Yaroslav Shitov
title: 'Which semifields are exact?'
---
exact semiring ,idempotent semiring ,semifield
16Y60 ,15A80
Introduction
============
A set $S$ equipped with two binary operations $+$ and $\cdot$ is called a *semiring* if the following conditions are satisfied: (i) $(R,+)$ is a commutative monoid, (ii) $(R,\cdot)$ is a monoid, (iii) multiplication distributes over addition from both sides, and (iv) the additive identity $0$ satisfies $0x=x0=0$, for any $x\in R$. In other words, semirings differ from rings by the fact that their elements are not required to have additive inverses. We denote the multiplicative identity by $1$, and we assume that $0\neq 1$. The set $S^n$ becomes a *free left semimodule* if we define the operations $(s_1,\ldots,s_n)\to (\lambda s_1,\ldots,\lambda s_n)$ for all $\lambda\in S$.
A considerable amount of recent work [@Shi; @Wil; @WJK] is devoted to the concept of so-called *exactness*, which gives a characterization of semirings that behave nicely with respect to basic linear algebraic properties. Namely, a semiring $S$ is called *left exact* if, for every finitely generated left semimodule $L\subseteq S^n$ and every left $S$-linear function $\varphi: L\to S$, there is a left $S$-linear function $\varphi_0: S^n\to S$ that coincides with $\varphi$ on $L$. This property becomes a standard result of linear algebra if $S$ is a division ring, so we can conclude that division rings are left exact. The concept of right exactness can be defined dually, and the semirings that are both left and right exact are called simply *exact*. Therefore, the division rings are the first examples of exact semirings. Let us also point out that, in the case of rings, the exactness is equivalent to the property known as *FP-injectivity*, see [@Gar; @JN; @Wil].
In this paper, we continue studying the semirings in which all the non-zero elements have multiplicative inverses. Such objects form an important class of semirings and are known as *semifields*. Various examples of semifields arise in different applications, and they include the division rings, the semiring of nonnegative reals [@Yan], the tropical semiring [@SpSt], the binary Boolean algebra [@RS], and many others. The aim of our paper is to give a complete characterization of those semifields that are exact.
\[thrthr\] Let $S$ be a semifield. Then $S$ is left exact if and only if
\(1) $S$ is a division ring, or
\(2) we have $1+1=1$ in $S$.
By symmetry, the conclusion of the theorem holds for right exactness as well. In particular, we get that a semifield is left exact if and only if it is right exact. As a corollary of Theorem \[thrthr\], we get the previously known fact that the tropical semiring $\mathbb{T}=(\mathbb{R}\cup\{\infty\},\min,+)$ is exact. As far as I can see, the exactness of $\mathbb{T}$ follows from Theorem 5.3 of [@LMS], and I would like to thank the reviewer for pointing my attention to that paper. Corollary 40 in [@CSQ] contains a generalization of this result to the class of complete idempotent reflexive semirings. The subsequent paper [@WJK] contains the exactness proofs for other related semirings, including $\overline{\mathbb{T}}=(\mathbb{R}\cup\{+\infty,-\infty\},\min,+)$. Another proof that $\mathbb{T}$ is exact is contained in the paper [@JN], where the authors do also prove that an additively cancellative semifield is exact if and only if it is a field.
Our paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we obtain a useful characterization of exactness resembling some of the results in [@WJK]. We use this characterization (Theorem \[lemlem1\]) to prove the ’only if’ part of Theorem \[thrthr\]. In Section 3, we get an improved version of Theorem \[lemlem1\] which is valid for semifields. In Section 4, we employ the developed technique and complete the proof of Theorem \[thrthr\]. In Section 5, we discuss the perspectives of further work and point out several intriguing open questions.
Another characterization of exactness
=====================================
Let us begin with some notational conventions. We will denote matrices and vectors over a semiring $S$ by bold letters. We denote by $\mathbf{A}_i$ and $\mathbf{A}^j$ the $i$th row and $j$th column of a matrix $\mathbf{A}$, and by $\mathbf{A}_i^j$ the entry at the intersection of the $i$th row and $j$th column. By $\mathbf{E}$ we denote the unit matrices, that is, square matrices with ones on the diagonal and zeros everywhere else. In particular, $\mathbf{E}_i$, $\mathbf{E}^i$ stand for the $i$th unit row and column vectors, respectively. Every $d\times n$ matrix induces the function $S^{1\times d}\to S^{1\times n}$ defined as $\mathbf{u}\to \mathbf{u}\mathbf{A}$. We denote the image of this operator by $\operatorname{left\,im} \mathbf{A}$, and the kernel of this operator as $\operatorname{left\,ker} \mathbf{A}$. In other words, $\operatorname{left\,ker} \mathbf{A}$ is the set of all pairs $(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})\in S^{1\times d}\times S^{1\times d}$ such that $\mathbf{u}\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{v}\mathbf{A}$. The right image and right kernel of $\mathbf{A}$ are defined dually in a natural way. In particular, we define $\ri \mathbf{A}$ as the set of all vectors in $S^{d\times 1}$ that can be written as $\mathbf{A}\mathbf{w}$ with some $\mathbf{w}\in S^{n\times1}$. We proceed with a characterization of exactness that looks very similar to Theorem 3.2 in [@WJK] and to Lemma 3.3 in [@JN]. Therefore, the following result cannot be called ’new’, and we provide the proof just for the sake of completeness.
\[lemlem1\] Let $S$ be a semiring. The following are equivalent:
(E1) $S$ is left exact;
(E2) for any $\mathbf{A}\in S^{d\times n}$, $\mathbf{b}\in S^{d\times 1}$, the condition $\operatorname{left\,ker}\mathbf{A}\subseteq \operatorname{left\,ker}\mathbf{b}$ implies $\mathbf{b}\in\operatorname{right\,im}\mathbf{A}$.
Assume (E1) is true, and let $\mathbf{A}\in S^{d\times n}$, $\mathbf{b}\in S^{d\times 1}$ be such that $$\label{eqeq3}
\operatorname{left\,ker}\mathbf{A}\subseteq\operatorname{left\,ker}\mathbf{b}.$$ We define the mapping $\varphi:\li\mathbf{A}\to S$ by $$\varphi\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^d \lambda_i\mathbf{A}_i\right)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^d \lambda_i\mathbf{b}_i,$$ which is well defined because of . Since $\varphi$ is left $S$-linear, we can use the exactness of $S$ and obtain a left $S$-linear mapping $\psi:S^n\to S$ such that $\psi\left|\right._{\li\mathbf{A}}=\varphi$. Denoting $\alpha_i:=\psi(\mathbf{E}_i)$, we get $$\mathbf{b}_i=\varphi(\mathbf{A}_i)=\psi\left(\sum\limits_{j=1}^n\mathbf{A}_i^j\mathbf{E}_j\right)=\sum\limits_{j=1}^n\mathbf{A}_i^j\alpha_j,$$ which implies $\mathbf{b}\in\operatorname{right\,im}\mathbf{A}$ and proves (E2).
Now we assume that (E2) is true, and we consider a finitely generated left semimodule $L\subseteq S^n$ and a left $S$-linear function $\varphi:L\to S$. We can write $L=\li\mathbf{A}$ for some matrix $\mathbf{A}$, and we define the vector $\mathbf{b}\in S^{d\times 1}$ by the formula $\mathbf{b}_i=\varphi(\mathbf{A}_i)$. (Here, the dimension $d$ is the number of rows of $\mathbf{A}$, or, equivalently, the number of generators of $L$.) The equation is true because $\varphi$ is well defined, so (E2) implies $\mathbf{b}\in\operatorname{right\,im}\mathbf{A}$. Therefore, we have $\mathbf{b}=\sum_j\mathbf{A}^j\alpha_j$ for some $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\in S$, and then $\psi(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=x_1\alpha_1+\ldots+x_n\alpha_n$ is a mapping from $S^n$ to $S$ that coincides with $\varphi$ on $R$. We see that $S$ is left exact, so (E1) is true.
Let us present an application of Theorem \[lemlem1\]. The following corollary presents a rather powerful condition that holds in all exact rings. This result seems to be new.
\[corcor1\] Any left exact semiring contains an element $e$ such that $1+1+e=1$.
We consider the matrices $$\mathbf{A}=
\begin{pmatrix}
0&1\\
1&1
\end{pmatrix},\,\,\,\,
\mathbf{b}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1+1\\
1
\end{pmatrix},$$ and we apply Theorem \[lemlem1\]. The condition (E2) shows that either $\mathbf{b}\in\operatorname{right\,im}\mathbf{A}$ or $\operatorname{left\,ker}\mathbf{A}\nsubseteq \operatorname{left\,ker}\mathbf{b}$. Let us treat these two cases separately.
*Case 1.* If $\mathbf{b}\in\operatorname{right\,im}\mathbf{A}$, then there are $x_1,x_2\in S$ such that $x_2=1+1$ and $x_1+x_2=1$. We get $x_1+1+1=x_1+x_2=1$, which implies the desired conclusion.
*Case 2.* If $\operatorname{left\,ker}\mathbf{A}\nsubseteq \operatorname{left\,ker}\mathbf{b}$, then there are vectors $\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}\in S^{1\times 2}$ such that $\mathbf{u}\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{v}\mathbf{A}$ and $$\label{eqeq1}\mathbf{u}\mathbf{b}\neq\mathbf{v}\mathbf{b}.$$ The former condition shows that $\mathbf{u}^2=\mathbf{v}^2$, $\mathbf{u}^1+\mathbf{u}^2=\mathbf{v}^1+\mathbf{v}^2$, so we get $$\label{eqeq2}
\mathbf{u}^1+\mathbf{u}^1+\mathbf{u}^2=
\mathbf{u}^1+\mathbf{v}^1+\mathbf{v}^2=
\mathbf{u}^1+\mathbf{v}^1+\mathbf{u}^2=
\mathbf{v}^1+\mathbf{v}^1+\mathbf{v}^2,$$ which is a contradiction. In fact, the left-hand side of coincides with the left-hand side of , and the right-hand side of coincides with the right-hand side of . Therefore, Case 2 is not an option, and the proof is complete.
\[corcor2\] Any left exact semifield is either a ring or satisfies $1+1=1$.
Let $e$ be the element as in Corollary \[corcor1\]. We get $$(1+e)^2=1+e+e+e^2=1+e(1+1+e)=1+e,$$ so that $1+e=0$ or $1+e=1$. The former condition would imply that we have a ring, and the latter one shows that $1+1+e=1+1$ or $1+1=1$ again by Corollary \[corcor1\].
A semifield version of Theorem \[lemlem1\]
==========================================
In this section we sharpen the condition (E2) in Theorem \[lemlem1\] under the additional assumption that $S$ is a semifield. Recall that a matrix $\mathbf{C}\in S^{n\times n}$ is *invertible* if there exists a matrix $\mathbf{C}^{-1}$ such that $\mathbf{C}\mathbf{C}^{-1}=\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{C}=\mathbf{E}$.
\[obsobs1\] Let $\mathbf{C}\in S^{d\times d}$, $\mathbf{D}\in S^{n\times n}$ be invertible matrices, and let $\mathbf{A}\in S^{d\times n}$, $\mathbf{b}\in S^{d\times 1}$ be arbitrary. Then
\(1) $\lk \mathbf{A}\subseteq\lk \mathbf{b} $ if and only if $\lk \mathbf{C}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}\subseteq\lk \mathbf{C}\mathbf{b}$,
\(2) $\mathbf{b}\in \ri \mathbf{A}$ if and only if $ \mathbf{C}\mathbf{b}\in \ri \mathbf{C}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}$.
Let us assume $(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})\in\lk \mathbf{A}\setminus \lk\mathbf{b}$, which means that $\mathbf{u}\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{v}\mathbf{A}$, $\mathbf{u}\mathbf{b}\neq\mathbf{v}\mathbf{b}$. We define $\mathbf{u}'=\mathbf{u}\mathbf{C}^{-1}$, $\mathbf{v}'=\mathbf{v}\mathbf{C}^{-1}$, and we get $$\mathbf{u}'\mathbf{C}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}=
\mathbf{u}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}=
\mathbf{u}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}=\mathbf{v}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}=
\mathbf{v}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}=
\mathbf{v}'\mathbf{C}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D},$$ $$\mathbf{u}'\mathbf{C}\mathbf{b}=
\mathbf{u}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{b}=
\mathbf{u}\mathbf{b}\neq \mathbf{v}\mathbf{b}=
\mathbf{v}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{b}=
\mathbf{v}'\mathbf{C}\mathbf{b},$$ which means that $(\mathbf{u}',\mathbf{v}')\in\lk \mathbf{C}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}\setminus \lk\mathbf{C}\mathbf{b}$. This proves the ’only if’ direction of (1), and the ’if’ direction follows as well by symmetry. To prove (2), we note that a vector $\mathbf{w}$ satisfies $\mathbf{A}\mathbf{w}=\mathbf{b}$ if and only if the vector $\mathbf{w}'=\mathbf{D}^{-1}\mathbf{w}$ satisfies $\mathbf{C}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}\mathbf{w}'=\mathbf{C}\mathbf{b}$.
Let us say that a matrix is *column-stochastic* if the sum of elements in every column equals one. A semiring $S$ is called *zero-sum free* if $a+b=0$ implies $a=b=0$ for all $a,b\in S$. We are ready to show that, in the case of zero-sum-free semifields, Theorem \[lemlem1\] remains true if we restrict the possible choices of $\mathbf{A}$ by column-stochastic matrices and the choices of $\mathbf{b}$ by vectors whose coordinates are zeros and ones.
\[obsobs2\] Let $S$ be a zero-sum free semifield. Then the condition (E2) in Theorem \[lemlem1\] is equivalent to the following:
(E2’) for any column-stochastic matrix $\mathbf{A}\in S^{d\times n}$ and any vector $\mathbf{b}\in \{0,1\}^{d\times 1}$, the condition $\operatorname{left\,ker}\mathbf{A}\subseteq \operatorname{left\,ker}\mathbf{b}$ implies $\mathbf{b}\in\operatorname{right\,im}\mathbf{A}$.
It is trivial that (E2) implies (E2’). To prove the opposite direction, assume that (E2) is not true. Then there are $\mathbf{A}\in S^{d\times n}$, $\mathbf{b}\in S^{d\times 1}$ such that $\operatorname{left\,ker}\mathbf{A}\subseteq \operatorname{left\,ker}\mathbf{b}$ and $\mathbf{b}\notin\operatorname{right\,im}\mathbf{A}$. The removal of zero columns of $A$ does not change these properties, so we can assume that every column of $A$ contains at least one non-zero entry. We define $\beta_i=\mathbf{b}_i$ if $\mathbf{b}_i\neq0$ and $\beta_i=1$ otherwise, and we set $\mathbf{C}$ to be the diagonal matrix with $\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_d$ on the diagonal. Further, we define $\alpha_j$ as the sum of the entries of the $j$th column of $\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{A}$. Since the semifield is zero-sum-free, the $\alpha_j$’s are non-zero, so we get an invertible matrix $\mathbf{D}$ if we put $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n$ on the diagonal and zeros everywhere else. Now we see that the matrix $\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}^{-1}$ is stochastic, the vector $\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{b}$ consists of zeros and ones, and the conditions $\operatorname{left\,ker}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}^{-1}\subseteq \operatorname{left\,ker}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\textbf{b}$ and $\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{b}\notin \operatorname{right\,im}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}^{-1}$ hold by Observation \[obsobs1\]. This shows that (E2’) is not true.
Idempotent semifields are exact
===============================
In this section we complete the proof of Theorem \[thrthr\]. Namely, we show that any semifield satisfying $1+1=1$ is necessarily left exact. In general, a semiring in which $1+1=1$ (or, equivalently, $x+x=x$ for all $x$) is called *idempotent*. A natural (and very well known) ordering on an idempotent semiring is given as $x\geqslant y$ if and only if $x+y=x$. It is easy to see that the relation $\geqslant$ is a partial order compatible with the operations. In other words, the following result is true, see [@Gol] for details.
\[obsord\] Let $S$ be an idempotent semiring and $p,q,r,s\in S$. Then
\(1) $p\geqslant p$;
\(2) If $p\geqslant q$, $q\geqslant r$, then $p \geqslant r$;
\(3) If $p\geqslant q$, $q\geqslant p$, then $p=q$;
\(4) If $p\geqslant r$, $q\geqslant s$, then $p+q \geqslant r+s$ and $pq\geqslant rs$.
We will write $p>q$ if $p\geqslant q$ and $p\neq q$. If $p\neq p+q$, then we write $q\nleqslant p$. The set of matrices or vectors over $S$ is still an idempotent semigroup with respect to addition, so these relations are applicable to matrices and vectors. Another obvious property of idempotent semirings is that they are zero-sum free.
\[obsord2\] Let $S$ be an idempotent semiring and $p,q\in S$. If $p+q=0$, then $p=q=0$.
\[obsord3\] Let $S$ be an idempotent semifield containing at least three elements. Then there is an element $\lambda$ such that $\lambda\nleqslant 1$.
Choose an arbitrary $a\notin\{0,1\}$. If $a\nleqslant 1$, then we are done, and otherwise we have $1+a=1$. This implies $a^{-1}+1=a^{-1}$, so we can take $\lambda=a^{-1}$.
Before we proceed, we recall that a matrix $\mathbf{A}$ is called *column-stochastic* if the sum of elements in every column of $\mathbf{A}$ equals one. A matrix is *row-stochastic* if its transpose is column-stochastic.
\[lemidem1\] Let $S$ be an idempotent semifield containing at least three elements. Let $\mathbf{A}\in S^{d\times n}$ be a column-stochastic matrix that is not row-stochastic. Then there is a vector $\Lambda\nleqslant(1,\ldots,1)\in S^{1\times d}$ such that $\Lambda\mathbf{A}=(1,\ldots,1)$.
We have $$\sum\limits_{i=1}^d\sum\limits_{j=1}^n \mathbf{A}_i^j=1+\ldots+1=1,$$ so that $\alpha_i:=\sum_{j=1}^n \mathbf{A}_i^j\leqslant 1$. If $\alpha_i=0$ for some $i$, then the $i$th row of $\mathbf{A}$ consists of zeros by Observation \[obsord2\]; in this case, we define $\Lambda$ as the vector whose coordinates are ones except the $i$th coordinate which is equal to the element $\lambda$ as in Observation \[obsord3\]. We have $\Lambda\nleqslant(1,\ldots,1)$ and $\Lambda \mathbf{A}=(1,\ldots,1)\mathbf{A}$; since $\mathbf{A}$ is column-stochastic, we get $(1,\ldots,1)\mathbf{A}=(1,\ldots,1)$ and complete the proof in our special case.
Now we assume that all of the $\alpha_i$’s are non-zero, and we define $\Lambda\in S^{1\times d}$ with $\Lambda^i$ being the inverse of $\alpha_i$. As said above, $\alpha_i\leqslant1$, so that $\Lambda^i\geqslant1$ by the item (4) of Observation \[obsord\]. Also, the assumption of the theorem states that $\mathbf{A}$ is not row-stochastic, which implies $\Lambda>(1,\ldots,1)$. Since $\mathbf{A}$ is column-stochastic, we have $(1,\ldots,1)\mathbf{A}=(1,\ldots,1)$, and using the item (4) of Observation \[obsord\], we get $$\label{eqstoc1}\Lambda \mathbf{A}\geqslant (1,\ldots,1)\mathbf{A}=(1,\ldots,1).$$ Further, we get $$\sum\limits_{j=1}^n\sum\limits_{i=1}^d \Lambda^i\mathbf{A}_i^j=\sum\limits_{i=1}^d \Lambda^i\alpha_i=1+\ldots+1=1,$$ which shows that $$\label{eqstoc2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^d \Lambda^i\mathbf{A}_i^j\leqslant 1$$ for all $j$. Putting the inequalities and together and using the item (3) of Observation \[obsord\], we get $\Lambda \mathbf{A}=(1,\ldots,1)$.
\[lemidem2\] Let $S$ be an idempotent semifield containing at least three elements. Let $\mathbf{A}\in S^{d\times n}$ be a column-stochastic matrix and $\mathbf{b}\in\{0,1\}^{d\times 1}$ be a vector outside $\ri\mathbf{A}$. Then there are vectors $\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}$ such that $\mathbf{u}\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{v}\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{u}\mathbf{b}\neq \mathbf{v}\mathbf{b}$.
Assume $\mathbf{b}$ contains $k$ ones. We can assume without loss of generality that the first $k$ coordinates of $\mathbf{b}$ are ones, and we write $$\mathbf{A}=
\left(\begin{array}{c|c}
P_{k\times (n-m)}&Q_{k\times m}\\\hline
R_{(d-k)\times (n-m)}&O_{(d-k)\times m}
\end{array}\right),\,\,\,\,
\mathbf{b}=
\begin{pmatrix}
J_{k\times 1}\\\hline
O_{(d-k)\times 1}
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $J$ is a $k\times 1$ vectors of ones, the $O$’s are zero matrices of relevant sizes, and $R$ has no zero column. Note that $k\neq0$ and $Q$ is not a row-stochastic matrix because otherwise we would have $\mathbf{b}\in\ri\mathbf{A}$. However, the equalities $k=d$, $m=0$, $m=n$ are possible, and they correspond to some blocks of the above matrices being empty.
By Lemma \[lemidem1\], there is a vector $\Lambda\nleqslant(1,\ldots,1)\in S^{1\times k}$ such that $\Lambda Q=(1,\ldots,1)$. (If $k=d$ or $m=n$, this completes the proof immediately. If $m=0$, that is, if $Q$ is empty, then we choose a vector $\Lambda\nleqslant(1,\ldots,1)$ arbitrarily.) Let $p\in S$ be the sum of all entries of the matrices $P$ and $\Lambda P$ plus one; let $r$ equal one plus the sum of the inverses of all non-zero entries of $R$. We set $M=(pr,\ldots,pr)\in S^{1\times(d-k)}$, and we get $MR\geqslant (p,\ldots,p)\in S^{1\times(m-n)}$. This means that $MR$ is greater than or equal to any row of $P$ and $\Lambda P$, so we get $$(1,\ldots,1|M)\mathbf{A}=(MR|1,\ldots,1)=(\Lambda|M)\mathbf{A},$$ $$(1,\ldots,1|M)\mathbf{b}=1\nleqslant\Lambda^1+\ldots+\Lambda^k=(\Lambda|M)\mathbf{b},$$ which completes the proof.
\[thrthr2\] Every idempotent semifield is left exact.
Lemma \[lemidem2\] shows that an idempotent semifield $S$ possesses the property (E2’) as in Corollary \[obsobs2\] whenever $S$ has at least three elements. Therefore, we can apply Theorem \[lemlem1\] to see that every such $S$ is left exact.
If $S$ contains $0$ and $1$ only, then the definitions allow us to identify $S$ uniquely as the binary Boolean semiring $\mathbb{B}$. The exactness of $\mathbb{B}$ can be proved by a routine application of Theorem \[lemlem1\]. Alternatively, one can get this result by applying a deeper one, Theorem 6.5 in [@WJK].
The proof of Theorem \[thrthr\] is now complete. In fact, Corollary \[corcor2\] proves the ’only if’ direction, and the ’if’ direction follows from Theorem \[thrthr2\] and basic results of linear algebra which imply that any division ring is exact.
A discussion and further work {#secfw}
=============================
We gave the complete characterization of semifields that are exact, but we do not know how to generalize this result to the case of arbitrary semirings. The arXiv version of this paper ([@myexac]) contained several questions regarding such characterizations, but later it turned out that several of these questions have already been answered. In particular, as Tran Giang Nam pointed out to the author, the solution to Problem 5.1 in [@myexac] is negative. Namely, Example 4.16 and Theorem 4.18 in [@AIK] give an example of an exact semiring that cannot be represented as a direct sum of a ring and an idempotent semiring. Nam also noticed that the semiring $B_3$ as in Example 3.7 of [@AIK] is selective and exact but is not a semifield, which solves Problem 5.2 in [@myexac].
Several interesting examples of idempotent semirings were examined in [@Wil] by Wilding. Given a monoid $M$, he defines the semiring $\mathbb{B}M=(2^M, \cup, \cdot)$, where two subsets $A,B\subseteq M$ are multiplied as $AB=\{ab|a\in A, b\in B\}$. Wilding proves that $\mathbb{B}M$ is exact if $M$ is a group, and asks if the converse of this statement is true. Our approach is not sufficient to answer this question, and we believe that its resolution would lead to a significant step towards the classification of exactness in the idempotent case.
Acknowledgements
================
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for helpful comments and for pointing my attention to the papers [@CSQ; @LMS]. I am grateful to Grigory Garkusha for explaining to me why the exactness of a ring is equivalent to FP-injectivity and for pointing out that the result in [@Shi] is essentially Theorem 3.2 in [@Gar]. As pointed out in Section \[secfw\], the first arXiv draft of this paper (see [@myexac]) contained many questions that turned out to have been solved earlier by Tran Giang Nam and his colleagues in different papers on this topic. I would like to thank Nam for his comments on the corresponding results and for pointing my attention to relevant references.
[99]{}
J. Y. Abuhlail, S. N. Il’in, Y. Katsov, T. G. Nam, On V-semirings and semirings all of whose cyclic semimodules are injective, *Communications in Algebra* 43.11 (2015) 4632–4654.
G. Cohen, S. Gaubert, J. P. Quadrat, Duality and separation theorems in idempotent semimodules, *Linear Algebra Appl.* 379 (2004) 395–422.
G. A. Garkusha, FP-injective and weakly quasi-Frobenius rings, *Zap. S.-Peterburg Otd. Mat. Inst. Steklov (POMI)* 265 (1999) 110–129 (Russian). Engl. transl. in *J. Math. Sciences* 112 (2002) 4303–4312.
J. S. Golan. *Semirings and their applications*, Springer, 2013.
M. Johnson, T. G. Nam, FP-injective semirings, semigroup rings and Leavitt path algebras, [Communications in Algebra]{} 45 (2017) 1893–1906.
G. L. Litvinov, V. P. Maslov, G. B. Shpiz, *Idempotent functional analysis: an algebraic approach*, *Math. Notes* 69(5) (2001) 696–729.
W. K. Nicholson, M. F. Yousif, Quasi-Frobenius Rings, volume 158 of Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
H. Rasiowa, R. Sikorski. *The mathematics of metamathematics*, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw, 1963.
D. Speyer, B. Sturmfels, Tropical mathematics, *Mathematics Magazine* 82 (2009) 163–173.
Y. Shitov, Group rings that are exact, *J. Algebra* 403 (2014) 179–184.
Y. Shitov. Preprint (2016) arXiv:1609.09149v1.
D. Wilding. *Linear Algebra Over Semirings*, PhD dissertation, The University of Manchester, 2015.
D. Wilding, M. Johnson, M. Kambites, Exact rings and semirings, *J. Algebra* 388 (2013): 324–337.
M. Yannakakis, Expressing combinatorial optimization problems by linear programs, *Comput. System Sci.* 43 (1991) 441–466.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
AI & Research, Microsoft\
Hyderabad, India\
{adkuma, sadandap , sushilc}@microsoft.com\
bibliography:
- 'xample.bib'
title: '**Translating Web Search Queries into Natural Language Questions**'
---
Introduction
============
Search engines have improved a lot in last decade in all aspects. Earlier, the primary task of a search engine was to extract most relevant links for the query and present them as results. Lately, instead of just giving relevant links related to the query, search engines are trying to directly answer to any question asked. For example, for the query *“japan’s capital"* in modern search engines (eg. Bing and Google) directly answer *“Tokyo"*, instead of providing a link containing the answer. Thus, search engines are evolving to save time for users and increase their productivity. To further enhance the user-experience and increase productivity, search engines apart from showing the answer for a particular question, are trying to show related questions, to help users in their exploration. For example, for the query *“fever symptoms”*, user mostly wants answer to the question *“What are the symptoms of fever?"* and for the same query, questions like *“How do you treat fever?"*, *“What causes high fever?”* are highly related. To show related questions, search engines need to have a well framed question corpus from which they can extract relevant questions given a query. [@white2015questions] have shown that more than 10% of queries issued on a search engine has question intent whereas only 3% of them are formulated as natural language questions. Most of these queries are primarily keywords or sentence fragments. Hence, a corpus of questions can not be created directly using the search queries with question intent due to the issue of grammatical correctness and incomplete sentence formation. To overcome this problem, we are proposing a technique to convert query with question intent, into a well-formed question. This technique can be used to generate well formed questions asked by the user, which can be used by search engines. Apart from the direct application in search engines, query keywords to question conversion has applications in Question Answering (QA) systems, bots communication, Community Question Answer (CQA) websites etc. In CQA websites, when users have typed some keywords to search for questions, one can generate the questions and help them in framing the question using question corpus. Digital assistants can use this technology to refine the intent of query in natural language and help navigate the user to his/her exact needs.
Query to question conversion was first suggested by [@lin2008automatic], where he pointed out it’s application in CQA websites and richer query expansion. Lin’s idea was further extended by [@zhao2011automatically], in which they have followed a template-based approach. They generate templates from $\langle query,question\rangle$ pairs from search logs and CQA websites and instantiate the template on the input query. At the same time, [@zheng2011k2q] also used a similar template-based technique. They generate templates from the question collected from CQA websites. They used a single variable templates, which essentially replaced a single word by some placeholder. Thus, the framework heavily relies on existing questions. Another similar work was done by [@kalady2010natural] in which they derived question from a well formed sentence using parse tree and named entity recognitions. Their system is limited to certain types of questions. Most of the techniques used to generate question from query are rule-based which are limited by the variety of question rules/templates, grammatical correctness, relevance between query and generated question etc. In this paper we propose a novel statistical approach to generate well-formed question from search keywords. The primary contribution of our work is that we have reduced the problem of query to question conversion into a translation problem. Furthermore, we also have shown how to build $\langle query, question \rangle$ parallel corpus from web search log that retain users’ intention between query and question pair.Table \[tab:table1\] shows some of the extracted pairs. We have made a detailed comparison between different translation framework with respect to our problem.
**Queries** **Questions**
------------------- ---------------------------------------
fever symptoms What are the symptoms of fever ?
japan capital What is the capital of japan ?
string to int c\# How to convert string to int in C\# ?
cancer types What are different types of cancer ?
: Example of queries and related questions[]{data-label="tab:table1"}
Approach
========
The query to question generation problem can be formally stated as follows: given a sequence of query keywords $\textit{k}$ ($k_1, k_2, \ldots,k_n$) we want to generate the corresponding natural language question $\textit{q}$ ($q_1, q_2, \ldots, q_m$). This can be seen as a translation problem between source language sentence $k$ and target language sentence $q$. Note that both $k$ and $q$ are in English language while $q$ is a syntactically and semantically correct sentence of the language but $k$ is a grammatically ill-formed query. In this work, we first use a SMT-based [@koehn2003statistical] approach. We have used the most widely used vanilla Moses[^1] to build the SMT system. We consider this as the baseline system and call it **SMT**. We use a NMT-based approach as described by [@bahdanau2014neural]. Our NMT-based model uses bidirectional RNN with attention model [@cho2014learning; @sutskever2014sequence; @schuster1997bidirectional]. Given an input sequence $\textit{k}$ from source language, i.e. queries, we want to generate a sequence $\textit{q}$ of target language, i.e. questions, which has similar question intent. We want to find the $\textit{q}$ which maximizes $arg\max_{\textit{q}}p(\textit{q}|\textit{k})$. We train a neural model which learns to maximize the conditional probability for sequence pairs in our parallel training corpus. After the model is trained, on giving a sequence $\textit{k}$ from source language, it generates a sequence $\textit{q}$ of target language which maximizes the conditional probability.
Our neural machine translation model consists of an encoder and a decoder. Encoder learns a fixed length representation for variable length input sequences and decoder takes that fixed length learned representation as input and generates the output sequence. For example, for input sequence vectors $\textit{k}$ ($k_1, k_2, \ldots, k_n$), encoder encodes this into a fixed dimension vector $rep$. In general RNN’s are used, such that : $$h_{t} = f(k_{t},h_{t-1})$$ $$rep = z(h_{1},h_{2},...h_{T})$$ $h_{t}$ is the hidden state at time $t$ and $k_{t}$ is input sequence at time $t$. $f$ and $q$ are non-linear functions. In our model we are using $f$ as LSTM [@hochreiter1997long] and define $z$ as in equation (3): $$z(h_{1},h_{2},...,h_{t}) = h_{t}$$ The encoder tries to store the context of the input sequence into vector $rep$. During training, decoder learns to maximize the conditional probability. Decoder defines a conditional probability over the translation sequence $\textit{k}$ as follows : $$\begin{split}
p(\mathbf{\textit{q}}) & = \prod_{t=1}^{T}p(q_{t}|{q_{1},q_{2},...q_{t-1}},rep) \\ &= \prod_{t-1}^{T}g(q_{t-1},s_{t},rep)
\end{split}$$ where $\mathbf{\textit{q}}$ = (${q_{1},q_{2},\ldots,q_{T}}$) and $g$ is non-linear. We are using attention model [@bahdanau2014neural], in which conditional probability gets changed to following: $$p(q_{i}|{q_{1},q_{2},\ldots,q_{i-1}}, \mathbf{\textit{k}}) = g(q_{i-1}, s_{i}, rep_{i})$$ where $s_{i}$ is : $$s_{i} = g(q_{i}, s_{i-1}, rep_{i})$$ The context vector $rep_{i}$ is computed as below : $$rep_{i} = \sum_{j=1}^{T_{x}}\alpha_{ij}h_{j}$$ The weight $\alpha_{ij}$ of each annotation $h_{j}$ is computed by $$\alpha_{ij} = \frac{exp(e_{ij})}{\sum_{m=1}^{T_{x}}exp(e_{im})}$$ where $$e_{ij} = a(s_{i-1}, h_{j})$$ This approach allows decoder to decide which part of input it wants to pay attention. We have used BiRNN, which has two function $\overrightarrow{f}$ and $\overleftarrow{f}$, where $\overrightarrow{f}$ reads the input sequence from $k_1$ to $k_T$ and produces forward hidden states$(h_{f_1},h_{f_2},\ldots,h_{f_T})$, i.e. in usual order, and the $\overleftarrow{f}$ reads in opposite direction, i.e. $k_T$ to $k_1$ and generates hidden backward vectors $(h_{b_1}, h_{b_2},\ldots, h_{b_T})$. At time $t$, we get the final hidden vector by concatenating forward as well as backward hidden vector at time $t$. This way BiRNN helps in storing the context of not only the preceding words but also the following words.
Experimental Setup and Results
==============================
First we conduct our baseline experiment using Moses SMT system to compare the results with our NMT-based model. The Moses SMT system uses KenLM [@Heafield-estimate] as the default language model and MERT [@och2003minimum] to reestimate the model parameters. We shall call it **SMT**. In our particular NMT-based approach, we implemented a BiRNN model using LSTM with attention. We used 2 layered deep LSTMs with 512 cells at each layer. We kept the embedding dimension to be 300. Our input vocabulary size for both source and target language, i.e., queries and question had 150,000 words. We used stochastic gradient descent with initial learning rate of 0.5 and learning rate decay factor of 0.99. We kept batch size to be 128 and trained the model for a total of 6 epochs.
Data Used
---------
In this case, parallel data refers to the ($k$,$q$) pair where $k$ is a query with question intent and $q$ is the corresponding natural language question with same question intent. We used Bing’s web search logs to create our parallel data. Bing’s Search Log stores 3 basic things :
- Queries ($k$) searched on bing
- The URLs ($U$) which were shown for those queries in search result page
- URL ($u\in U$) which was clicked by the user for the respective query
We filtered all the queries ($k$), which landed on a CQA website, which contains some question ($q$) and its answer. We extracted the question ($q$) from that clicked CQA website and create the pair ($k,q$) for our dataset. Our hypothesis behind this was that after querying in any search engine, users click on those links which they find satisfactory and those queries ($k$) after which a user clicks on a website containing a question ($q$), can be assumed to have a question intent. To make sure the questions in our dataset are grammatically correct, we only considered reputed CQA websites like WikiAnswers,[^2] Quora,[^3] and Yahoo Answers.[^4] The hypothesis being that moderators on these CQA websites are pretty strict in maintaining quality questions. We only kept ($k,q$) pairs in which query ($k$) had less than 10 words to avoid garbage queries. We also made sure that we only select those $(k,q)$ pairs, in which question started with either a “wh” word or other question words (e.g. what, where, who, how, is, can, did, list, are etc.). After all this filtering, we were left with around 13 Million query-question pair $(k,q)$. We used randomly drawn 5000 sentences for test and development set (each 2500 sentences), disjoint from the training data. We found around 50% of the queries have less than 5 words. The average length of the query and question are 5.6 and 8.5, respectively. Also, 85% of the questions are of “what (53%)”, “how(21%)”,“is(6%)” and “who(5%)” types. Fig. 1 plots the Query Length Distributions and Fig. 2 plots the percentage of different types of questions in our dataset.
[[{width="8cm"} ]{}]{}
[[{width="8cm"} ]{}]{}
Query Generated Question by SMT Generated Question by NMT Golden Truth
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
grams in 1 lb how many grams are in 1 lb? how many grams are in 1 pound? how many grams are in 1 pound ?
anesthesiologist salary dubai what is the salary of an anesthesiologist in dubai? what is the salary of an anesthesiologist in dubai? how much does an anesthesiologist make in dubai?
richest man in kansas what is the richest men in kansas? who is the richest man in kansas? Who is the most rich man of kansas?
small bone in human body located what is the small bone in the body located? where is the smallest bone in human body located? where is the smallest bone in human body located?
first woman rapper what was the first woman in the rapper who was the first woman rapper? who was the first woman rapper?
\
Results
-------
In order to evaluate the performance of our system, we have used the most widely used MT evaluation metric BLEU [@papineni2002bleu]. BLEU uses modified $n$-gram precision between the hypothesis and the reference. Note that the value of BLEU ranges from 0 to 100.
First, in order to estimate the difficulty of the task we conducted an experiment (we shall call it **Identity Model**), we replicated input as the hypothesis translation, since both source query and target question are in English. This gives 19.33 BLEU score. This is due to large amount of vocabulary overlap between the query and its corresponding question.
The baseline SMT gives a BLEU score of 52.49 while NMT system has a BLEU score of 58.63. The NMT system has a 6.14 absolute BLEU point improvement compared to the SMT system. Both SMT and NMT system has a significant improvement over the identity model. The higher BLEU score ($>50$) by both SMT and NMT models are achieved due to the overlap between query and question keywords (as reflected in the BLEU score of the identity model).
Human Evaluation
----------------
We conducted a human evaluation to judge the quality of the generated output. We manually evaluated approximately 1000 query/question pairs with the help of 12 people (more than 5 years of experience of using search engines). For each query-generated output pair, we asked participants following questions :
- Is the question grammatically correct?
- How similar is the intent between query and generated output?
First question was a Yes-No based question and for the second question, participants were asked to judge the question intent similarity on a scale of $1-5$ between the pair, with $5$ being highly similar.
![Intent Similarity Score Distribution[]{data-label="fig:NMTFig"}](IntentSimilarityBW_II.png){width="\linewidth" height="4.8cm"}
In terms of grammatical correctness of the output generated from the two models, around 63% of output generated from SMT were grammatically correct, while with NMT, almost 86% of output were grammatically correct. SMT often make errors due to incorrect choice of question words as shown in examples in Table 2. SMT often choose “what” due to its high frequency in the corpus (cf. Section 3.1). In terms of intent similarity, around 72% of the question generated by NMT model received very high score (4 and 5) in intent similarity by human evaluators, compared to only 45% in case of SMT. Figure \[fig:NMTFig\] shows the distribution of scores both model got from human evaluators. We observed that NMT model performed better than baseline SMT in terms of BLEU score evaluation, as well as human based judgement.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have described machine-translation based approach for automatic generation of well-formed question from keyword-based query. We used automatically extracted parallel data from search logs to train the models. Our experiments shows that NMT models work better compared to the baseline statistical model. The present model generates the most likely question from a search query which has explicit question intent. For future works we wish to add text from Search Result Page also as input along with the raw query, with the assumption being that the given text will provide more contextual information about the query.
Bibliographical References {#main:ref}
==========================
[^1]: http://www.statmt.org/moses/
[^2]: https://answers.wikia.com/wiki/Wikianswers
[^3]: https://www.quora.com
[^4]: https://in.answers.yahoo.com/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss the momentum redistribution along nearest and next nearest neighbour bond axes of Fe and Ni, using the Shannon entropy formula. We find that within the combined Density Functional and Dynamical Mean Field Theory weight redistribution takes place towards lower momenta as a function of the local Coulomb parameter $U$. This effect is more pronounced for Fe than Ni.'
author:
- 'W. H. Appelt$^{a,b}$, D. Benea$^{c,b}$, L. Chioncel$^{a,b}$'
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: Electronic momentum redistribution along bond axes of Fe and Ni
---
The interest in momentum space density studies increased together with the development of experimental techniques such as Compton scattering and other electron momentum spectroscopies. The Compton profile is closely related to the single particle momentum density of an interacting electronic system [@C85]. The single particle momentum density can also be seen as the diagonal elements of the one-particle reduced density matrix in the momentum space representation $n({\bf p},{\bf p}^\prime)$. The Fourier transformation is used to connect the $n({\bf p},{\bf p}^\prime)$ to its counterpart in position space $\rho({\bf r},{\bf r}^\prime)$. Although the two one-particle density matrices are connected, there is no direct connection between the diagonal elements of the one-particle density matrices: the real space density $\rho({\bf r})$ and the corresponding momentum density $n({\bf p})$. The ground state density in position space is the fundamental quantity upon which the Density Functional Theory(DFT) is constructed [@HK64; @KS65] and the formulation of charge density functionals opened the path towards computational materials science. The fact that DFT is constructed as a real space energy functional is based on the famous theorem of Hohenberg and Kohn [@HK64] which states that the total energy of a non-degenerate ground state is a unique functional of the real space density. The universality of the exchange and correlation functional is a consequence of the universality of the kinetic and interaction term in the Hamiltonian. Although Hohenberg-Kohn type of theorems have been formulated in momentum space they have not gained so much interest since the functional in momentum space was proven to be not universal [@HE81]. Several studies showed that $\rho({\bf r})$ and $n({\bf p})$ contain different chemical aspects about the system [@C85; @SE92]. In addition to the different chemical information encoded in $\rho({\bf r})$ and $n({\bf p})$, information theory attempts to measure the information content, directly. For the charge density the corresponding Shannon entropy [@SH48] $S_{\bf \rho} = - \int \rho({\bf r}) \ln \ \rho({\bf r}) d{\bf r}$ has been studied also as a measure for the accuracy of basis sets [@GS85; @HS94], electron correlations [@HS94b] or geometrical changes [@HS95]. Information theoretical concepts have been already used in momentum space. In analogy to the coordinate representation, the Shannon information entropy in momentum space $S_{\bf n} = - \int n({\bf p}) \ln \ n({\bf p}) d{\bf p}$ was defined using a formally equivalent equation and replacing $\rho({\bf r})$ with the probability density function in momentum space $n({\bf p})$ [@GS85; @HS94]. A generalization of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation has been derived by Białynicki-Birula and Mycielski [@BM75] and was shown that the sum $S_{\bf \rho} + S_{\bf n}$ cannot be decreased beyond a certain limit $3(1+ \ln \pi)$ in three dimensions [@BM75]. From a informational theoretical point of view this lower bound is just a manifestation of the maximum information density in phase space. This bound underlines the interdependence between the real and momentum space: the uncertainty in predicting the momentum of a particle is not independent of the uncertainty to predict the position of the particle, but bounded by the maximum information content in phase space. It is worth to mention that here we are not talking about uncertainty in the usual sense as in Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In contrast to Heisenberg the term “uncertainty” should be understood as the lack of information in a literal manner [@BM75]. In this formulation the Shannon entropy in momentum space has also been the subject of many investigations [@GS85; @HS94; @HS94b], and its maximum was connected to a localized distribution in position space.
Motivated by the capability to compute momentum space quantities in the presence of electronic correlations we analyze the influence of the local Coulomb interaction on the electronic momentum redistribution along the bond axis in Fe and Ni within the framework of a combined DFT and Dynamical Mean Field Theory (DMFT) [@MV89; @GK96; @KV04]. We have previously addressed different chemical aspects of bonding in Fe and Ni using the computed total and magnetic Compton profiles [@BMC+12; @CBE+14]. The comparison with the experimental data lead us to conclude that theoretical Magnetic Compton Profile (MCP) spectra are improved as local correlations are taken into account. The aim of this paper is to discuss the effects of strong Coulomb interactions upon the bonding in Fe and Ni. Contrary to the usual DFT approach, in which bonding is studied with the help of the charge density in real space, here we perform an analysis using momentum space quantities. In section Sec. \[sec:2\] we formulate the Shannon information entropy as the uncertainty to measure a certain momentum in Fe and Ni along different bond directions using the Compton profile that serves as the probability density. In order to understand the connection between the Compton profile and the directional entropy in subsection \[ssec:2a\] we study a $q-$Gaussian model which allows us to analyze the behaviour of entropy as a function of the Compton profile line shape. In the subsequent subsection we analyze the results from the realistic LSDA+DMFT calculations on the directional entropies (Sec. \[ssec:2b\]). We conclude the present paper in section Sec. \[sec:conc\].
\[sec:2\] Within DFT off-diagonal parts of the one particle density matrix as well as two particle information (electronic interactions) are only indirectly embedded in the one particle density density $\rho({\bf r})$. A complete description of properties of a system may be obtained by investigating the one particle density matrix $\rho({\bf r},{\bf r'})$. Technically such studies can be performed only on finite systems [@GM05]. However, within the DFT framework a better description of electronic interactions leads to an improved description of the ground state of the many-body system. In the same time DFT is a very natural way to understand the chemical bonding, since bonding effects are significant for the charge density of valence electrons.
Since within our approach it is possible to gain insight into the momentum distribution in different lattice directions our aim is to discuss the covalent bonding using momentum space quantities. The momentum density $n(\bf p)$ is generally defined as the probability of finding an electron anywhere in position space with a given momentum ${\bf p}$. Mathematically, it is the spin traced diagonal of the one-particle density matrix in momentum-space representation $n({\bf p},{\bf p'})$. To access this quantity we performed electronic structure calculations using the spin-polarized relativistic Korringa-Kohn-Rostoker (SPR-KKR) method in the atomic sphere approximation (ASA) [@EKM11]. This method was recently extended to compute magnetic Compton profiles (MCPs) [@SGST84; @BME06; @DB04]. In the case of magnetic sample the spin resolved momentum densities are computed from the corresponding LSDA(+DMFT) Green’s functions in momentum space as: $$\label{e7}
n_{m_s}(\vec p)={-\frac{1}{\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{E_F}
\Im G_{m_s}^{LDA(+DMFT)}(\vec p,\vec p,E)dE}$$ where $m_s=\uparrow(\downarrow)$. The many-body effects for d-orbitals are described by means of DMFT [@MV89; @GK96; @KV04]. The relativistic version of the so-called Spin-Polarized T-Matrix Fluctuation Exchange approximation [@KL02; @PKL05] impurity solver was used (T=400K). In our calculations we used values for the Coulomb parameter in the range of U = 1.4 to 2.3 eV and the Hund exchange-interaction J = 0.9 eV. The electron momentum densities are usually calculated for the principal directions ${\bf K}=[001], [110], [111]$ using an rectangular grid of 200 points in each direction. The maximum value of the momentum in each direction is 8 $(\text{atomic units})$.
The directional Compton profile $J({\bf p}_z)$ represents a probability density function, termed also as one-dimensional momentum distribution. It is defined for a particular direction in the momentum space ${\bf p}_z$ and is obtained by integrating the momentum density $n_{m_{s}}({\bf p})$ (Eq.\[e7\]) over planes perpendicular to this direction: $J({\bf p}_z)=\int \text{Tr}_{m_{s}} n_{m_{s}}({\bf p}) dp_xdp_y$. Using the results of the combined density functional and DMFT for the directional Compton profiles, we propose to use the Shannon information entropy formula with the directional Compton profiles as probability density $$\label{SJ}
S_{\bf K} = - \int J({\bf p}_z)\ \ln \left(J({\bf p}_z)/m \right) d{\bf p}_z \qquad {\bf K} || {\bf p}_z,$$ with $m$ the invariant measure [@jaynes]. We call this quantity [*directional entropy*]{}. A similar formula has been used to obtain approximations to the atomic Compton profiles given only the first few moments of the Compton profile [@SG81; @GS85]. We compare the values of the directional entropies Eq. (\[SJ\]) computed along the \[001\], \[110\] and \[111\] direction of the fcc and bcc - structures of Ni and Fe, respectively. The directional entropy provides the uncertainty in predicting the momentum in a certain lattice direction and therefore may provide information about chemical bonding.
Entropy formula for a $q-$Gaussian model of the Compton profile {#ssec:2a}
----------------------------------------------------------------
![\[Fig:figure1\] $q-$Gaussian probability distribution taken as a simplified model Compton profile. Red solid line represents the Compton profiles for the non-interacting homogeneous electron gas (inverted parabola). Two other examples for $q=1.7$ (Dashed green) and $q=2.0$ (blue dotted) are plotted as function of $p$. The arrow indicates the direction of increasing $q$. Inset: Entropy computed using the Compton profiles as a function of $q$.](cp.eps){width="0.95\linewidth"}
In order to clarify the connection between the directional Compton profile and the corresponding entropy Eq. (\[SJ\]), we discuss a simplified model for the line shape of the Compton profile. The central question is how the shape of the profile is changing in the presence of strong electronic interactions and finite temperatures. In the most general case the line shape is subject to a combined Lorentzian (excitations related) and Gaussian (Doppler related) broadening, also known as Voigt line-shape, which is just a convolution of the Gaussian and Lorentzian profile. In our simplified model we consider for the Compton profile a much simpler parametrization. We use a generalization of the usual Gaussian distribution, called $q$-Gaussian: $$\label{qG}
J_q(p)=\frac{1}{C_q \sqrt{2} \sigma}\exp_q(-p^2/2\sigma^2),$$ where the exponential function is replaced by its $q-$analog $$\exp_q(p)=(1+(1-q)p)^{1/(1-q)}$$ and $C_q$ is the normalization factor. This has the advantage of describing also the Compton profile of the non-interacting electron gas ($q=0$), which is just an inverted parabola for momenta $p<p_F$, where $p_F$ is the Fermi momentum (zero otherwise): $ J_{q=0}(p) \propto (p_F^2 -p^2)$. In the limit $q\to1$ the usual Gaussian distribution with variance $\sigma^2$ is recovered, which has infinite support contrarily to the $q<1$ case. If we further increase $q$ beyond 1 the exponential tails of the Gaussian distribution turn into power law tails. The case $q=2$ represents a model distribution of Compton profile that captures the limit of the one-bound state scatterer [@KK77]. For $0<q<5/3$ the variance of the $q$-Gaussian is given by $2\sigma^2/(5-3q)$. For $q-$values larger than 5/3 the variance diverges, and the uncertainty for this kind of probability distributions cannot be defined based on the moments of the distributions, motivating the need for a different definition of uncertainty [@BM75]. Since entropy is a measure of the total amount of information in a distribution and since uncertainty is just the lack of information it is very natural to define uncertainty with the use of entropy.
As one can see in Fig. \[Fig:figure1\] the increase in $q$ leads to heavier tails which are connected with a shift of weight from the region of higher probability density to region of lower probability density. The uncertainty in the prediction of the momentum is therefore increased as a function of $q$, which can be seen as an increase in entropy $S$ (see inset Fig. \[Fig:figure1\]). The magnitude of entropy has no meaning since we are considering probability densities instead of a discrete probability distributions, so the information content is only defined up to an irrelevant offset due to the choice of probability measure. In the formula for entropy: $$\label{sq}
S_q = - \int J_q({p})\ \ln\left(J_q({p})/m\right)d{p}$$ We chose the invariant measure $m=const$ for brevity. The lack of a general (comprehensive) invariant measures makes difficulties in quantitative statements about uncertainty, however it is still possible to make a relative comparison between two probability distributions providing the same invariant measure $m$. The simplest choice is the homogeneous measure $m$ which can be interpreted as a uniform discretization mesh of the probability density. With this choice the entropy still depends on the mesh size $\delta p$, which can arise from any finite resolution (the experimental setup) or the momentum step size in numerical calculation. In experiment or in numerics the resolution can in principle be non-homogeneous for several reasons, which implies that any entropy construction is always subjective to the amount of information we have about the system. Our choice of the invariant measure provides us with a definition of directional entropy so that the integrand in Eq. \[sq\] is always positive.
The analysis of the above model shows that increasing the $q$ parameter tails spread out towards higher moments and the entropy is increasing. Conversely increasing entropy can be understood as weight redistributions that overall flattens the probability density.
\[ssec:2b\] In order to discuss chemical effects along the bonds in Fe and Ni we use the directional entropy formula Eq. (\[SJ\]) in which directionality enters through the Compton profile taken along the principal directions. The later is computed from the momentum space total (spin-traced) one-particle density matrix using LSDA and LSDA+DMFT Green’s function Eq. (\[e7\]).
![\[Fig:figure2\] Directional Entropy for Fe/Ni (upper/lower pannel) along the nearest neighbour (NN-) and next nearest neighbour (NNN - ) directions as a function of U, fixed J=0.9 and T=400K.](ent.eps){width="0.95\linewidth"}
Fig. \[Fig:figure2\] shows the directional information entropy of Fe and Ni along the nearest neighbour and next nearest neighbours for different values of U. The LSDA values represent the results for U=0 (absence of local Coulomb repulsion). Including local but dynamic electronic correlations captured by DMFT, we see that the values of the directional Shannon entropy decrease along all directions. A similar color coding was used for the nearest (NN - red) and next nearest (NNN - black) neighbours. Given the geometry of the lattice NN and NNN bonding is realized along different directions as seen in the legend of Fig.\[Fig:figure2\]. One can see that shorter bond lengths have larger entropies, and the U dependence show a larger slope for Fe in comparison to Ni. The analysis of the entropy data suggests that for increasing $U$ it is less likely to find electrons with nonzero momentum-component in a specific bond direction. Our findings agree with the calculation of the second moment $\langle p^2 \rangle$ of the Compton-profile [@CBE+14]. We have interpreted the decreasing in kinetic energy as a function of $U$ as a shift of the weight of the momentum distribution towards zero momentum. Therefore the Coulomb repulsion leads to a decrease in the uncertainty of the electron momentum, which can be understood also as the slowing down of the electrons.
\[sec:conc\] In a simple valence electrons counting picture for bcc-Fe 8 bonds share 7 d-electrons, while fcc-Ni 12 bonds share 9 electrons. Therefore, Fe bonds are said to be more local then Ni bonds. Electrons in open d-shell-systems are believed to interact strongly. Strong interactions are modelled by a local Coulomb interaction parameter $U$, acting on the d-orbitals manifold. Model and realistic electronic structure calculations showed that for systems with narrow bands the effect of $U$ is to localize the valence electrons around the atoms, such that metallic conduction is no longer possible, so the system experience a localization of electrons through correlation effects [@GK96; @KV04]. In our calculations for Fe and Ni we take correlation effects into account by means of LDA+DMFT and study momentum space quantities. Both Fe and Ni have larger valence bandwidth than the realistic parameter for the average Coulomb interaction, therefore the lower- and upper-Hubbard bands are not present [@KP10; @AB12; @LP11]. Although no strong localization is expected, the question still remains to what extend the Fe/Ni electrons per bond localizes because of $U$ and how they compare.
In this paper we analyzed electronic properties from the one particle density matrix in momentum space within the information theoretical framework. In such a framework one defines a measure of information content or uncertainty. The most commonly used measure is the Shannon entropy, for which we proposed a formula that includes the directional Compton profiles. The directional entropy is a functional of the distribution of the momentum component in a certain direction ${\bf K}$. The Compton profile can be computed including electronic correlation within DMFT, therefore we are able to consider electronic interactions consistently beyond the mean-field approximation and study their effect upon the chemical bonds in Fe and Ni. Our main result is that the probability of finding electrons with high momenta along bond axes is decreased in favour of low momenta as a function of $U$.
A possible consequence of the redistribution are briefly discussed below: Fe and Ni have a metallic bonding with covalent d-d contribution. The covalent chemical bond is usually interpreted as electronic charge accumulation between nuclear centers. It is a dominant electrostatic approach and within DFT this effect is encoded into the diagonal of the real space density matrix $\rho({\bf r})$. Dynamical effects are usually neglected withing plain DFT. Our numerical results suggest that the inclusion of local correlations within DMFT affects momentum distribution and therefore the covalent bonding.
Financial support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through FOR 1346, the DAAD and the CNCS - UEFISCDI (project number PN-II-ID-PCE-2012-4-0470) is gratefully acknowledged. We would like to thank J. Minàr and Hubert Ebert for a fruitful collaboration.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We prove that if ${{\rm cf}}(\lambda)>\aleph_0$ and $2^{{{\rm cf}}(\lambda)}<\lambda$ then $\lambda \rightarrow
(\lambda,\omega+1)^2$ in ZFC
address: 'Institute of Mathematics The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem 91904, Israel and Department of Mathematics Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ 08854, USA'
author:
- Saharon Shelah
title: 'The Erdös-Rado arrow for singular'
---
introduction
============
For regular uncountable $\kappa$, the Erdös-Dushnik-Miller theorem, Theorem 11.3 of [@EHMR], states that $\kappa \rightarrow (\kappa,\ \omega + 1)^2$. For singular cardinals, $\kappa$, they were only able to obtain the weaker result, Theorem 11.1 of [@EHMR], that $\kappa \rightarrow (\kappa,\ \omega)^2$. It is not hard to see that if ${{\rm cf}}(\kappa) = \omega$ then $\kappa \not\rightarrow (\kappa,\ \omega + 1)^2$. If ${{\rm cf}}\ (\kappa) > \omega$ and $\kappa$ is a strong limit cardinal, then it follows from the General Canonization Lemma, Lemma 28.1 in [@EHMR], that $\kappa \rightarrow (\kappa,\ \omega + 1)^2$. Question 11.4 of [@EHMR] is whether this holds without the assumption that $\kappa$ is a strong limit cardinal, e.g., whether, in ZFC,
$$(1)\ \ \aleph_{\omega_1} \rightarrow (\aleph_{\omega_1},\ \omega + 1)^2.$$
In [@ShSt:419] it was proved that $\lambda\rightarrow (\lambda,\omega+1)^2$ if $2^{{{\rm cf}}(\lambda)}<\lambda$ and there is a nice filter on $\kappa$, (see [@Sh:g Ch.V]: follows from suitable failures of SCH). Also proved there are consistency results when $2^{{{\rm cf}}(\lambda)}\geq \lambda$
Here continuing [@ShSt:419] but not relying on it, we eliminate the extra assumption, i.e, we prove (in ZFC)
\[0.1\] If $\aleph_0 < \kappa = {{\rm cf}}(\lambda)$ and $2^\kappa < \lambda$ $\lambda \rightarrow
(\lambda,\ \omega + 1)^2$.
Before starting the proof, let us recall the well known definition:
\[0.2\] Let $D$ be an $\aleph_1$-complete filter on $Y$, and $f\in {}^Y{\rm Ord}$, and $\alpha\in {\rm Ord}
\cup \{\infty\}$.
We define when ${\rm rk}_D (f)=\alpha$ by induction on $\alpha$ (it is well known that ${\rm rk}_D (f)<\infty$):
1. ${\rm rk}_D (f)=\alpha$ iff $\beta<\alpha\Rightarrow {\rm rk}_D (f)\neq \beta$, and for every $g\in {}^Y{\rm Ord}$ satisfying $g<_D f$, there is $\beta<\alpha$ [[such that]{}]{} ${\rm rk}_D (g)=\beta$.
Notice that we will use normal filters on $\kappa=
{{\rm cf}}(\kappa)>\aleph_0$, so the demand of $\aleph_1$- completeness in the definition, holds for us.Recall also
\[0.3\] Assume $Y,D,f$ are as in definition \[0.2\]. $$J[f,D]= \{Z\subseteq Y:Y\setminus Z\in D \hbox{ or }
{\rm rk}_{D+(Y\setminus Z)} (f)>{\rm rk}_D (f)\}$$ Lasly, we quote the next claim (the definition \[0.3\] and claim are from [@Sh:71], and explicitly [@Sh:589](5.8(2),5.9)):
\[0.4\] Assume $\kappa>\aleph_0$ is realized, and $D$ is a $\kappa$-complete (a normal) filter on $Y$.
$J[f,D]$ is a $\kappa$-complete (a normal) ideal on $Y$ disjoint to $D$ for any $f\in {}^Y{\rm Ord}$
The proof
=========
In this section we prove Theorem \[0.1\] of the Introduction, which, for convenience, we now restate.
\[1.1\] If $\aleph_0 < \kappa = {{\rm cf}}(\lambda),\ 2^\kappa < \lambda$ $\lambda \rightarrow
(\lambda,\ \omega + 1)^2$.
${}$
We know that $\aleph_0 < \kappa = {{\rm cf}}(\lambda) <
\lambda,\ 2^\kappa < \lambda$ We will show that $\lambda \rightarrow (\lambda,\ \omega + 1)^2$.
So, towards a contradiction, suppose that
1. $c:[\lambda]^2\ \rightarrow\
\{\hbox{red, green}\}$ but has no red set of cardinality $\lambda$ and no green set of order type $\omega + 1$.
Choose $\bar \lambda$ [[such that]{}]{}:
1. $\bar \lambda=\langle \lambda_i:i
<\kappa\rangle$ is increasing and continuous with limit $\lambda$, and for $i = 0$ or $i$ a successor ordinal, $\lambda_i$ is a successor cardinal. We also let $\Delta_0 = \lambda_0$ and for $i < \kappa,\ \Delta_{1 + i} = [\lambda_i,\
\lambda_{i + 1})$. For $\alpha < \lambda$ we will let ${\bf i}(\alpha) = $ the unique $i < \kappa$ such that $\alpha \in \Delta_i$.
We can clearly assume, in addition, that
1. $\lambda_0 > 2^\kappa$, for $i < \kappa,\ \lambda_{i + 1} \geq \lambda_i^{++}$, and that each $\Delta_i$ is homogeneously red for $c$.
The last is justified by the Erdös-Dushnik-Miller theorem for $\lambda_{i + 1}$, i.e., as $\lambda_{i+1}\rightarrow
(\lambda_{i+1},\omega+1)^2$ because $\lambda_{i+1}$ is regular.
: For $0 < i < \kappa$, we define ${\rm Seq}_i$ to be $\{\langle \alpha_0, ...,
\alpha_{n-1}\rangle:{\bf i}(\alpha_0) < ...
< {\bf i}(\alpha_{n-1}) < i\}$. For $\zeta
\in \Delta_i$ and $\langle \alpha_0, ..., \alpha_{n-1}\rangle =
{\bar \alpha} \in {\rm Seq}_i$, we say ${\bar \alpha}
\in {{\mathcal}T}^\zeta$ iff $\{\alpha_0, ..., \alpha_{n-1},\ \zeta\}$ is homogeneously green for $c$. Note that an infinite $\triangleleft$-increasing branch in ${{\mathcal}T}^\zeta$ violates the non-existence of a green set of order type $\omega + 1$, so,
1. ${{\mathcal}T}^\zeta$ is well-founded, that is we cannot find $\eta_0\triangleleft \eta_1
\triangleleft\ldots \triangleleft \eta_n \triangleleft
\ldots$.
Therefore the following definition of a rank function, ${\rm rk}^\zeta$, on ${\rm Seq}_i$ can be carried out.
If $\eta\in {\rm Seq}_i\setminus T^\zeta$ then ${\rm rk}^\zeta (\eta)=-1$. We define ${\rm rk}^\zeta:{\rm Seq}_i
\rightarrow {\rm Ord} \cup \{-1\}$ as follows by induction on the ordinal $\xi$, we have ${\rm rk}^\zeta({\bar \alpha})
=\xi$ iff for all $\epsilon < \xi, {\rm rk}^\zeta
({\bar \alpha})$ was not defined as $\epsilon$ but there is $\beta$ such that ${\rm rk}^\zeta
({\bar \alpha}^{{{}^\frown\!}}\langle
\beta\rangle) \geq \epsilon$. Of course, if $\xi$ is a succesor ordinal, it is enough to check for $\epsilon=\xi-1$, and for limit ordinals, $\delta$, if for all $\xi < \delta,\
{\rm rk}^\zeta({\bar \alpha}) \geq \xi$, then ${\rm rk}^\zeta
({\bar \alpha}) \geq \delta$. In fact, it is clear that the range of ${\rm rk}^\zeta$ is a proper initial segment of $\mu_i^+$, where $\mu_i := {\rm card}
(\bigcup\ \{\Delta_\epsilon:\epsilon < i\})$, and so, in particular, the range of ${\rm rk}^\zeta$ has cardinality at most $\lambda_i$. Note that $\lambda_{i + 1}
\geq \lambda^{++}_i> \mu_i^+$.
Now we can choose $B_i$, an end-segment of $\Delta_i$ such that for all ${\bar \alpha} \in {\rm Seq}_i$ and all $0 \leq \gamma < \mu_i^+$, if there is $\zeta \in B_i$ such that ${\rm rk}^\zeta({\bar \alpha}) = \gamma$, then there are $\lambda_{i + 1}$ such $\zeta$-s. Recall that $\Delta_{i}$ and therefore also $B_i$ are of order type $\lambda_{i + 1}$, which is a successor cardinal $>\mu^+_i> |{\rm Seq}_i|$ hence such $B_i$ exists. Everything is now in place for the main definition.
: $({\bar \alpha},\ Z,\ D,\ f) \in K$ iff
1. $D$ is a normal filter on $\kappa$,
2. $f:\kappa \rightarrow {\rm Ord}$,
3. $Z \in D$
4. for some $0 < i < \kappa$ we have ${\bar \alpha} \in {\rm Seq}_i$ and $Z$ is disjoint to $i+1$ and for every $j \in Z$ (hence $j>i$) there is $\zeta \in B_j$ such that ${\rm rk}^\zeta({\bar \alpha})
= f(j)$ (so, in particular, ${\bar \alpha} \in {{\mathcal}T}^\zeta$).
: Note that $K \neq \emptyset$, since if we choose $\zeta_j \in
B_j$, for $j < \kappa$, take $Z = \kappa\setminus \{0\},\
{\bar \alpha} = $ the empty sequence, choose $D$ to be any normal filter on $\kappa$ and define $f$ by $f(j) = {\rm rk}^{\zeta_j}({\bar \alpha})$, then $({\bar \alpha},\ Z,\ D,\ f) \in K$.
Now clearly by \[0.2\], among the quadraples $({\bar \alpha},\ Z,\ D,\ f) \in K$, there is one with ${\rm rk}_D(f)$ minimal. So, fix one such quadraple, and denote it by $({\bar \alpha}^*,\ Z^*,\ D^*,\ f^*)$. Let $D^*_1$ be the filter on $\kappa$ dual to $J [f^*,D^*]$, so by claim \[0.4\] it is a normal filter on $\kappa$ extending $D^*$.
For $j \in Z^*$, set $C_j = \{\zeta \in
B_j:{\rm rk}^\zeta({\bar \alpha}^*) =
f^*(j)\}$. Thus by the choice of $B_j$ we know that ${\rm card}(C_j) = \lambda_{j + 1}$, and for every $\zeta \in C_j$ the set $({\rm Rang}(\bar \alpha^*) \cup \{\zeta\})$ is homogeneously green under the colouring $c$. Now: suppose $j \in Z^*$. For every $\Upsilon \in Z^* \setminus (j + 1)$ and $\zeta \in C_j$, let $C^+_\Upsilon (\zeta) = \{\xi \in C_\Upsilon:
c(\{\zeta,\xi\}) =
\hbox{green}\}$. Also, let $Z^+(\zeta) = \{\Upsilon \in Z^*
\setminus (j + 1): {\rm card}
(C^+_\Upsilon (\zeta))
= \lambda_{\Upsilon + 1}\}$.
: For $j \in Z^*$ and $\zeta \in C_j$, let $Y(\zeta) = Z^* \setminus
Z^+(\zeta)$. Since $\lambda_0 >
2^\kappa$ and $\lambda_{j+1}>\lambda_0$ is regular, for each $j \in Z^*$ there are $Y = Y_j \subseteq \kappa$ and $C'_j \subseteq C_j$ with ${\rm card} (C'_j) = \lambda_{j + 1}$ such that $\zeta \in C'_j \Rightarrow
Y(\zeta) = Y_j$.
Let $\hat Z = \{j \in Z^*:Y_j \in D^*_1\}$. Now the proof split to two cases.
: $\hat Z\neq \emptyset\ {\rm mod}\ D^*_1$
Define $Y^*=\{j\in \hat Z$: for every $i\in \hat Z
\cap j$, we have $j\in Y_i\}$. Notice that $Y^*$ is the intersection of $\hat Z$ with the diagonal intersection of $\kappa$ sets from $D^*_1$ (since $i\in \hat Z\Rightarrow Y_i\in D^*_1$), hence (by the normality of $D^*_1$) $Y^*\neq \emptyset\
{\rm mod}\ D^*_1$. But then, by shrinking the $C'_j$ for $j\in Y^*$, we can get a homogeneous red set of cardinality $\lambda$, which is contrary to the assumption toward contradiction.
We define $\hat C_j$ for $j \in Y^*$ by induction on $j$ such that $\hat C_j$ is a subset of $C'_j$ of cardinality $\lambda_{j + 1}$. Now, for $j \in Y^*$, let $\hat C_j$ be the set of $\xi \in C'_j$ [[such that]{}]{} for every $i\in Y^* \cap j$ and every $\zeta \in \hat C_i$ we have $\xi
\not\in C^+_j (\zeta)$. So, in fact, $\hat C_j$ has cardinality $\lambda_{j+1}$ as it is the result of removing $<\lambda_{j+1}$ elements from $C'_j$ where $|C'_j|=\lambda_{j+1}$ by its choice. That is, the number of such pairs $(i,\zeta)$ is $\leq\lambda_j$ and: for $i\in Y^* \cap j$ and $\zeta\in \hat C_i$:
1. $j\in Y_i$ \[Why? by the definition of $Y^*$ as $j\in Y^*$\]
2. $\zeta\in C'_i$ \[Why? as $\zeta\in \hat C_i$ and $\hat C_i\subseteq
C'_i$ by the induction hypothesis\]
3. $Y(\zeta)=Y_i$ \[Why? as by (b) we have $\zeta\in C'_i$ and the choice of $C'_i$\]
4. $j\in Y(\zeta)$ \[Why? by (a)+(c)\]
5. $j\notin Z^+ (\zeta)$ \[Why? by (d) and the choice of $Y(\zeta)$ as $Z^*\setminus Z^+ (\zeta)$\]
6. $C^+_j (\zeta)$ has cardinality $<\lambda_{j+1}$ \[Why? by (e) and the choice of $Z^+(\zeta)$, as $j\in \hat Z \subseteq Z^*$\]
So $\hat C_j$ is a well defined subset of $C'_j$ of cardinality $\lambda_{j+1}$ for every $j\in Y^*$. But then, clearly the union of the $\hat C_j$ for $j \in Y^*$, call it $\hat C$ satisfies:
1. it has cardinality $\lambda$ \[as $j\in Y^*\Rightarrow |\hat C_j|=\lambda_{j+1}$ and ${\rm sup} (Y^*)=\kappa$ as $Y^*\neq \emptyset\
{\rm mod}\ D^*_1$\]
2. $c{{\upharpoonright}}[\hat C_j]^2$ is constantly red \[as we are assumming $(*)_3$\]
3. if $i<j$ are from $Y^*$ and $\zeta\in \hat C_i,\xi\in \hat C_j$ then $c\{\zeta,\xi\}={\rm red}$ \[as $\xi\notin\ C^+_j (\zeta)$\]
So $\hat C$ has cardinality $\lambda$ and is homogeneously red. This concludes the proof in the case $\hat Z \neq \emptyset\ {\rm mod}\ D^*_1$
: $\hat Z=\emptyset\ {\rm mod}\ D^*_1$. In that case there are $i\in Z^*, \beta \in C_i$ [[such that]{}]{} $Z^+ (\beta)\neq \emptyset\
{\rm mod}\ D^*_1$
\[Why? well, $Z^*\in D^*\subseteq D^*_1$ and $\hat Z=\emptyset\
{\rm mod}\ D^*_1$, hence $Z^*\setminus \hat Z\neq \emptyset$. Choose $i\in Z^* \setminus \hat Z$. By the definition of $\hat Z$, $Y_i\notin D^*_1$. So, if $\beta\in C'_i$ then $Y(\beta)=Y_i\notin D^*_1$ and choose $\beta\in C'_i$, so $Y(\beta)\notin D^*_1$ hence by the definition of $Y(\beta)$ we have $Z^*\setminus
Z^+(\beta)=Y(\beta)\notin D^*_1$. Since $Z^*\in D^*_1$, we conclude that $Z^+ (\beta) \neq \emptyset\ {\rm mod}\
D^*_1$\]. Let $\bar \alpha'=\bar \alpha^*{{}^\frown\!}\langle \beta\rangle,
Z'=Z^+ (\beta), D'=D^*+Z'$, it is a normal filter by the previous sentence as $D^*\subseteq D^*_1$ and lastly we define $f'\in {}^\kappa{\rm Ord}$ by:
1. if $j\in Z'$ then $f' (j)={\rm Min}
\{{\rm rk}^\gamma (\bar \alpha'):
\gamma\in C^+_j(\beta)\subseteq B_j\}$
2. otherwise $f'(j)=0$
Clearly
1. $(\bar \alpha',Z',D',f')\in K$, and
2. $f'<_{D'} f^*$
\[Why? as $Z'\in D'$ and if $j\in Z'$ then for some $\gamma\in C^+_j (\beta)$ we have $f'(j)={\rm rk}^\gamma
(\bar \alpha')={\rm rk}^\gamma
(\bar \alpha^* {{}^\frown\!}\langle\beta\rangle)$ which by the definition of ${\rm rk}^\gamma$ is $>{\rm rk}^\gamma (\bar \alpha^*)=f^* (j)$, recalling (a) from stage C.\]
hence
3. ${\rm rk}_{D'} (f')< {\rm rk}_{D'} (f^*)$
\[Why? see Definition \[0.2\]\].
But ${\rm rk}_{D'} (f^*)={\rm rk}_{D^*} (f^*)$ as $Z'=Z^+ (\beta)\neq
\emptyset\ {\rm mod}\ D^*_1$ by the definition of $D^*_1$ as extending the filter dual to $J[f^*,D^*]$, see Definition \[0.3\]. Hence ${\rm rk}_{D'} (f')
< {\rm rk}_{D^*} (f^*)$, so we get a [[contradiction]{}]{} to the choice of $(\bar \alpha^*,Z^*,D^*,f^*)$.Clearly at least one of the two cases holds, so we are done.
[1]{}
Paul Erdős, Andras Hajnal, A. Maté, and Richard Rado. , volume 106 of [*Studies in Logic and the Foundation of Math.*]{} North Holland Publ. Co, Amsterdam, 1984.
Saharon Shelah. . , 45:56–66, 1980.
Saharon Shelah. , volume 29 of [*[Oxford Logic Guides]{}*]{}. , 1994.
Saharon Shelah. . In [*[Cardinal Arithmetic]{}*]{}, volume 29 of [*[Oxford Logic Guides]{}*]{}, chapter Appendix 1. [Oxford University Press]{}, 1994.
Saharon Shelah. . , 65:1624–1674, 2000.
Saharon Shelah and Lee Stanley. . , 65:259–271, 2000. math.LO/9709228.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Champernowne famously proved that the number $$0.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)...$$ formed by concatenating all the integers one after another is normal base $10$. We give a generalization of Champernowne’s construction to various other digit systems, including generalized Lüroth series with a finite number of digits. For these systems, our construction simplifies a recent construction given by Madritsch and Mance. Along the way we give an estimation of the sum of multinomial coefficients above a tilted hyperplane in Pascal’s simplex, which may be of general interest.'
author:
- 'J. Vandehey'
title: A simpler normal number construction for simple Lüroth series
---
Introduction
============
A number $x\in [0,1)$ with base $b$ expansion $x=0.d_1d_2d_3\dots$ is said to be normal base $b$ if for any string $s=a_1 a_2\dots a_k$ of base $b$ digits, we have $$\lim_{N\to \infty} \frac{\#\{ 0 \le n \le N-k\mid d_{n+i} = a_i, \quad 1 \le i \le k\}}{N} = b^{-k}.$$ This may be interpreted as saying that for a normal number $x$, each digit string appears with the same relative frequency as every other digit string with the same length.
While many methods (most notably the Birkhoff Ergodic Theorem) can be used to show that almost all real numbers $x\in [0,1)$ are normal for any fixed base $b$, we know of very few examples of normal numbers. None of the well-known irrational constants, such as $e$ or $\pi$, are known to be normal to any base, and the only examples we have of normal numbers are those explicitly constructed to be normal. The first and still most famous of these constructions is Champernowne’s constant [@Champernowne], which in base $10$ looks like $$0.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)\dots,$$ formed by concatenating all the integers in succession. He derived this construction after proving the base $10$ normality of the following number $$\label{eq:champernowne}
0.(0)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(00)(01)(02)(03)\dots,$$ formed by concatenating all base $10$ digit strings of length $1$ in lexicographical order, then all the digit strings of length $2$ in lexicographical order, and so on.
Constructions for base $b$ normal numbers usually fall into one of three methods: the combinatorial method first introduced by Copeland and Erdős [@CE], that is perhaps the most natural generalization of Champernowne’s techniques; the exponential sum method first introduced by Davenport and Erdős [@DE]; and the method of pseudo-random number generators used most powerfully by Bailey and Crandall [@BC1; @BC2].
Recently, mathematical interest has turned to providing constructions of normal numbers in other systems. In many cases, these proofs draw from techniques used by Champernowne, Copeland, and Erdős. We shall be concerned here with ergodic fibred systems [@Schweiger]. Common examples of fibred systems include base $b$ expansions, continued fraction expansions, generalized Lüroth series, and $\beta$-expansions.
Ergodic fibred systems consist with a transformation $T$ that maps a set $\Omega$ to itself, a measure $\mu$ on $\Omega$ that is finite and $T$-invariant, a digit set $\mathcal{D}\subset\mathbb{N}$, and a countable collection of disjoint subsets $\{I_d\}_{d\in \mathcal{D}}$ such that $\mu$-almost every point in $\Omega$ is in some $I_d$. The map $T$ is injective on each subset $I_d$ and $T$ is ergodic with respect to $\mu$.
The $T$-expansion of a point $x\in \Omega$ is then given by $x=[d_1,d_2,d_3,\dots]$ where $d_n$ is defined by $T^{n-1}x \in I_{d_n}$. For a given fibred system, we say a point $x\in\Omega$ with expansion $x=[d_1, d_2, d_3, \dots]$ is $T$-normal if for any string $s=[a_1, a_2, \dots, a_k]$ of digits from $\mathcal{D}$ we have $$\label{eq:mainlimit}
\lim_{N\to \infty} \frac{\#\{ 0 \le n \le N-k\mid d_{n+i} = a_i, \quad 1 \le i \le k\}}{N} = \mu(C[s]).$$ where $C[s]$ is the cylinder set for the string $s$, i.e., $$C[s]= \{x=[d_1, d_2, \dots] \mid d_i=a_i, \quad 1\le i \le k\}.$$
We will often denote the measure of a cylinder set $s$ by $\lambda_s$, and if $s$ consists of a single digit $d$, then we will often shorthand the measure of the set $C[d]$ by $\lambda_d$.
Madritsch and Mance [@MM] recently provided a normal number construction that works for many ergodic fibred systems, including those listed above. Their construction works roughly as follows:
1. Let $\epsilon_k$ be some small positive number shrinking to $0$ very quickly as $k$ increases, and let $S_k=\{s_1, s_2, s_3, \dots, s_n\}$ be a set enumerating all strings of length $k$ whose corresponding cylinder sets have measure at least $\epsilon_k$.
2. Let $M_k$ be at least $1/\epsilon_k$, and construct a string $X_k$ formed by concatenating first $\lfloor M_k \lambda_{s_1}\rfloor$ copies of $s_1$, then $\lfloor M_k \lambda_{s_2} \rfloor$ copies of $s_2$ and so on until ending with $\lfloor M_k \lambda_{s_n} \rfloor$ copies of $s_n$. By construction, we expect that for strings $s$ with length much smaller than $k$ that $s$ should appear in $X_k$ with close to the correct frequency.
3. We chose a quickly growing sequence $l_k$ and construct a digit $x$ by first concatenating $l_1$ copes of $X_1$, then $l_2$ copies of $X_2$, and so forth. The $l_k$’s are chosen so that $l_k$ copies of $X_k$ are vastly longer than the concatenated copies of $X_1$ up to $X_{k-1}$ that precede it.
The strings $X_k$ are constructed to have better and better small-scale normality properties and then are repeated so many times in the construction of $x$ that their behavior swamps the behavior of what came before them. This construction was based on earlier work of Altomare and Mance [@AM], and Mance [@M1; @M2] independently. The construction also bears resemblence to an earlier, but less general construction of Martinelli [@Martinelli], although their results appear to be independent.
The advantage of the Madritsch-Mance construction is that it is extremely general, working even for the notoriously difficult $\beta$-expansions. The disadvantage of the Madritsch-Mance construction is its inefficency. For example, if we apply the Madritsch-Mance construction to create a normal number base $10$, it, like Champernowne’s secondary construction , concatenates every digit string at some point; however, while Champernowne’s second construction uses each digit string exactly $1$ time, the Madritsch-Mance construction concatenates a string of length $k$ at least $k^{2k}\log k$ times.
Our goal in this paper is to construct and prove a much simpler normal number construction that, like Champernowne’s construction, uses each digit string one time.
\[defn:xs\] Given an ergodic fibred system, let $S= \{s_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ be an enumeration of all possible finite length strings ordered according to the following rule: If $\lambda_{s_i} > \lambda_{s_j}$, then $i<j$. (We do not care how strings whose cylinder sets have the same measure are ordered compared to one another. Although, if we want a rigorous definition of $S$, we may impose a lexicographical order on these strings.)
Let $x_S$ be the point constructed by concatenating the strings $s_i$ in order.
Note that if we consider a base $10$ fibred system and impose a lexicographical ordering on those strings in $S$ whose cylinder sets have the same measure, then we in fact get Champernowne’s second construction precisely. Therefore the construction of $x_S$ given in Definition \[defn:xs\] is a true generalization of Champernowne’s construction to more ergodic fibred systems.
Our goal in this paper will be to prove the following statement.
\[thm:main\] Consider an ergodic fibred system generated by a transformation $T$ such that $\mathcal{D}$ is finite and such that for each string $s=[a_1, a_2, \dots, a_k]$, we have $
\lambda_s \asymp \lambda_{a_1} \lambda_{a_2} \dots \lambda_{a_k}
$.
For such a system, the number $x_S$ constructed in Definition \[defn:xs\] is $T$-normal.
The simplest example of such a fibred system are the generalized Lüroth series with finitely many digits, where we have, in fact, $\lambda_s = \lambda_{a_1} \lambda_{a_2} \dots \lambda_{a_k}$. A good introduction to generalized Lüroth series is given in section 2.3 of [@DK].
We note that for some fibred systems, there may not be a point $x\in \Omega$ with $T$-expansion given by $x_S$. This is due to the possibility of inadmissable strings, strings $s$ such that $\lambda_s=0$. $\beta$-expansions, in particular, have many inadmissable strings, and in the Madritsch-Mance construction, they get around this obstruction by including padding, a long, but finite string of $0$’s inserted before each concatenated string $s_i$.
However, the condition in Theorem \[thm:main\] that $
\lambda_s \asymp \lambda_{a_1} \lambda_{a_2} \dots \lambda_{a_k}
$ guarantees that no inadmissable strings exist.
We leave as an open question—since we do not yet have enough information to be willing to state it as a conjecture—whether this construction works for other fibred systems, including Generalized Lüroth Series with an infinite number of digits, continued fraction expansions, and (with an appropriate padding, à la Madritsch-Mance) $\beta$-expansions.
In the proof we shall make use of the following theorem, known alternately as Pjatetskii-Shapiro normality criterion or the hot spot theorem [@BM; @MS].
\[thm:PS\] A point $x$ with expansion $x=[d_1, d_2, d_3, \dots]$ is $T$-normal if for any string $s=[a_1, a_2, \dots, a_k]$ we have $$\limsup_{N\to \infty} \frac{\#\{ 0 \le n \le N-k\mid d_{n+i} = a_i, \quad 1 \le i \le k\}}{N} \le c \cdot \lambda_s.$$ for some constant $c$ that is uniform over all strings.
This normality criterion is quite useful because it means that instead of having to prove a precise asymptotic for the counting function on the left-hand side of , we need only know its value up to a constant multiple.
We will need another result on a sum of multinomial coefficients, which we present here. Define the set $T_\epsilon$ by $$T_\epsilon =\left\{ {\mathbf{x}}= (x_1,\dots, x_D) \in \mathbb{R}^D\middle| \lambda_1^{x_1}\lambda_2^{x_2}\dots\lambda_D^{x_D}\ge \epsilon, x_i \ge 0, 1\le i \le D\right\}.$$ We will use ${\mathbf{m}}=(m_1, m_2,\dots, m_D)\in \mathbb{Z}^D$ to denote an integer lattice point. Then define $$\label{eq:S1def}
S(\epsilon)=\sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in T_\epsilon} (m_1+m_2+\dots+m_D) \frac{(m_1+m_2+\dots+m_D)!}{m_1!m_2!\dots m_D!}$$ and $$\label{eq:S2def}
S^\#(\epsilon) = \sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in T_\epsilon} \frac{(m_1+m_2+\dots+m_D)!}{m_1!m_2!\dots m_D!}.$$
\[thm:sbound\] We have $$S(\epsilon) \asymp \frac{| \log \epsilon|}{\epsilon} \qquad S^\#(\epsilon) \asymp \frac{1}{\epsilon}$$ as $\epsilon$ tends to $0$.
The proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] will be broken down into the following steps.
1. In Section \[sec:counting\], we shall apply a counting argument to express $$\#\{ 0 \le n \le N-k\mid d_{n+i} = a_i, \quad 1 \le i \le k\} /N$$ in terms of the sums $S(\epsilon)$ and $S^\#(\epsilon)$, so that Theorem \[thm:main\] is a simple consequence of Theorem \[thm:sbound\].
2. In Sections \[sec:Hreduction\] and \[sec:htos\], we will show that the bounds in Theorem \[thm:sbound\] follow from bounds on similar sums, where $T_\epsilon$ is replaced by a hyperplane segment $$\mathcal{H}_\epsilon :=\left\{{\mathbf{x}}=(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_D) \middle| \sum_{i=1}^D x_i \log \lambda_i = \log \epsilon, \quad x_i\ge 0, \forall i\right\}.$$
3. In Section \[sec:Hbound\], we analyze the size of the resulting sum over $\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$ by applying the Laplace method (see [@dB] for more details).
In this paper we will frequently use Landau and Vinogradov asymptotic notations, such as $\ll$, $\gg$, $\asymp$, big-$O$, and little-$o$, all with the usual meanings.
Some additional results
=======================
We need a few general lemmas, which we will present here.
\[lem:gammagrowth\] Let $1<x<y$ and suppose that $0 < \delta < \min\{1,x-1\}$, then we have, uniformly in all variables $$\frac{\Gamma(y-\delta)}{\Gamma(x-\delta)} \ll \frac{\Gamma(y)}{\Gamma(x)} \ll \frac{\Gamma(y+\delta)}{\Gamma(x+\delta)} \quad \text{ and } \quad x\pm \delta \asymp x.$$
The first relation follows immediately from the fact that $\Gamma(x+\alpha)\asymp \Gamma(x) x^\alpha$ provided $x$ and $x+\alpha$ are on subset of the positive reals bounded away from $0$. The second relation is trivial.
\[lem:inequality\] Let $n $ be a positive integer, $\{p_i\}_{i=1}^n$ be a set of real numbers, and $\{q_i\}_{i=1}^n$ be a set of positive numbers. Then we have that $$\frac{\left( \sum_{i=1}^n p_i\right)^2}{\sum_{i=1}^n q_i} \le \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{p_i^2}{q_i},$$ with equality if and only if all the fractions $\{p_i/q_i\}_{i=1}^n$ have the same value.
This follows immediately from the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality: $$\left( \sum_{i=1}^n \sqrt{q_i} \cdot \frac{p_i}{\sqrt{q_i}} \right)^2 \le \left( \sum_{i=1}^n \sqrt{q_i}^2 \right) \left( \sum_{i=1}^n \left( \frac{p_i}{\sqrt{q_i}} \right)^2 \right)$$ with equality if and only if there exists a constant $C$ such that $C \sqrt{q_i} = p_i/\sqrt{q_i}$.
\[lem:sumtointegral\] For a fixed constant $C$, we have $$\sum_{-Z^{2/3}\le k \le Z^{2/3} } \exp\left( - \frac{C}{Z} k^2\right) = \sqrt{\frac{\pi Z}{C}}(1+o(1))$$ as $Z$ tends to $\infty$.
We apply Euler-Macluarin summation: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{-Z^{2/3}\le k \le Z^{2/3} } \exp\left( - \frac{C}{Z} k^2\right) &= \int_{-Z^{2/3}}^{Z^{2/3}}\exp\left( - \frac{C}{Z} x^2\right)\ dx\\
&\qquad + O\left( \int_{-Z^{2/3}}^{Z^{2/3}} \frac{C|x|}{Z}\exp\left( - \frac{C}{Z} x^2\right)\ dx \right)\\
&\qquad +O\left(\exp\left( - \frac{C}{Z} Z^{4/3}\right) \right)\\
&= \sqrt{\frac{\pi Z}{C}} - 2 \sqrt{\frac{Z}{C}} \cdot \int_{Z^{1/6}C^{1/2}}^{\infty} \exp\left( - x^2\right)\ dx\\
&\qquad + O\left( \int_{0}^{Z^{1/6}C^{1/2}} |x|\exp\left( - x^2\right)\ dx \right) +O\left(1 \right)\\
&= \sqrt{\frac{\pi Z}{C}} (1+o(1))\end{aligned}$$
Proving Theorem \[thm:main\] from Theorem \[thm:sbound\] {#sec:counting}
========================================================
By Theorem \[thm:PS\], it suffices to show that for any string $s=[a_1,a_2,\dots,a_k]$, we have $$\frac{\#\{ 0 \le n \le N-k\mid d_{n+i} = a_i, \quad 1 \le i \le k\}}{N} \ll \lambda_s$$ with implicit constant uniform over all strings.
The counting function $$\#\{ 0 \le n \le N-k\mid d_{n+i} = a_i, \quad 1 \le i \le k\}$$ is very difficult to compute directly, so we will instead estimate its size in terms of other, simpler functions. The $N$th digit of $x$, $d_N$, must appear in the concatenation of some string $s_n$, for which we have $\mu(C[s_n])= \epsilon = \epsilon(N)$.
Let $A(\epsilon;s)$ denote the number of time the string $s$ occurs *within* the strings $s_i$ where $\lambda_{s_i} \ge \epsilon$. Let $A(\epsilon)$ just denote the total number of digits in all the strings $s_i$ where $\lambda_{s_i}\ge \epsilon$. We will also use $A^\#(\epsilon)$ to denote the total number of strings $s_i$ where $\lambda_{s_i} \ge \epsilon$.
With $\epsilon=\epsilon(N)$, we clearly have $$\#\{ 0 \le n \le N-k\mid d_{n+i} = a_i, \quad 1 \le i \le k\} \le A(\epsilon;s) + k A^\#(\epsilon)$$ where the latter term comes from a trivial estimate on how many times the string $s$ could occur starting in one string $s_i$ and ending another string $s_j$. Moreover, the number $N$ itself is at least $A(2\epsilon)$, and thus $$\frac{\#\{ 0 \le n \le N-k\mid d_{n+i} = a_i, \quad 1 \le i \le k\}}{N} \le \frac{A(\epsilon;s) + k A^\#(\epsilon)}{A(2\epsilon)}.$$
Now we wish to bound the $A$ functions, in terms of the $S$ functions and . Following the assumption from Theorem \[thm:main\], let us assume that for a string $s=[a_1,a_2, \dots, a_k]$ we have $$c_1 \lambda_{a_1} \lambda_{a_2} \dots \lambda_{a_k} \le \lambda_s \le c_2 \lambda_{a_1} \lambda_{a_2} \dots \lambda_{a_k}.$$
Suppose we want to count the total number of ways one can concatenate the string $s$ together with $m_d$ copies of the digit $d$. If counted with multiplicity, this will correctly count the total number of times $s$ occurs in strings that have $m_d+e_d$ copies of the digit $d$, where $e_d$ is the number of times $d$ occurs in $s$. There are precisely $$(1+m_1+m_2+\dots+m_D)\cdot\frac{(m_1+m_2+\dots+m_D)!}{m_1!m_2!\dots m_D!}$$ such strings (counted with multiplicity), each of which will have a cylinder set of measure in the interval $$\left[\frac{c_1}{c_2} \lambda_s \cdot \prod_{d\le D} \lambda_d^{m_d}, \frac{c_2}{c_1} \lambda_s \cdot \prod_{d\le D} \lambda_d^{m_d}\right]$$ Thus if we let $$\begin{aligned}
S(\epsilon;s)&=\sum_{\substack{m_1, m_2, \dots m_D\\ \lambda_1^{m_1}\lambda_2^{m_2}\dots \lambda_D^{m_D}\ge \epsilon/\lambda_s }} (1+m_1+m_2+\dots+m_D) \frac{(m_1+m_2+\dots+m_D)!}{m_1!m_2!\dots m_D!}\\
&= S(\epsilon/\lambda_s)+S^\#(\epsilon/\lambda_s),\end{aligned}$$ then we clearly have $$S\left( \frac{c_2}{c_1}\epsilon;s\right) \le A(\epsilon;s) \le S\left( \frac{c_1}{c_2}\epsilon;s\right).$$
By a similar argument we can show $$S\left( \frac{c_2}{c_1}\epsilon\right) \le A(\epsilon) \le S\left( \frac{c_1}{c_2}\epsilon\right) \qquad \text{and} \qquad S^\#\left( \frac{c_2}{c_1}\epsilon\right) \le A^\#(\epsilon) \le S^\#\left( \frac{c_1}{c_2}\epsilon\right)$$
Thus, $$\frac{\#\{ 0 \le n \le N-k\mid d_{n+i} = a_i, \quad 1 \le i \le k\}}{N} \le \frac{S\left(\frac{c_1}{c_2\lambda_s}\epsilon\right) + (k+1) S^\#\left(\frac{c_1}{c_2\lambda_s}\epsilon\right)}{S\left(2\frac{c_2}{c_1}\epsilon\right)}.$$ Now applying Theorem \[thm:sbound\] we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\#\{ 0 \le n \le N-k\mid d_{n+i} = a_i, \quad 1 \le i \le k\}}{N} & \ll \frac{\left(\frac{c_1}{c_2\lambda_s}\epsilon\right)^{-1} \left|\log\left(\frac{c_1}{c_2\lambda_s}\epsilon\right)\right| + (k+1)\left(\frac{c_1}{c_2\lambda_s}\epsilon\right)^{-1}}{\left(2\frac{c_2}{c_1}\epsilon\right)^{-1} \left|\log\left(2\frac{c_2}{c_1}\epsilon\right)\right| }\\
&\ll \lambda_s\end{aligned}$$ and these bounds are uniform in $s$, which completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]
Proof of Theorem \[thm:sbound\] {#sec:Hreduction}
===============================
We will consider two new functions $H(\epsilon)$ and $H^\#(\epsilon)$ given by the following.
Let $\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$ denote the hyperplane segment $$\mathcal{H}_\epsilon :=\left\{{\mathbf{x}}=(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_D) \middle| \sum_{i=1}^D x_i \log \lambda_i = \log \epsilon, \quad x_i\ge 0, \forall i\right\}.$$ Note that $$x_1 \log \lambda_1^{-1} + \dots + x_D \log \lambda_D^{-1} \le \log \epsilon^{-1}.$$ is equivalent $\lambda_1^{x_1}\dots \lambda_D^{x_D} \ge \epsilon$. We will consider “lattice” points ${\mathbf{m}}\in \mathcal{H}_\epsilon$ to be given by $(m_1,m_2,\dots, m_D)$ where $m_2, \dots, m_D\in \mathbb{Z}$, and $m_1=M$ is a real number determined by the other coordinates via the formula $$M= \frac{\log \left(\epsilon /\left( \lambda_2^{m_2}\lambda_3^{m_3}\dots\lambda_D^{m_D}\right) \right)}{\log \lambda_1}.$$ We then define $H(\epsilon)$ and $H^\#(\epsilon)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
H(\epsilon) &:=\sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in \mathcal{H}_\epsilon} (M+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D) \frac{(M+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D)!}{M!m_2!m_3!\dots m_D!}\\
H^\#(\epsilon) &:=\sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in \mathcal{H}_\epsilon} \frac{(M+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D)!}{M!m_2!m_3!\dots m_D!}\end{aligned}$$ We extend the factorial to real values in the natural way by $x! = \Gamma(x+1)$.
While the functions $S(\epsilon)$ and $S^\#(\epsilon)$ look at all values lying *above* the hyperplane $\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$, the functions $H(\epsilon)$ and $H^\#(\epsilon)$ instead look at values *on* the hyperplane $\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$.
Theorem \[thm:sbound\] (and therefore Theorem \[thm:main\]) will follow from the following two lemmas, which we prove in subsequent sections.
\[lem:htos\] We have $$H(\epsilon/\lambda_1) \ll S(\epsilon) \ll H(\epsilon\cdot \lambda_2) \qquad \text{ and } \qquad
H^\#(\epsilon/\lambda_1) \ll S^\#(\epsilon) \ll H^\#(\epsilon\cdot \lambda_2).$$
\[lem:hbound\] We have $$H(\epsilon) \asymp \frac{| \log \epsilon|}{\epsilon} \qquad H^\#(\epsilon) \asymp \frac{1}{\epsilon}$$ as $\epsilon$ tends to $0$.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:htos\] {#sec:htos}
===========================
We shall provide bounds for $S(\epsilon)$. The method for $S^\#(\epsilon)$ is similar.
First, we place a lower bound on $S(\epsilon)$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(\epsilon)&= \sum_{\substack{ m_2, \dots, m_D \\ \lambda_2^{m_2}\dots \lambda_D^{m_D}\ge \epsilon }}\left(\sum_{\substack{m_1\\ \lambda_1^{m_1}\lambda_2^{m_2}\dots \lambda_D^{m_D}\ge \epsilon }} (m_1+m_2+\dots+m_D) \frac{(m_1+m_2+\dots+m_D)!}{m_1!m_2!\dots m_D!}\right)\\
&\gg \sum_{\substack{ m_2, \dots, m_D \\ \lambda_2^{m_2}\dots \lambda_D^{m_D}\ge \epsilon}} (M'+m_2+\dots+m_D) \frac{(M'+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D)!}{M'!m_2!m_3!\dots m_D!},\end{aligned}$$ where in each summand $M'$ is the largest integer such that $$\label{eq:M'def}
\lambda_1^{M'} \lambda_2^{m_2}\lambda_2^{m_3} \dots \lambda_D^{m_D}\ge \epsilon.$$ Increasing the size of $\epsilon$ in the index of summation but not in the definition of $M'$ will only result in removing terms, therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
S(\epsilon)\gg \sum_{\substack{ m_2, \dots, m_D \\ \lambda_2^{m_2}\dots \lambda_D^{m_D}\ge \epsilon/\lambda_1}} (M'+m_2+\dots+m_D) \frac{(M'+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D)!}{M'!m_2!m_3!\dots m_D!}.\end{aligned}$$ Comparing this series term by term with $H(\epsilon/\lambda_1)$ and noting that $M'$ for this sum is greater than and within $1$ of the corresponding $M$ in the terms of $H(\epsilon/\lambda_1)$, we get that $S(\epsilon)\gg H(\epsilon/\lambda_1)$ by Lemma \[lem:gammagrowth\].
For the reverse inequality, we have, for fixed $m_2, m_3, \dots, m_D$ and with $M'$ defined as in , that $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{\substack{m_1 \\ \lambda_1^{m_1} \lambda_2^{m_2} \dots \lambda_D^{m_D} \ge \epsilon}} (m_1+m_2+\dots+m_D) \frac{(m_1+m_2+\dots+m_D)!}{m_1!m_2!\dots m_D! }\\
&\qquad \le (M'+m_2+m_3+\dots+ m_D) \cdot \sum_{\substack{m_1 \\ \lambda_1^{m_1} \lambda_2^{m_2} \dots \lambda_D^{m_D}\ge \epsilon}} \frac{(m_1+m_2+\dots+m_D)!}{m_1!m_2!\dots m_D!}\\
&\qquad = (M'+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D) \cdot \frac{(m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D)!}{m_2!m_3!\dots m_D!} \times\\
&\qquad\qquad \times \sum_{\substack{m_1 \\ \lambda_1^{m_1} \lambda_2^{m_2} \dots \lambda_D^{m_D} \ge \epsilon}} \binom{m_1+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D}{m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D}\\
&\qquad = (M'+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D) \cdot \frac{(m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D)!}{m_2!m_3!\dots m_D!} \times\\
&\qquad\qquad \times \binom{M'+1+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D}{1+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D}\\
&\qquad = \frac{m_2+1}{1+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D} (M'+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D)\times\\
&\qquad\qquad \times \binom{M'+(m_2+1)+m_3+m_4+\dots+m_D}{M, m_2+1,m_3,m_4,\dots,m_D}\\
&\qquad \ll (M'+(m_2+1)+m_3+\dots+m_D) \cdot \frac{(M'+(m_2+1)+m_3+m_4+\dots+m_D)!}{M! (m_2+1)!m_3!m_4!\dots m_D!}.\end{aligned}$$ By summing over all possible $m_2, m_3, \dots, m_D$ for which the sum is non-empty, we obtain most of the terms from $H(\epsilon\cdot \lambda_2)$, namely all the terms where $m_2 \ge 1$. So therefore we have $S(\epsilon)\ll H(\epsilon\cdot \lambda_2)$.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:hbound\] {#sec:Hbound}
=============================
We shall provide the proof for $H(\epsilon)$ as the proof for $H^\#(\epsilon)$ is similar.
We want to begin by examining the terms of $H(\epsilon)$, using Stirling’s formula. We will use a somewhat non-standard form as follows: $$\label{eq:stirling}
x! \asymp \sqrt{2\pi (x+1)} \left( \frac{x}{e}\right)^x.$$ This clearly follows from the usual Stirling’s formula for large $x$, since replacing $x$ by $x+1$ inside the square root introduces an error of at most $1+O(x^{-1})$; however this function has the added advantage of being true and uniform for all non-negative $x$, because the function on the right is bounded away from $0$.
Now consider a given term of $H(\epsilon)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:exampleterm}
(M+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D) \frac{(M+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D)!}{M!m_2!m_3!\dots m_D!},\end{aligned}$$ where, as before, $$M= \frac{\log \left(\epsilon /\left( \lambda_2^{m_2}\lambda_3^{m_3}\dots\lambda_D^{m_D}\right) \right)}{\log \lambda_1}.$$ Applying Stirling’s formula gives that is on the order of $ G({\mathbf{m}}) \cdot \exp\left( F({\mathbf{m}}) \right)$, where $$G({\mathbf{m}}) := \frac{(M+m_2+\dots+m_D+1)^{3/2}}{\sqrt{(M+1)(m_2+1)(m_3+1)\dots (m_D+1)}}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
F({\mathbf{m}}) &:= (M+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D) \log(M+m_2+m_3+\dots+m_D)\\
&\qquad - M\log M- \sum_{i=2}^D m_i \log m_i.\end{aligned}$$ The function $G$ is fairly smooth and, compared to the exponential of $F$, quite small. Therefore we shall focus our studies primarily on understanding the properties of $F$.
Understanding $F$
-----------------
In order to understand the properties of $F$ better, it is helpful to work with an auxiliary function. Let $$\tilde{F}({\mathbf{x}}):=(x_1+\dots+x_D)\log (x_1+\dots+x_D) -\sum_{i=1}^D x_i \log x_i$$ be a function on $\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$.
We think of $F$ as being a function of $D-1$ variables. (The value of $m_1=M$ is determined by the others.) However, we will think of $\tilde{F}$ as a function on $D$ free variables, and then restrict our attention to the $D-1$-dimensional hyperplane $\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$.
\[prop:F2nd\] Let $l=(a_1 t+b_1, a_2 t + b_2, \dots, a_D t + b_D)$ be a line parallel to and intersecting the hyperplane segment $\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$. Then the second directional derivative of $\tilde{F}$ along this line is negative.
Since $l$ is parallel to and intersecting $\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$, we have that $$\sum_{i=1}^D (a_i t + b_i) \log \lambda_i = \log \epsilon.$$ By isolating the coeffecient of $t$, we obtain $$\sum_{i=1}^D a_i \log \lambda_i = 0.$$ In particular, since all the $\log \lambda_i$ are negative, there must exist at least one positive and one negative $a_i$.
The second derivative of $F$ along this line is given by $$\frac{d^2}{dt^2} F(a_1 t+b_1, \dots, a_D t + b_D) = \frac{\left( \sum_{i=1}^D a_i \right)^2}{\sum_{i=1}^D \left( a_i t + b_i \right)} - \sum_{i=1}^D \frac{a_i^2}{a_i t + b_i}.$$ By Lemma \[lem:inequality\], this is never positive, and is zero if and only if $a_i/(a_i t + b_i)$ has the same value for all $i$; however, in order to be in the domain of $F$, all the $a_i t + b_i$ must be positive, and as we noted earlier, at least one $m_i$ must be positive and at least one $m_i$ must be negative, therefore the $a_i / (a_i t + b_i)$ cannot all have the same value. The second derivative is therefore strictly negative.
This proposition produces two immediate consequences. First, $\tilde{F}$ must have a unique local maximum on $\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$: it must have a maximum on $\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$ since it is a continuous function on a compact set, and there cannot be two local maximums since on the line between them $\tilde{F}$ would have strictly negative second derivative. Second, on any line passing through this maximum, the function $\tilde{F}$ is strictly decreasing away from the maximum.
\[lem:Fmax\] The function $\tilde{F}({\mathbf{x}})$ has its unique maximum on $\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$ at the point ${\mathbf{p}}=(\lambda_1 L, \lambda_2 L, \\ \lambda_3 L, \dots, \lambda_D L)$, where $$L=\frac{\log(\epsilon)}{\lambda_1 \log (\lambda_1) + \lambda_2 \log (\lambda_2) + \dots + \lambda_D \log (\lambda_D)}.$$ Moreover, $\tilde{F}({\mathbf{p}}) = - \log \epsilon$.
It is easy to see that ${\mathbf{p}}$ is on the hyperplane segment $\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$. Since all the directional second derivatives parallel to $\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$ are negative, it suffices to show that, at the point ${\mathbf{p}}$, all the directional first derivatives parallel to $\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$ are $0$.
As before, consider a line $l(t) = (a_1t + \lambda_1 L , \dots, a_n t + \lambda_D L)$ passing through the point ${\mathbf{p}}$. We again have $$\sum_{i=1}^D a_i \log \lambda_i = 0.$$
The directional derivative of $F$ at $p$ along this line (in the positive $t$ direction) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\left( \sum_{i=1}^D a_i \right) \log \left( \sum_{i=1}^D \lambda_i L \right) - \sum_{i=1}^D \left( a_i \log ( \lambda_i L) \right)\\
&\qquad =\left( \sum_{i=1}^D a_i \right) \log \left( \frac{\log(\epsilon) \sum_{i=1}^D \lambda_i}{\sum_{i=1}^D \lambda_i \log \lambda_i} \right) - \sum_{i=1}^D \left( a_i \log \left( \frac{\log(\epsilon) \lambda_i}{\sum_{j=1}^D \lambda_j \log \lambda_j} \right)\right)\\
&\qquad =\left( \sum_{i=1}^D a_i \right) \log \left( \frac{\log(\epsilon)}{\sum_{i=1}^D \lambda_i \log \lambda_i} \right) - \sum_{i=1}^D \left( a_i \log \left( \frac{\log(\epsilon)}{\sum_{j=1}^D \lambda_j \log \lambda_j} \right)\right)\\
&\qquad \qquad - \sum_{i=1}^D a_i \log \lambda_i\\
&\qquad = 0.\end{aligned}$$
This shows that ${\mathbf{p}}$ is the maximum. The value $\tilde{F}$ takes at this point is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\left( \sum_{i=1}^D \lambda_i L \right) \log \left( \sum_{i=1}^D \lambda_i L \right) - \sum_{i=1}^D \lambda_i L \log (\lambda_i L) \\
&\qquad = \frac{\log \epsilon}{\sum_{j=1}^D \lambda_j \log \lambda_j} \log\left(\frac{\log \epsilon}{\sum_{j=1}^D \lambda_j \log \lambda_j} \right)\\
&\qquad\qquad - \sum_{i=1}^D \frac{\lambda_i \log \epsilon}{\sum_{j=1}^D \lambda_j \log \lambda_j} \log \left( \frac{\lambda_i \log \epsilon}{\sum_{j=1}^D \lambda_j \log \lambda_j} \right)\\
&\qquad = -\sum_{i=1}^D \frac{\lambda_i \log \epsilon}{\sum_{j=1}^D \lambda_j \log \lambda_j } \log \lambda_i \\
&\qquad = - \log \epsilon\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
We will abuse notation and consider ${\mathbf{x}}\in \mathcal{H}_\epsilon$ as being both the vector $(x_1,x_2, \dots, x_D)$ and the vector $(x_2,\dots,x_D)$ with implied extra variable $$x_1 = \frac{1}{\log \lambda_1} \left( \log \epsilon - \sum_{i=2}^n x_i \log \lambda_i \right).$$ And likewise we will consider ${\mathbf{p}}\in\mathcal{H}_\epsilon$ as being both the vector $(\lambda_1 L, \lambda_2 L, \dots, \lambda_D L)$ and the vector $(\lambda_2 L, \lambda_3 L, \dots, \lambda_D L)$.
Therefore $F$ can be given by $$\begin{aligned}
F({\mathbf{x}})&= \left( \frac{\log \epsilon}{\log \lambda_1} +\sum_{i=2}^D x_i \left(1 - \frac{\log \lambda_i}{\log \lambda_1} \right) \right) \log \left( \frac{\log \epsilon}{\log \lambda_1} +\sum_{i=2}^D x_i \left(1 - \frac{\log \lambda_i}{\log \lambda_1}\right) \right) \\
&\qquad - \left( \frac{\log \epsilon}{\log \lambda_1} -\sum_{i=2}^D x_i\frac{\log \lambda_i}{\log \lambda_1}\right) \log \left( \frac{\log \epsilon}{\log \lambda_1} -\sum_{i=2}^D x_i \frac{\log \lambda_i}{\log \lambda_1}\right)\\
&\qquad - \sum_{i=2}^D x_i \log x_i.\end{aligned}$$
Given $2\le i,j\le D$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_i \partial x_j} F({\mathbf{x}}) &= \frac{\left(1- \frac{\log\lambda_i}{\log\lambda_1} \right) \left( 1- \frac{\log \lambda_j}{\log\lambda_1}\right)}{\frac{\log \epsilon}{\log \lambda_1} +\sum_{i=2}^D x_i \left(1 - \frac{\log \lambda_i}{\log \lambda_1}\right) }\\
&\qquad - \frac{\frac{\log \lambda_i \log \lambda_j}{(\log \lambda_1)^2}}{ \frac{\log \epsilon}{\log \lambda_1} -\sum_{i=2}^D x_i \frac{\log \lambda_i}{\log \lambda_1}} - \frac{\delta_{j,k}}{x_i }\end{aligned}$$ So, if we consider the second partial derivatives at $p$ arranged in a matrix, then we see that there exists a fixed real symmetric matrix $A$ (independent of $\epsilon$), such that $$\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_i \partial x_j} F({\mathbf{p}}) = \frac{1}{\log \epsilon} A_{i-1,j-1}.$$
Since $(\log \epsilon)^{-1} A$ is a real symmetric matrix, it can be diagonalized by orthogonal matrices. In particular, this implies that there exist unit vectors ${\mathbf{u}}_2, {\mathbf{u}}_3, \dots, {\mathbf{u}}_D\in \mathbb{R}^{D-1}$ and fixed eigenvalues $l_2, l_3, \dots, l_D$ (again not dependent on $\epsilon$) such that $$\frac{\partial^2}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}_j \partial {\mathbf{u}}_D} F({\mathbf{p}}) = \begin{cases}
\dfrac{l_j}{\log \epsilon} & \text{if }j=k\\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ By Proposition \[prop:F2nd\] the second directional derivatives must always be negative, so $l_j$ must be positive.
Consider a ball $\mathcal{B}_\epsilon$ around the point ${\mathbf{p}}$, given by $$\mathcal{B}_\epsilon = \left\{ {\mathbf{p}}+ t_2 {\mathbf{u}}_2 + \dots + t_D {\mathbf{u}}_D \middle| \sum_{i=2}^D t_i^2 \le |\log \epsilon|^{2/3} \right\}.$$ Note that for sufficiently small $\epsilon$, we have $\mathcal{B}_\epsilon \subset \mathcal{H}_\epsilon$. We also consider a box $B_\epsilon$ given by $$B_\epsilon = \left\{ {\mathbf{p}}+ t_2 \textbf{e}_2 + \dots + t_D \textbf{e}_D \middle| |t_i|\le \frac{1}{\sqrt{D-1}} |\log \epsilon|^{2/3} \right\},$$ where $\textbf{e}_i$ are the elementary basis vectors. We have that $B_\epsilon\subset \mathcal{B}_\epsilon$.
If ${\mathbf{x}}\in \mathcal{B}_\epsilon$, then each coordinate $x_i$ of ${\mathbf{x}}$ must be on the order of $|\log x|$. Therefore for all points ${\mathbf{x}}\in \mathcal{B}_\epsilon$, the third partial derivative of $\tilde{F}$ satisfies the following bound: $$\frac{\partial^3}{\partial {\mathbf{u}}_j \partial {\mathbf{u}}_D \partial {\mathbf{u}}_l} F({\mathbf{x}}) \ll |\log \epsilon|^{-2}.$$
By Taylor’s Theorem, for any point ${\mathbf{x}}= {\mathbf{p}}+t_2 {\mathbf{u}}_2 + \dots + t_D {\mathbf{u}}_D\in \mathcal{B}_\epsilon$, we have $$\label{eq:Ftaylor}
F({\mathbf{x}}) = -\log \epsilon + \sum_{i=2}^D \frac{l_i}{\log \epsilon} t_i^2 + O(1).$$ Let us let $F_+$ and $F_-$ be given by $$F_+({\mathbf{x}})= -\log \epsilon + \left( \max_{2\le i\le D}\frac{l_i}{\log \epsilon}\right) \sum_{i=2}^D t_i^2$$ and $$F_-({\mathbf{x}})= -\log \epsilon + \left( \min_{2\le i\le D}\frac{l_i}{\log \epsilon} \right) \sum_{i=2}^D t_i^2$$ so that $$F_-({\mathbf{x}}) \le \tilde{F}({\mathbf{x}}) + O(1) \le F_+({\mathbf{x}}) .$$ The advantage of these functions is that because $\sum_{j=2}^D t_j^2$ is invariant under rotating around ${\mathbf{p}}$. If ${\mathbf{x}}= {\mathbf{p}}+ y_2 \textbf{e}_2 + \dots + y_D \textbf{e}_D$ is in the box $B_\epsilon$, then $$F_+({\mathbf{x}})= -\log \epsilon + \left( \max_{2\le i\le n}\frac{l_i}{\log \epsilon}\right) \sum_{i=2}^n y_i^2$$ and likewise for $F_-$.
Moreover, for each point ${\mathbf{x}}$ outside of the *box* $B_\epsilon$, we can draw a line between ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{p}}$ and note that by Lemma \[lem:Fmax\], $F$ increases along the line as we move towards ${\mathbf{p}}$. Therefore, the value of $F$ at ${\mathbf{x}}\not\in B_\epsilon$ is at most the maximum of $F$ on the boundary of $B_\epsilon$, and by , this is at most $-\log \epsilon - C|\log \epsilon|^{1/3}$ for some fixed *positive* constant $C$.
Returning to the full sum
-------------------------
For points ${\mathbf{x}}\in B_\epsilon$, it is easy to see that $
G({\mathbf{x}})
$ is on the order of $|\log \epsilon|^{(3-D)/2}$ and for ${\mathbf{x}}\not\in B_\epsilon$, the value $G({\mathbf{x}})$ could be as large as $|\log \epsilon|$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in\mathcal{H}_\epsilon\setminus B_\epsilon} G({\mathbf{m}}) \exp(F({\mathbf{m}})) & \ll \sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in\mathcal{H}_\epsilon\setminus B_\epsilon} |\log \epsilon| \exp(-\log \epsilon - C|\log \epsilon|^{1/3})\\
&\ll |\log \epsilon|^{D} \exp(-\log \epsilon - C|\log \epsilon|^{1/3}) = o (\epsilon^{-1})\end{aligned}$$ Here we used the fact that $m_i \ll |\log \epsilon|$.
Therefore $$H(\epsilon) \asymp \sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in B_\epsilon} G({\mathbf{m}}) \exp(\tilde{F}({\mathbf{m}})) +o(\epsilon^{-1}).$$ Since, as noted above $
G({\mathbf{m}})
$ is on the order of $|\log \epsilon|^{(3-D)/2}$ for ${\mathbf{m}}\in B_\epsilon$, to complete the proof it suffices to prove that $$\sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in B_\epsilon} \exp(F({\mathbf{m}})) \asymp \frac{|\log \epsilon|^{D-1}}{\epsilon}$$
First we note that $$\sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in B_\epsilon} \exp(F_-({\mathbf{m}})) \ll \sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in B_\epsilon} \exp(F(\vec{m})) \ll \sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in B_\epsilon} \exp(F_+({\mathbf{m}})) .$$ There exists a point ${\mathbf{p}}'$ within distance $\sqrt{D-1}/2$ from ${\mathbf{p}}$, such that ${\mathbf{p}}'$ is an integer lattice point. For ${\mathbf{m}}\in B_\epsilon$, we have $F_\pm({\mathbf{m}}) + F_\pm({\mathbf{m}}')= O(|\log \epsilon|^{-1/3}) = O(1)$. Moreover, each vector ${\mathbf{m}}'={\mathbf{m}}+{\mathbf{p}}-{\mathbf{p}}'$ can be written as ${\mathbf{p}}+k_2 \mathbf{e}_2 + \dots + k_D \mathbf{e}_D\in B_\epsilon$ with each $k_i$ in the interval $I=[-c|\log \epsilon|^{2/3}-\sqrt{D-1}/2, c|\log \epsilon|^{2/3}+\sqrt{D-1}/2]$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in B_\epsilon} \exp(F_+({\mathbf{m}})) &\asymp \sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in B_\epsilon} \exp(F_+({\mathbf{m}}+{\mathbf{p}}-{\mathbf{p}}'))\\
&\le \frac{1}{\epsilon} \prod_{i=2}^D \left( \sum_{k_i \in I} \exp\left( \left( \max_{2\le i\le D}\frac{l_i}{\log \epsilon}\right) k_i^2\right) \right),\label{eq:fplus}\end{aligned}$$ and likewise $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fminus}
\sum_{{\mathbf{m}}\in B_\epsilon} \exp(F_-({\mathbf{m}})) \gg \frac{1}{\epsilon} \prod_{i=2}^D \left( \sum_{k_i \in J} \exp\left( \left( \max_{2\le i\le D}\frac{l_i}{\log \epsilon}\right) k_i^2\right) \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $J=[-c|\log \epsilon|^{2/3}+\sqrt{D-1}/2, c|\log \epsilon|^{2/3}-\sqrt{D-1}/2]$. Applying Lemma \[lem:sumtointegral\] to and completes the proof.
[10]{}
C. Altomare and B. Mance. Cantor series constructions contrasting two notions of normality. , 164(1):1–22, 2011.
David H. Bailey and Richard E. Crandall. On the random character of fundamental constant expansions. , 10(2):175–190, 2001.
David H. Bailey and Richard E. Crandall. Random generators and normal numbers. , 11(4):527–546 (2003), 2002.
David H. Bailey and Micha[ł]{} Misiurewicz. A strong hot spot theorem. , 134(9):2495–2501 (electronic), 2006.
D. G. Champernowne. The [C]{}onstruction of [D]{}ecimals [N]{}ormal in the [S]{}cale of [T]{}en. , S1-8(4):254.
Arthur H. Copeland and Paul Erd[ö]{}s. Note on normal numbers. , 52:857–860, 1946.
Karma Dajani and Cor Kraaikamp. , volume 29 of [*Carus Mathematical Monographs*]{}. Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 2002.
H. Davenport and P. Erd[ö]{}s. Note on normal decimals. , 4:58–63, 1952.
N. G. de Bruijn. . Dover Publications Inc., New York, third edition, 1981.
M. Madritsch and B. Mance. Construction of $\mu$-normal sequences. , 2012.
Bill Mance. Construction of normal numbers with respect to the [$Q$]{}-[C]{}antor series expansion for certain [$Q$]{}. , 148(2):135–152, 2011.
Bill Mance. Cantor series constructions of sets of normal numbers. , 156(3):223–245, 2012.
F. J. Martinelli. Construction of generalized normal numbers. , 76(1):117–122, 1978.
N. G. Moshchevitin and I. D. Shkredov. On the [P]{}yatetskiĭ-[S]{}hapiro criterion for normality. , 73(4):577–589, 2003.
Fritz Schweiger. . Oxford Science Publications. The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a local depth measure for data in a Banach space, based on the use of one-dimensional projections. Its theoretical properties are studied, as well as strong consistency results for it and also of the local depth regions. In addition, we propose a clustering procedure based on local depths. Applications of the clustering procedure are illustrated on some artificial and real data sets for multivariate, functional, and multifunctional data, obtaining very promising results.'
---
[**A Local Depth Measure for General Data.**]{}
[ Lucas Fernandez-Piana$^{\ast}$ and Marcela Svarc$^{\ast\ast}$[[^1]]{}]{}
*$^{\ast}$Instituto de Cálculo, FCEyN, Universidad de Buenos Aires and CONICET, Argentina.*\
*$^{\ast\ast}$Departamento de Matemática y Ciencias, Universidad de San Andrés and CONICET, Argentina*
[*Keywords:*]{} Data Depth, Cluster Analysis, Functional Data, Projection Procedures.
Introduction
============
Data depth measures play an important role when analyzing complex data sets, such as functional or high dimensional data. The main goal of depth measures is to provide a center-outer ordering of the data, generalizing the concept of median. Depth measures are also useful for describing different features of the underlying distribution of the data. Moreover, depth measures are powerful tools to deal with several inference problems such as, location and symmetry tests, classification, outlier detection, etc.
Nonetheless, since one of their major characteristics is that the depth values decrease along any half-line ray from the center, they are not suitable for capturing characteristics of the distribution when data is multimodal. Hence, over the last few years, there have been introduced several definitions of local depth, with the aim of revealing the local features of the underlying distribution. The basic idea is to restrict a global depth measure to a neighborhood of each point of the space. In this way, a local depth measure should behave as a global depth measure with respect to the neighborhoods of the different points. Agostinelli and Romanazzi (2011) gave the first definition of local depth for the case of multivariate data. They extended the concepts of simplicial and half-space depth so as to allow recording the local space geometry near a given point. For simplicial depth, they consider only random simplices with sizes no greater than a certain threshold, while for half-space depth, the half-spaces are replaced by infinite slabs with finite width. Both definitions strongly rely on a tuning parameter, which retains a constant size neighborhood of every point of the space, something which plays an analogous role to that of bandwidth in the problem of density estimation. Desirable statistical theoretical properties are attained for the case of univariate absolutely continuous distributions. Paindaveine and Van Bever (2013) introduce a general procedure for multivariate data that allows converting any global depth into a local depth. The main idea of their definition is to study local environments. This means regarding the local depth as a global depth restricted to some neighborhood of the point of interest. They obtain strong consistency results of the sample version with its population counterpart. All the proposals provide a continuum between definitions of local and global depth. More recently, for the case of functional data, Agostinelli (2016) gives a definition of local depth extending the ideas introduced by Lopez-Pintado and Romo (2011) of a half-region space. This definition is also suitable for finite large dimensional datasets. Asymptotic results are obtained.
Our goal is to give a general definition of local depth for random elements in a Banach space, extending the definition of global depth given by Cuevas and Fraiman (2009), where they introduce the Integrated Dual Depth (IDD). The main idea of IDD is based on combining one-dimensional projections and the notion of one-dimensional depth. Let $\Omega$ be a probability space and $\mathbb{E}$ a separable Banach space. Denote by $\mathbb{E}'$ the separable dual space. Let $X:\Omega\longrightarrow \mathbb{E}$ be a random element in $\mathbb{E}$ with distribution $P$ and $Q$ a probability measure in $\mathbb{E}'$ independient of $P.$ The IDD is defined as, $$\label{IDD}
IDD(x,P) = \int D(f(x),P_f) dQ(f),$$ where $D$ is an univariate depth (for instance, simplicial or Tukey depth), $f \in \mathbb{E}',$ $x \in \mathbb{E}$ and $P_f$ is the univariate distribution of $f(X).$
In the present paper we define the Integrated Dual Local Depth (IDLD). The main idea is to replace the global depth measure in Equation (\[IDD\]) by a local one dimensional depth measure following the definition given in (2013). We study how the classical properties, introduced by Zou and Serfling (2000), should be analyzed within the framework of local depth. We prove, under mild regularity conditions, that our proposal enjoys those properties. Moreover, uniform strong consistency results are exhibited for the definition of the empirical local depth of to the population counterpart, and also for the local depth regions. The main advantages of our proposals are its flexibility in dealing with general data and also its low computational cost, which enables it to work with high-dimensional data. As a natural application, we propose a clustering procedure based on local depths, and illustrate its performance with synthetic and real data, for different kind of data.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we define the integrated dual local depth, and study its basic properties. Section 3 is devoted to the asymptotic study of the proposed local depth measure. In Section 4 the local depth regions are defined and the consistency results are exhibited. A clustering procedure based on local depth regions is proposed in Section 5. Simulations and real data examples are given in Section 6. Some concluding remarks are given in Section 7. All the proofs appear in the Appendix.
General Framework and Definitions {#RandomLocal}
=================================
In this section, we first review the concept of local depth for the univariate case. Then we define the Integrated Dual Local Depth, and we finally show that, under mild regularity assumptions, our proposal has good theoretical properties that correspond to those established in Paindavaine and Van Bever (2013).
Let $P^{1}$ be a a probability measure on $\mathbb{R}$ and $x\in{\mathbb{R}}.$ Let $LD(x,P^{1})$ be the local depth measure of $x$ with respect to $P^{1}$, for example, the univariate simplicial depth, that is
$$LD_S^{\beta}(x,P^{1})=\frac{2}{\beta^2}\left(F^{1}(x+\lambda^{\beta}_x)-F^{1}(x) \right) \left(F^{1}(x)-F^{1}(x-\lambda^{\beta}_x)\right),
\label{profsimplocalunidim}$$
where $F^{1}$ is the cumulative distribution function of $P^{1}$ and $\lambda^{\beta}_x$ is the neighborhood width defined as follows.
\[localityparamdef\] Let $F$ be a univariate cumulative distribution function and $x \in \mathbb{R}.$ Then, for $\beta \in (0,1],$ we define the neighborhood width $\lambda^{\beta}_x$ by $$\lambda^{\beta}_x=\inf{ \left\{\lambda>0 : F(x+\lambda)-F(x-\lambda) \geq \beta \right\}},
\label{localityparam}$$ where $\beta$ is the locality level.
If $F$ is absolutely continuous, the infimum in Equation (\[localityparam\]) is attained and hence, $$\lambda^{\beta}_x=\min{ \left\{ \lambda>0 : F(x+\lambda)-F(x-\lambda) \geq \beta\right\} }.$$ Even more, it is clear that if $\beta_1 < \beta_2,$ then $\lambda^{\beta_1}_x < \lambda^{\beta_2}_x.$
The locality level $\beta$ is a tuning parameter that determines the centralness of the point $x$ of the space conditional to a given window around $x.$ If the value is high it approaches the regular value of the point depth whereas if it is low it will only describe the centralness in a small neighborhood of $x$. As $\beta$ tends to one, the local depth measure tends to the depth measure.
We can also define, in an analogous way, the Tukey univariate local depth, $$LD_H^{\beta}(x,P^{1})=\frac{1}{\beta}min{ \left\{F^{1}(x+\lambda^{\beta}_x)-F^{1}(x),F^{1}(x)-F^{1}(x-\lambda^{\beta}_x)\right\} }.$$
In what follows, without loss of generality, we restrict our attention to the case of simplicial local depth, $LD_S^{\beta}$.
Integrated Dual Local Depth {#IDLD}
---------------------------
Our aim in this section is to extend the IDD introduced by Cuevas and Fraiman (2009), to the local setting. The IDD is a depth measure defined for random elements in a general Banach space. The idea is to project the data according to random directions and compute the univariate depth measure of the projected unidimensional data. To obtain a global depth measure, these univariate depths measures are integrated. Under mild regularity conditions, the IDD satisfies the basic properties of depth measures described by Zou and Serfling (2000), and it is strongly consistent. In addition, it is important to remark that its computational cost is low, even in high dimensions, since it is based on the repeated computation of one dimensional projections.
Let $\Omega$ be a probability space and $\mathbb{E}$ a separable Banach space, with $\mathbb{E}'$ its separable dual space. Let $X:\Omega\longrightarrow \mathbb{E}$ be a random element in $\mathbb{E}$ with distribution $P,$ $Q$ a probability measure in $\mathbb{E}'$ independent of $P$, $\beta \in (0,1],$ and $x \in \mathbb{E}$. We define the Integrated Dual Local Depth (IDLD), $$\label{IDLD}
IDLD^{\beta}(x,P) = \int LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_f) dQ(f),$$ where $LD_{S}^{\beta}$ is the univariate local depth given in Equation (\[profsimplocalunidim\]), $f \in \mathbb{E}',$ $x \in \mathbb{E}$ and $P_f$ is the univariate distribution of $f(X).$ As suggested by Cuevas and Fraiman, in the infinite dimensional setting $Q$ may be chosen to be a non-degenerate Gaussian measure and in the multivariate setting as a uniform distribution in the unitary sphere. With a slight abuse of notation, we write $F_f = F_{f(X)}$ for the cumulative distribution function of $f(X).$ Specifically, it reduces to $$F_{f(X)}(t) = P_{f(X)} \left( (- \infty,t] \right) = P(f(X) \leq t).$$ It is clear that the IDLD is well-defined, since it is bounded by $\frac{1}{2}$ and non-negative.
Zou and Serfling (2000) established the general properties that depth measures should satisfy (**P. 1** - **P. 6**). Paindavaine and Van Bever (2013) extend those properties to the local depth framework. We describe the properties satisfied by IDLD.
The first property deals with the invariance of the local depths. For the finite dimensional case, IDLD is independent of the coordinate system. This property is inherited from the IDD. Since IDLD is a generalization of IDD, which is not in general affine invariant (i.e., let $A$ be a non-singular linear transformation in $\mathbb{R}^p$ and $P_{AX}$ denote the distribution of $AX;$ then $D(Ax,P_{AX})$ is not equal to $D(x,P_{X})$), neither is IDLD. It is clear that IDLD is also invariant under translations and changes of scale.
Let $\mathbb{E}$ by a finite dimensional Banach space, $X \in \mathbb{E}$ a random vector, $Q$ the Haar measure on the unit sphere of $\mathbb{E}'$ independent of $P_X.$ Let $A : E \rightarrow E$ be a linear transformation such that $|det(A)|=1$, $b \in \mathbb{E}$ and $\beta \in (0,1].$ Then $IDLD^{\beta}(Ax,P_{AX}) = IDLD^{\beta}(x,P_X).$ \[InvarianzaAfin\]
The proof appears in the Appendix A.
It is well known that the spatial median is not affine invariant, hence, transformation and retransformation methods have been designed to construct affine equivariant multivariate medians (Chakraborty, B. and Chaudhuri 1996, 1998)). IDLD can be modified following the ideas of Kotík and Hlubinka (2017) to attain this property.
Depth measures are powerful analytical tools, especially in cases where the random element enjoy symmetry properties. Local depths should locally (restricted to certain neighborhoods) inherit these properties. Hence we give an appropriate definition of local symmetry.
\[bsimetrica\]
Let $X$ be a real random variable and $\beta \in (0,1].$ Then $X$ is said to be $\beta$-symmetric about $\theta$ if the cumulative function distribution $F$ satisfies $$F \left( \theta + \lambda_{\theta}^{\beta'} \right) - F( \theta ) = \frac{\beta'}{2}, \mbox{ for every } 0<\beta' \leq \beta.
\label{bsymm}$$
A random element $X$ in a Banach space $\mathbb{E}$ is $\beta$-symmetric about $\theta$ if for every $f \in \mathbb{E}',$ $f(X)$ is $\beta$-symmetric.
The notion of $\beta$-symmetry aims to locally capture the behavior of a unimodal random variable on a neighborhood of probability $\beta,$ about $\theta,$ the locally deepest point. Figure \[betaSimLindo\](a) and (b) exhibit a bimodal distribution, with modes at $\theta=1$ and $\theta=4.$ On the former, both modes are local symmetry points for $\beta=0.25$, while on the latter $\theta=4$ is a local symmetry point for $\beta=0.4$ but $\theta=1$ is not a local symmetry point for $\beta=0.4,$ the shaded area around $\theta=1$ is non-symmetrical.
An important property of depth measures is maximality at the center, meaning that if $P$ is symmetric about $\theta,$ then $D(x,P)$ attains its maximum value at that point. This property should be inherited by local depths if the distribution of $P$ is unimodal and convex. Local depths are relevant for detecting local features, for instance local centers, hence our aim is to extend the property of maximality at the center to each point $\theta,$ that is $\beta$-symmetry.
Let $X \in \mathbb{E}$ be a random continuous element $\beta$-symmetric about $\theta.$ For $\beta \in (0,1]$ we have that $$IDLD^{\beta'}(\theta,P_{X}) = \displaystyle \max_{x \in \mathbb{E}} IDLD^{\beta'}(x,P_X), \mbox{ for every } 0<\beta' \leq \beta.$$ \[bmaximality\]
The proof appears in the Appendix A.
Proposition \[bcsymmetry\] bridges the definition of $\beta$-symmetry with the usual definition of $C$-symmetry (see Zhou and Serfling 2000).
Let $X \in \mathbb{E}$ be a random continuous element $C$-symmetric about $\theta.$ Then $X$ is $\beta$-symmetric about $\theta$ for each $\beta \in (0,1].$ \[bcsymmetry\]
The proof appears in the Appendix A.
Proposition \[x0betasim\] describes the $\beta$-symmetry points of $X.$
\[x0betasim\] Let $X$ be a $\beta$-symmetric random element in $\mathbb{E}$ and $x_0 \in \mathbb{E}$ such that $LD(x_0,P) = \frac{1}{2}$ for every $0< \beta' \leq \beta.$ Then $x_0$ is a $\beta$-symmetry point.
The proof appears in the Appendix A.
**P. 3** establishes that the local simplicial depth is monotone relative to the deepest point. Several auxiliary results that appear in the Appendix A must be stated before proving this property.
\[propP3\] Let $\mathbb{E}$ be a separable Banach space and $\mathbb{E}'$ the corresponding dual separable space. Let $X$ be a random $C$-symmetric element about $\theta$ with probability measure $P.$ Let $Q$ be a probability measure in $\mathbb{E}'$ independent of $P$ and assume that for every $f \in \mathbb{E}',$ $f(X)$ has unimodal density function about $f(\theta)$ and fulfills $$\label{desigualdadLema3Propiedad3}
f_X(t) \geq 2 \frac{f_X(t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta})f_X(t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta})}{f_X(t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta})+f_X(t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta})} \ \forall t \in \mathbb{R}, \mbox{ } Q-a.s.$$
Then, for every $x\in \mathbb{E}$ and $\beta \in (0,1],$ $$IDLD^{\beta}(x,P) \leq IDLD^{\beta}((1-t)\theta + xt,P) \ \ \ \mbox{ for every } t \in [0,1].$$
The proof appears in the Appendix A.
It is easy to see that Inequality (\[desigualdadLema3Propiedad3\]) holds for the standard normal distribution. Hence, the projections of a Gaussian process fulfill **P. 3.**
In what follows, we show that IDLD vanishes at infinity, under mild regularity conditions.
\[vanishinf\]
Assume that $$\sup_{\|u\|=1} \left\{ f: f(u) \leq \epsilon \right\}=O(\epsilon),$$ where $O(\epsilon)$ is a function such that $\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0}O(\epsilon)=0$ $$\displaystyle \lim_{||x|| \to + \infty} IDLD^{\beta}(x,P) = 0.$$
The proof appears in the Appendix A.
Proposition **P. 5** shows that $IDLD^{\beta}(x,P)$ is continuous as a function of $x.$
\[P5\] Let $X \in \mathbb{E}$ be a random continuous element and $\beta \in (0,1].$ Then $IDLD^{\beta}(\cdot,P): \mathbb{E} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is continuous.
The proof appears in the Appendix A. Finally, we prove that $IDLD^{\beta}(x,P)$ is continuous as a functional of $P.$
For every $\beta \in (0,1],$ $IDLD^{\beta}(x,\dot): \mathbb{E} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is continuous as a functional of $P.$
The proof appears in the Appendix A.
Empirical Version and Asymptotic Results
========================================
In this section we introduce the empirical counterpart of the IDLD and give the main asymptotic results.
First of all, recall the definition of Paindavaine and Van Bever (2013) of the empirical local unidimensional simplicial depth Let $ELD_{S}^{\beta(k)} (\cdot,F_n) : \mathbb{R} \longrightarrow \left[ 0,1/2 \right].$ Then $$ELD_{S}^{\beta(k)} (z,F_n) = \frac{2}{\beta(k)^2} \left[F_n(z + \lambda_{z,n}^{\beta(k)} ) - F_n(z) \right] \left[F_n(z) - F_n(z-\lambda_{z,n}^{\beta(k)} )\right],$$ where $$\lambda_{z,n}^{\beta(k)} = \inf_{\lambda>0} \{ F_n(z + \lambda_{z,n}^{\beta(k)} ) - F_n(z - \lambda_{z,n}^{ \beta(k)} ) = \beta(k) \}.$$ Remark \[propiedades chiquitas\] entails the well-definedness of the empirical neighborhood width, $\lambda_{z,n}^{\beta(k)}.$
\[propiedades chiquitas\] Let $\beta \in (0,1]$ and $X_1, \dots, X_n$ be a random sample of iid variables with distribution $F.$ Given $z \in \mathbb{R},$ put, for each $1 \leq j \leq n,$ $d_j(z) = |X_j - z|$ and let $d^{j}(z)$ denote the $j$th order statistics of $d_1(z), \dots, d_n(z).$ Let $k = [n \beta],$ where $[\cdot]$ is the integer part function. It is clear that $ \# \{ X_j \ : \ [z-d^{k}(z), z+d^{k}(z)] \} = k.$ Hence, $F_n(z+d^{k}(z)) - F_n(z-d^{k}(z)) = \frac{[n \beta]}{n} = \beta(k),$ and son the empirical neighborhood width is $\lambda_{z,n}^{\beta} = d^{k}(z).$
Then the empirical counterpart of IDLD is given as follows.
Let $\beta \in (0,1],$ $X: \Omega \to \mathbb{E}$ be a continuous random element and $X_{1}, \dots, X_{n}$ a random sample with the same distribution as $X.$ Let $k=[n \beta].$ For each $x \in \mathbb{E}$ and $f \in \mathbb{E}',$ define
$$\label{lambdaempirico}
\lambda_{f(x),n}^{\beta(k)} = inf \left\{ \lambda > 0 : F_{f,n}(f(x) + \lambda) - F_{f,n}(f(x) - \lambda) = \frac{k}{n} \right\}.$$
Let $\beta(k) = \frac{k}{n}.$ The empirical version of IDLD of locality level $\beta(k)$ is
$$\label{ELIDD}
EIDLD^{\beta(k)}(x,P) = IDLD^{\beta(k)}(x,P_n).$$
In order to establish the uniform strong convergence of the one dimensional simplicial local depth, the following lemmas must be proved in advance.
Let $X$ be an absolutely continuous random variable with distribution $F.$ Suppose given $X_1, \dots, X_n$ iid random variables, also with distribution $F$. Let $x_p = F^{-1}(p)$ be the quantile $p \in (0,1)$ from $F$ and $Q_{p,n}$ the quantile $p$ from $F_n, $ which is the empirical cumulative distribution function of $X_1, \dots, X_n.$ Then,
- $Q_{p,n} = X_{ \left([np] +1 \right) }.$
- $| F_n(Q_{p,n}) - F(x_p) | \leq \frac{1}{n} \ \forall \ p \in (0,1). $
- $ | F(Q_{p,n}) - F(x_p) | \leq ||F_n - F ||_{\infty} + \frac{1}{n}.$
\[desigualdadLDS\] Let $X_1, \dots, X_n$ be a real random sample with cumulative distribution function $F.$ Let $\beta \in (0,1]$ and $z \in \mathbb{R}.$ Then, $$\left| ELD_{S}^{\beta(k)}(z,F_n) - LD_{S}^{\beta}(z,F) \right| \leq \frac{1}{2} \left( 1 - \left( \frac{\beta(k)}{\beta} \right)^2 \right) + \frac{2}{\beta^2} \left(\frac{8}{n} + 4 ||F_n - F||_{\infty} \right)
\label{desguniv}$$
The proof appears in the Appendix B.
The theorems below establish the uniform strong convergence of the empirical counterpart of the univariate simplicial local depth to the population counterpart.
Let $\mathbb{E}$ be a separable Banach space with a dual separable space $\mathbb{E}'.$ Suppose given $X_1, \dots, X_n$ a random sample of elements on $\mathbb{E}$ with probability measure $P$ and $\beta \in (0,1].$ Then, we have
(a) $$E \left( \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| ELD_S^{\beta(k)}(f(x),P_{n,f}) - LD_S^{\beta}(f(x),P_f) \Big| \right) \xrightarrow[n \to + \infty]{} 0 \ \mbox{ for every } \ f\in \mathbb{E}'.$$
(b) $$E \left( \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| EIDLD^{\beta(k)}(x,P_n) - IDLD^{\beta}(x,P) \Big| \right) \xrightarrow[n \to + \infty]{} 0.$$
The proof appears in the Appendix B.
\[consistenciactp\] Let $X$ be a random element on $\mathbb{E}$ a separable Banach space with associated probability measure $P$ such that $E(f(X)^2) < +\infty \ \mbox{ for every } \ f \in \mathbb{E}'.$ Let $X_1, \dots, X_n$ be a random sample following the same distribution as $X$ and $\beta \in (0,1].$ Then, $$P \left( \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| EIDLD^{\beta(k)}(x,P_n) - IDLD^{\beta}(x,P) \Big| \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{} 0 \right) = 1.$$
The proof appears in the Appendix B.
Local Depth Regions
===================
In this section we define the *$\alpha$ local depth inner region at locality level $\beta,$* which will be instrumental in making applications of local depth functions. Ideally, these central regions will be invariant of the coordinate system and nested. We also study, under mild regularity conditions, the asymptotic behavior.
Denote by $LD^{\beta}$ a local depth measure and $ELD^{\beta}$ its empirical counterpart. In particular, one can consider the integrated dual local depth defined in Section \[IDLD\].
Let $\mathbb{E}$ be a separable Banach space, let $X: \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{E}$ a random element with associated probability measure $P.$ Fix $\beta \in (0,1],$ a locality level, and $\alpha \in [0,\frac{1}{2}].$ The *local inner region at locality level* $\beta$ *of level* $\alpha$ is defined to be $$\label{ldregion}
R_{\beta}^{\alpha} = \left \{ x \in \mathbb{E}: \ LD^{\beta}(x,P) \leq \alpha \right \}.$$
Let $X_1, \dots, X_n$ be a random sample of elements on $\mathbb{E}.$ Then the empirical counterpart of $R_{\beta}^{\alpha}$ is
$$R_{n}^{\alpha} = R_{n,\beta}^{\alpha} = \left \{ x \in \mathbb{E}: \ ELD^{\beta}(x,P_n) \leq \alpha \right \}.$$
Throughout this section the locality level $\beta$ will remain fixed, hence we write $R^{\alpha}$ (respectively, $R_n^{\alpha}$) for $ R_{\beta}^{\alpha}$ (respectively. $R_{n,\beta}^{\alpha}$) when no ambiguity is possible.
\[PropiedadesRegionProfundidad1\] If $\mathbb{E}$ is a finite dimensional space, then $R^{\alpha}$ is invariant under orthogonal transformations.
\[PropiedadesRegionProfundidad2\] If $\alpha_1 \leq \alpha_2,$ then $R_{\beta}^{\alpha_2} \subset R_{\beta}^{\alpha_1}.$
Theorem \[consistRalfa\] shows that the empirical $\alpha$ local depth inner region at locality level $\beta$ is strongly consistent with its corresponding population counterpart, under mild regularity conditions.
\[consistRalfa\] Let $\mathbb{E}$ be a separable Banach space and let $X: \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{E}$ be a random element with associated probability measure $P.$ Assume that
a) $ \displaystyle LD^{\beta}(x,P) \xrightarrow[ \| x \| \to +\infty]{} 0.$
b) $ \displaystyle \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \left| ELD^{\beta}(x,P) - LD^{\beta}(x,P) \right| \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{} 0$ a.s.
Then, for every $\epsilon > 0,$ $0 < \delta < \epsilon,$ $0 < \alpha$ and sequence $\alpha_n \rightarrow \alpha$:
(I) There exists an $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $R^{\alpha + \epsilon} \subset R_{n}^{\alpha_n + \delta} \subset R_{n}^{\alpha_n} \subset R_{n}^{\alpha_{n} - \delta}
\subset R^{\alpha - \epsilon}.$
(II) If $P \left( x \in \mathbb{E}: \ LD_{\beta}(x) = \alpha \right) = 0,$ then $R_{n}^{\alpha_n} \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{}
R^{\alpha}$ a.s.
The proof appears in the Appendix C.
A Local-Depth Based Clustering Procedure {#LDC}
========================================
In this section we introduce a centroid-based clustering procedure based on local depths (LDC). We propose the two-stage partition method described below. The R routines needed to compute the IDLD appear in Appendix D.
Let $X$ be a random element in a separable Banach space $\mathbb{E},$ with distribution $P.$
- Core clustering region.
- Consider the $\alpha$ local depth inner region at locality level $\beta,$ $R_{\beta}^{\alpha},$ defined in Equation (\[ldregion\]).
- Consider a partition of $R_{\beta}^{\alpha}$ into $k$ clusters, $\tilde{C}_1^{\alpha}, \dots,\tilde{C}_k^{\alpha}, $ such that $R_{\beta}^{\alpha}= \bigcup_{i=1}^k \tilde{C}_i^{\alpha},$ and $P(\tilde{C}_i^{\alpha} \cap \tilde{C}_j^{\alpha})=0,$ for $i \neq j.$
- Final clustering allocation.
Based on the initial clustering configuration for the points in $R_{\beta}^{\alpha},$ proceed to the final clustering allocation following a minimum distance rule, i.e. $$C_i^{\alpha}=\{ x \in \mathbb{E}: d(x, \tilde{C}_i^{\alpha}) \leq d(x, \tilde{C}_j^{\alpha}) \mbox{ for every, } j \neq i \},$$ where $d(x, \tilde{C}_j^{\alpha})=\inf_{y \in \tilde{C}_j^{\alpha}} d(x,y).$
The main idea of the proposal is to determine the center of the cluster as a region of the space rather than a single point, even though, it is well known that there is no a “one size fits all” clustering procedure, and that the election of the clustering procedure relies heavily on the underlying distribution. Our main idea is to have centers with a flexible shape allowing a better capturing of the cluster distribution. Typically, center-based clustering proposals have very good performance under spherical distributions. More flexibility in the shape of the central region should be reflected in a better performance at detecting the true clustering structure under a wide range of distributions, including elliptical distributions. In addition, since depth measures have a close relation with robustness, the core clustering regions are expected to be resistant to the presence of outliers.
In **Step 1** part b), any clustering procedure can be considered; for the sake of simplicity in what follows, we use the classical $k$-means algorithm. If the number of clusters, $k,$ is not given beforehand, it can be estimated using any procedure existing in the literature.
The empirical counterpart of the proposal is given in a straightforward way, employing a classical plug-in procedure.
Let $X_1,\dots,X_n$ be iid observations in $\mathbb{E},$ a separable Banach space, with a $k$ cluster structure. Denote by $R_n^{\alpha}$ the $\alpha$ empirical local depth inner region at locality level $\beta,$ and let $ \tilde{C}_{n,1}^{\alpha}, \dots,\tilde{C}_{n,k}^{\alpha}, $ denote the initial partition obtained in **Step 1** part b). The final allocation is given by, $$C_{n,i}^{\alpha}=\{x \in \mathbb{E} : d(x, \tilde{C}_{n,i}^{\alpha}) \leq d(x, \tilde{C}_{n,j}^{\alpha}) \mbox{ for every, } j \neq i \},$$ where $d(x, \tilde{C}_{n,j}^{\alpha})=min_{y \in \tilde{C}_{n,j}^{\alpha}} d(x,y).$
The core observations of the clustering procedure can be selected considering any local depth, as long as the procedure is consistent.
Simulations and Real Data Examples {#simul}
==================================
In this section we numerically analyze the performance of the clustering procedure introduced in Section \[LDC\]. Simulations have been done both in the finite and infinite dimensional settings. In addition, real data examples are analyzed. The LDC procedure is implemented using not only the IDLD but also any other proposal available in the literature.
Simulations: Multivariate data
------------------------------
The main aim of this section is to evaluate the performance of our clustering proposal under a wide range of clustering configurations. Specifically, we will analyze the case where the data presents sparseness, outliers or the sizes of the groups is not balanced. For this end, we will work under fourteen different scenarios. The original variable distribution has been proposed by Witten and Tibshirani (2010) and extended by Kondo et al. (2016). Our proposal will be challenged by several well known clustering procedures, which are briefly described.
In all the cases the data has a three group structure, each group has 300 observations. The data is generated as follows.
Model 1: The data are spherically generated, following $N(\mu_i, \Sigma),$ for $i=1,2,3,$ with centers $(-3,-3,0),(0,0,0),(3,3,0), $ and the covariance matrix is the identity matrix.
Model 2: The data are ellipsoidally generated, following $N(\mu_i, \Sigma),$ for $i=1,2,3,$ with centers $(-3,-3,0),(0,0,0),(3,3,0), $ and the covariance matrix $\Sigma=diag(3,0.25,1)$.
In these two models, the first two variables are informative while the last one is noise.
Model 3, (respectively, Model 4) are five dimensional datasets. The first three variables have the same distribution as Model 1 (respectively, Model 2), the remaining variables are two independent noisy variables, with distribution $N(0,1).$
We then consider two different contamination settings. In each of them we add five outliers, we only replace one coordinate by a variable generated with uniform distribution in the interval $[25,25.01]$. In the first setting, for Models 5-8, the contamination is done by replacing the first coordinate (which is an informative variable) of the first five observations of the first cluster, while the rest of the distribution remains as in Models 1-4. In Models 9-12, the contamination has the same distribution but is situated in the last coordinate, which is a non-informative variable. The two remaining models, 13 and 14, have clusters with unbalanced sizes, the same distributions are followed as in Models 1 and 2, but instead of having $100$ observations each cluster, the first cluster has $60\%$ of the observations, while the two remaining clusters have $20\%$ each.
The benchmark clustering procedures are:
- The $k$-means algorithm, we consider ten random initializations.
- The sparse $k$-means clustering procedure (SKM), introduce by Witten and Tibshirani (2010). The tuning parameter, $L_1,$ bound is chosen, as suggested in the literature ($s=3, 7$), and five random initializations are considered.
- The robust and sparse $k$-means clustering procedure (RSKM), proposed by Kondo et al. (2016). Two tuning parameters must be set. Both of them have been set as suggested in [@KSZ16]: the parameter that corresponds to the $L_1$ norm is $L_1=4$ and the trimming proportion is $0.1.$
- The model-based clustering procedure (MCLUST) proposed by Fraley and Raftery (2002,2009), designed to cluster mixtures of $G$ normals distributions.
SKM is designed to cluster observations in a high dimensional setting, with a low proportion of clustering informative variables. RSKM is a robust extension of SKM.
The LDC introduced in Section \[LDC\] has been implemented using three definitions of local depth, every case the parameters where chosen following Hennig [@H07], and the results were very stable.
- The simplicial local depth procedure (LDCS) introduced by Agostinelli and Romanazzi (2011). We used the R package *localdepth,* the threshold value for the evaluation of the local depth, $\tau,$ was calculated with the *quantile.localdepth* function, as suggested in the same R package, and the quantile order of the statistic was set to $probs=0.1.$
- Local version of depth at locality level $\beta$ (LDCPV) according to proposals of Paindaveine and Van Bever (2013), using the R package *DepthProc*. We set $\beta=0.2.$
- Integrated dual local depth at locality level $\beta$ (LDCI) introduced in Section \[IDLD\]. As with the LDCPV we set $\beta=0.2$ and set the number of random projections $N=50,$ with standard normal distribution. Routines are available in the Appendix E of the Supplementary Material.
The parameter $\alpha$ represents the proportion of data which will contain the core regions of the clusters, if this value is very small the procedure will have a very similar behavior to $k$-means, not being able to capture the shape of the clusters. If it takes high values, the core regions will have observations with moderate local depth, that can lead to errors in the assignments. For these reasons we suggest taking values between $0.15$ and $0.45$. To set this parameter we perform an analysis of the sensitivity, following the resampling ideas proposed by Hennig [@H07], from them we could see that in all cases the method is stable, as in most cases $\alpha = 0.4$ showed slightly better performance we settled this value throughout the study. We performed $M = 500$ replicates for each model.
There is no commonly accepted criterion for evaluating the performance of a clustering procedure. Nonetheless, since we are dealing with synthetic datasets, we know the real label of each observation, hence in these cases we may use the Correct Classification Rate (CCR). We denote the original clusters by $k = 1, \dots , K$. Let $y_1, \dots, y_n$ be the group label of each observation, and $\widehat{y}_1, \dots, \widehat{y}_n$ the class label assigned by the clustering algorithm. Let $\widetilde{\Sigma}$ be the set of permutations over ${1,\dots , K}$. Then the CCR is given by:
$$\label{CCR}
CCR= \min_{\sigma \in \widetilde{\Sigma}} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \mathcal{I}_{\{y_i \neq \sigma(\widehat{y}_i)\}}.$$
The results of the simulation are exhibited in Table \[simulTS\]. As expected, all the clustering procedures have an exceptional performance for Models 1 and 3, where all the clusters are spherical without outliers. For Models 2 and 4, where the clusters have an elliptical distribution, MCLUST has an outstanding performance and it is clear that LDC (with any local depth measure) performs better than the other three alternatives. In Models 5 to 12, since $k$-means, SKM and MCLUST are nonrobust procedures, they fail in the classification of the observation, typically the five outliers make up one group and the cluster with mean $(0,\dots,0)$ is usually split into two clusters. LDC and RSKM are based on more robust clustering criteria, hence both methods have a good performance; RSKM seems to perform better under spherical distributions while LDC performs better under elliptical distribution. It is clear, that LDC has a good performance for Models 1 to 12, and that the choice of the local depth is not crucial. Nonetheless, when cluster sizes are unbalanced the only criteria able to correctly detect the cluster structure are MCLUST and LDC considering the integrated dual local depth. It is clear that LDC combined with the other two proposals of local depths is not able to detect the center of the clusters. The remainder of the clustering procedures had a good performance on the spherical case but failed on the elliptical case. In summary, LDCI is the only clustering procedure versatile enough to detect clusters under adverse situations (sparse data, outliers and unbalanced cluster size).
**Model** **$k$-means** **SKM** **RSKM** **MCLUST** **LDCS** **LDCPV** **LDCI**
----------- --------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ---------- ----------- ---------- --
**1** $0.98$ $0.98$ $0.98$ $0.98$ $0.96$ $0.95$ $0.97$
**2** $0.87$ $0.80$ $0.86$ $0.99$ $0.91$ $0.87$ $0.91$
**3** $0.98$ $0.98$ $0.98$ $0.98$ $0.96$ $0.96$ $0.97$
**4** $0.87$ $0.80$ $0.85$ $0.99$ $0.89$ $0.90$ $0.90$
**5** $0.66$ $0.70$ $0.96$ $0.65$ $0.95$ $0.92$ $0.95$
**6** $0.65$ $0.62$ $0.84$ $0.66$ $0.90$ $0.85$ $0.87$
**7** $0.67$ $0.70$ $0.96$ $0.65$ $0.94$ $0.94$ $0.95$
**8** $0.65$ $0.62$ $0.84$ $0.66$ $0.88$ $0.89$ $0.87$
**9** $0.65$ $0.68$ $0.98$ $0.65$ $0.95$ $0.94$ $0.95$
**10** $0.65$ $0.65$ $0.86$ $0.66$ $0.91$ $0.84$ $0.89$
**11** $0.65$ $0.67$ $0.98$ $0.65$ $0.95$ $0.86$ $0.96$
**12** $0.65$ $0.66$ $0.85$ $0.66$ $0.88$ $0.95$ $0.90$
**13** $0.97$ $0.98$ $0.98$ $0.97$ $0.54$ $0.46$ $0.96$
**14** $0.74$ $0.70$ $0.69$ $0.98$ $0.52$ $0.43$ $0.82$
: Mean CCR for each clustering criterion and distribution configuration[]{data-label="simulTS"}
In what follows we compare the computational times for the three local depths measures. The simulation were based on data generated according to Model 3, but instead of having three noise variables, we added $p-2,$ ($p=5,35,65$) normal independent noise variables centered at the origin with unit standard deviation. Also we considered different sample sizes, $n=300, 2100, 3900$ and $5700.$ For ILDL $50,$ random directions were generated. Since the computational time increases exponentially as the dimension increases, we only performed $M=50$ replicates under each scenario.
----------- ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- -----------
****p**** **n**
$300$ $2100$ $3900$ $5700$
**5** LDS $0.785$ $38.27$ $131.65$ $280.66$
LDPV $4.236$ $100.08$ $292.67$ $624.91$
IDLD $0.397$ $20.74$ $73.74$ $160.43 $
**35** LDS $1.770$ $86.88$ $299.03$ $638.38$
LDPV $7.840$ $200.94$ $629.07$ $1363.97$
IDLD $0.402$ $20.68$ $74.41$ $160.29 $
**65** LDS $3.788$ $184.92$ $641.01$ $1368.31$
LDPV $10.934$ $288.79$ $982.79$ $2094.89$
IDLD $0.406$ $20.66$ $75.07$ $164.40$
----------- ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- -----------
: Mean computer time for LDS, LDPV and IDLD.[]{data-label="compmultiv"}
From Table \[compmultiv\] we can see that in every case IDLD is the fastest procedure, moreover it is not affected by the dimension of the dataset, while the computational efforts required by LDS and LDPV grow dramatically as $p$ increases. LDPV is overall the slowest procedure. Even though all the procedures demand more time as the sample size grows, IDLD is the one with the least pronounced growth rate.
Simulations: Multivariate functional data
-----------------------------------------
In this section we present the results of a simulation study for multivariate functional data; for such a multivariate setting, there are scarcely any clustering procedures. We will replicate the simulation done by Schumtz et al. (2017). They present three different scenarios. In every case, the data es bivariate.
Model A. Three groups, each of them with $100$ observations.
---------- -------------------------------------------
Group 1: $X_1(t)= \sin((10+a_1)t)+(1+a_1)+e_1(t)$
$X_2(t)= \sin((5+a_2)t)+(0.5+a_2)+e_2(t)$
Group 2: $X_1(t)= \sin((5+a_2)t)+(0.5+a_2)+e_2(t)$
$X_2(t)= \sin((15+a_1)t)+(1+a_1)+e_1(t)$
Group 3: $X_1(t)= \sin((15+a_1)t)+(1+a_1)+e_1(t)$
$X_2(t)= \sin((10+a_1)t)+(1+a_1)+e_1(t).$
---------- -------------------------------------------
Here $a_1 \sim N(0,0.2),$ $a_2 \sim N(0,0.3),$ $e_1(t)$ is white noise with variance $|\frac{a_1}{2}|,$ and $e_2(t)$ is white noise with variance $|\frac{a_2}{2}|.$ The curves are generated for $101$ equidistant points in the interval $[0,1].$
Model B. Four groups, each of them with $250$ observations.
---------- --------------------------------
Group 1: $X_1(t)= U+(1-U)h_1(t)+e(t)$
$X_2(t)= U+(0.5-U)h_1(t)+e(t)$
Group 2: $X_1(t)= U+(1-U)h_2(t)+e(t)$
$X_2(t)= U+(0.5-U)h_2(t)+e(t)$
Group 3: $X_1(t)= U+(0.5-U)h_1(t)+e(t)$
$X_2(t)= U+(1-U)h_2(t)+e(t)$
Group 4: $X_1(t)= U+(0.5-U)h_2(t)+e(t)$
$X_2(t)= U+(1-U)h_1(t)+e(t).$
---------- --------------------------------
Here $t \in [ 1,21],$ $U \sim U(0,0.1),$ and $e_1(t)$ is white noise independent of $U$ with variance $0.25.$ The functions are $h_1(t)=(6-|t-7|)_+$ and $h_1(t)=(6-|t-15|)_+,$ where $(\cdot)_+$ means the positive part. The curves are generated at $101$ equidistant points in the interval $[0,1].$
Model C. Four groups, each of them with $250$ observations.
---------- ---------------------------------
Group 1: $X_1(t)= U+(1-U)h_1(t)+e(t)$
$X_2(t)= U+(0.5-U)h_1(t)+e(t)$
Group 2: $X_1(t)= U+(1-U)h_2(t)+e(t)$
$X_2(t)= U+(0.5-U)h_2(t)+e(t)$
Group 3: $X_1(t)= U+(1-U)h_1(t)+e(t)$
$X_2(t)= U+(1-U)h_1(t)+e(t)$
Group 4: $X_1(t)= U+(0.5-U)h_2(t)+e(t)$
$X_2(t)= U+(0.5-U)h_1(t)+e(t).$
---------- ---------------------------------
Here, $t \in [1,21],$ while $U, e(t), h_1$ and $h_2$ are defined as before. The curves are generated at $101$ equidistant points in the interval $[0,1].$
As in the original paper, the estimated partition will be compared with the theoretical one via the Adjusted Rand Index (ARI), from the function *AdjustedRandIndex* from the mclust R package. For each model, 50 replications where carried out. Schmutz et al. (2017), report the ARI for settings settings of their proposal, and also for *funclust* (2014) as well as $kmeans$-$d_1$ and $kmeans$-$d_2,$ which are two proposals introduced by Ieva et al. (2013). In Table \[simulmultiFDari\] we present the maximum value of the ARI for Schmutz et al. and the remainder of the procedures. It is clear that LDCI outperforms by far the rest of the proposals, since it does not misclassify any observation throughout the simulation study.
\[simulmultiFDari\]
*Model A* *Model B* *Model C*
-------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
LDCI $1$ $1$ $1$
Best Schmutz $0.96$ $0.92$ $0.80$
funclust $0.23$ $0.36$ $0.45$
$kmeans-d_1$ $0.90$ $0.37$ $0.32$
$kmeans-d_2$ $0.90$ $0.37$ $0.32$
: ARI for different clustering procedures for multivariate functional data.
Computational results functional data, considering synthetic and real examples appear in Appendix D.
Real data examples for mixed-type datasets
------------------------------------------
Our aim in this Section is to analyze data set AEMET, from the R library *fda.esc*. This dataset contains series of daily summaries of $73$ spanish weather stations selected for the period 1980-2009. We will analyze the clustering structure of the dataset conformed by the variables: mean daily wind speed during between 1980 and 2009 (which is a functional variable) and geographic information of each station: altitud, latitud and height, which are real variables. Analyzing these variables together is relevant given that height influences in the intensity of the winds. Although the sensors are located at the same height, it is possible that phenomena related to the climate of the region generate deformations in the curves given by the intensity of the wind. To apply the LDC clustering criterion, we must be precise in the definition of the IDLD in data sets that have these characteristics. Our proposal is to project the functional variable as we have done in Section 6.2 and the multivariate variables as in Section 6.1. Then, we join those two projections with equal weight, and compute the IDLD. We look for two clusters, the parameters of the clustering procedure are $\alpha=0.15$ and $\beta=0.3.$ These parameters have been settled upon visual considerations of the dataset. After performing the clustering analysis we obtained two groups, one of them corresponds to the coastal stations (orange stations) while the other one corresponds to the continental ones (red stations), as it can be seen in Figure \[ClusterAllSpainSvarc\]. This classification corresponds to the well-known fact that the wind speed is more constant over the coastal areas. An example can be found in the use made of wind farms.
Finally, to understand the conformation of the groups in an integral way, it is convenient to analyze the core regions for the mean speed of the wind and the height of the stations. It can be seen that the stations corresponding to the core continental region are at higher altitudes, suffer more variability in wind intensity, as shown in the left and right panels of Figure \[KernelRawYAlturaSvarc\]. However, the coast stations that they are in lower zones have less daily variability and apparently the wind has greater intensity, as can be seen in the central and right panels of Figure \[KernelRawYAlturaSvarc\].
![Left: The red curves correspond to the core observations of the mean wind speed for the coast cluster. Center: The yellow curves are the core observations of the mean wind speed for the continental cluster. Right: Grouping conformation for the height, coast cluster in red and continental cluster in yellow. []{data-label="KernelRawYAlturaSvarc"}](KernelRawYAltura.pdf){width="4in"}
Final remarks
=============
In this paper, we introduced a local depth measure, IDLD, suitable for data in a general Banach space with low computational burden. It is an exploratory data analysis tool, which can be used in any statistical procedure that seeks to study local phenomena. From the theoretical perspective, local depths are expected to be generalizations of a global depth measure. Our proposal has this property. Additionally, they are expected to inherit good properties from global depths: this point has been overlooked for local depths. Strong consistency results for the local depth and local depth regions have been proved.
From the practical point of view, we explored the use of local depth measures in cluster analysis, introducing a simple clustering procedure. The first stage is to split into $k$ groups the $\alpha$ local inner region. The points are assigned to the closest group of the $\alpha$ local inner region. The flexibility of shape of the groups made up by the points in the $\alpha$ local inner region, produces a flexibility of the shapes in the groupings of the entire space. Computational experiments reflect this fact by showing an extraordinary performance under a wide range of clustering configurations.
[1]{}
Agostinelli, C. (2018). “Local half-region depth for functional data.” *Journal of Multivariate Analysis* 163, 67-79.
Agostinelli, C., and M. Romanazzi. (2011). “Local Depth.” *Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference,* 141, 817-830.
Chakraborty, B., and P. Chaudhuri (1996). “On transformation and retransformation technique for constructing an affine equivariant multivariate median.” *Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society* 124, 2539-2547.
Chakraborty, B., and P. Chaudhuri (1998). “Operating transformation retransformation on spatial median angle test.” *Statistica Sinica* 8, 767-784.
Cuevas, A., and R. Fraiman (2009). “On depth measures and dual statistics. A methodology for dealing with general data.” *Journal of Multivariate Analysis* 100(4), 753-766.
Fraley C., and A. E. Raftery (2002). “Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation.” *Journal of the American Statistica Association* 97, 611–631. Fraley C., and A. E. Raftery (2009). “MCLUST Version 3 for R: Normal Mixture Modeling and Model-based Clustering,” Technical Report No. 504, Department of Statistics, University of Washington. Henning, C (2007). “Cluster-wise assesment of cluster stability.” *Computational Statistics and Data Analysis*, 52, 258?271.
Ieva F., A. M. Paganoni, D. Pigoli, and V. Vitelli (2013). “Multivariate functional clustering for the morphological analysis of electrocardiograph curves.” *Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics)* 62,401-418. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9876.2012.01062.x
Jacques, J., and C.Preda (2014). “Model-based clustering of functional data.” *Computational Statistics and Data Analysis* 71, 92-106. DOI:10.1016/j.csda.2012.12.004 Kotík, L., and D. Hlubinka (2017). “A weighted localization of halfspace depth and its properties.” *Journal of Multivariate Analysis* 157, 53-69.
Kondo, Y., M. Salibian-Barrera, and R. H. Zamar (2016). “A robust and sparse K-means clustering algorithm.” *Journal of Statistical Software* 72(5). Lopez-Pintado, S., and J. Romo (2011). “A half-region depth for functional data.” *Computational Statistics and Data Analysis* 55(4), 1679-1695.
Paindavaine, D., and G. Van Bever (2013). “From depth to local depth: A focus in centrality.” *Journal of the American Statistical Association* 108(503), 1105-1119. Schmutz, A., J. Jacques, C. Bouveyron, L. Cheze, and P. Martin (2017). “Clustering Multivariate functional data in group-specific functional subspaces.” (Unpublished) [https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01652467/file/Clustering multivariate functional data.pdf](https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01652467/file/Clustering multivariate functional data.pdf)
Witten, D., and R. Tibshirani (2010). “A framework for feature selection in clustering.” *Journal of the American Statistical Association* 105(490), 713-726. on functional data.” *Advances in Data Analysis and Classification* 11(3), 467-492. DOI 10.1007/s11634-016-0261-y
Zou, Y., and R. Serfling (2000). “General Notion of Statistical Depth Function.” *The Annals of Statistics* 28(2), 461-482.
[**A Local Depth Measure for General Data**]{}
Appendix A: Proofs of properties **P.1-6.**
============================================
Since $\mathbb{E}$ has finite dimension, without loss of generality we assume that $\mathbb{E} = \mathbb{R}^{d}.$ $$IDLD^{\beta}(Ax,P_{AX}) = \int LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(Ax),P_{f \circ A}) Q(f) = \int LD_{S}^{\beta}(A^{\ast}(f)(x),P_{A^{\ast}(f)}) Q(f).$$ By the change of variables theorem $$IDLD^{\beta}(Ax,P_{AX}) = \int LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_{f}) |det(A)|^{-1} Q(A^{\ast}(f)).$$
Since Haar measure is invariant under unitary linear transformations and $|det(A)| = 1,$ we have that $LD^{\beta}(Ax,P_{AX})=LD^{\beta}(x,P_{X})$.
It is enough to show that for each $f \in \mathbb{E}'$ and $\beta' \in (0,\beta]$ $$LD_S^{\beta}(f(\theta'),P_f) = \frac{2}{\beta'^2}
\left[ F_f(f( \theta)) - F_f( f(\theta) - \lambda_{f(\theta)}^{\beta'}) \right] \left[ F_f( f(\theta) + \lambda_{f(\theta)}^{\beta'}) - F_f(f( \theta)) \right] = \frac{1}{2}.$$ Since the bounded, $\frac{1}{2}$ is attained, we have that $LD_S^{\beta}(f(\theta),P_f)$ has a global maximum at $\theta.$ Then, is clear that $IDLD^{\beta}(\theta,P),$ also is a global maximum.
Let $\beta \in (0,1],$ $X$ is $C$-symmetric about $\theta$ if for every $f \in \mathbb{E}',$ $f(X)$ is symmetric about $f(\theta).$ Then, for every $0<\beta' \leq \beta,$ $$\beta' = F_f ( f(\theta) + \lambda^{\beta'}_{f({\theta})}) - F_f ( f(\theta) - \lambda^{\beta'}_{f({\theta})}) = 2 \left( F_f ( f(\theta) + \lambda^{\beta'}_{f({\theta})}) - F_f ( f(\theta) ) \right).$$
Finally, $$\frac{\beta'}{2} = F_f ( f(\theta) + \lambda^{\beta'}_{f({\theta})}) - F_f ( f(\theta) ),$$ which is what we wanted to show.
First note that, given $f \in \mathbb{E}',$ $x \in \mathbb{E}$ and $\beta \in (0,1].$ $$\begin{gathered}
\beta = F_f \left( f(x) + \lambda^{\beta}_{f({x})} \right) - F_f \left( f(x) - \lambda^{\beta}_{f({x})} \right) \\
F_f \left( f(x) + \lambda^{\beta}_{f({x})} \right) - F_f ( f(x) ) = \beta - \left( F_f ( f(x) ) - F_f \left( f(x) - \lambda^{\beta}_{f({x})} \right) \right).
\end{gathered}$$ From the definition of $LD^{\beta}_S(x, P_1)$ is clear that, $$LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_f) = \frac{2}{\beta^2} \left[\beta - \left( F_f ( f(x) ) - F_f \left( f(x) - \lambda^{\beta}_{f({x})} \right) \right) \right]
\left[ F_f \left( f(x) + \lambda^{\beta}_{f({x})} \right) - F_f ( f(x) ) \right].$$ Let $h: [0,\beta] \rightarrow \mathbb{R},$ $h(t)\ = \frac{2}{\beta^2} (\beta - t)t,$ attains a global maximum at $t = \frac{\beta}{2},$ hence $LD_{S}^{\beta}$ attains its maximum when $F_f \left( f(x) + \lambda^{\beta}_{f({x})} \right) - F_f ( f(x) ) = \frac{\beta}{2}.$ If this property is satisfied for every $0< \beta' \leq \beta,$ then, $x$ is a $\beta$-symmetry point of $f(X).$
Then, let $0< \beta' \leq \beta,$
$$\frac{1}{2} =IDLD^{\beta'}(x_0,P) = \int LD_{S}^{\beta'}(f(x_0),P_f) dQ(f) \Rightarrow 0 = \int \left(\frac{1}{2} - LD_{S}^{\beta'}(f(x_0),P_f) \right) dQ(f)$$
For every $f \in \mathbb{E}´,$ $LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x_0),P_f)$ is bounded by $\frac{1}{2}.$ Hence, $LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x_0),P_f) = \frac{1}{2}$ $Q-a.s.$ From the first part of the proof we know that $f(x_0)$ is a $\beta$-symmetry point of $f(X),$ hence $x_0$ is a $\beta$-symmetry point of $X.$
We now focus on the proof of **P. 3** that establishes that the local depth is monotone relative to the deepest point. We first show that this results holds if the distribution is unimodal. We begin by proving several auxiliary results that we will need to prove **P. 3.**
\[lema1Propiedad3\] Let $X$ be an absolutely continuous, symmetric and unimodal about $t=0$ random variable with cumulative distribution function $F.$ Let $\beta \in (0,1],$ define the functions,
- $U(t) = F(t + \lambda_{t}^{\beta}) - F(t).$
- $V(t) = F(t) - F(t - \lambda_{t}^{\beta}).$
Then, for every $t \in \mathbb{R}$ we have that:
a) If $t \geq 0$ $\Rightarrow$ $U(t) \leq \beta/2 \leq V(t).$
b) If $t \leq 0$ $\Rightarrow$ $V(t) \leq \beta/2 \leq U(t).$
a\) It is clear that if $t=0$ then by symmetry the equality is attained.
Let $t>0$ and $f_X$ be the density function of $X.$ There are two possible cases to analyze:
i\) If $-t < t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta}:$
Since $f_X(s)$ decreases on $(0,+\infty),$ we have that $$\min_{0 \leq s \leq t} f_X(s) \geq \max_{t \leq s \leq t + \lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s).$$
By symmetry $f_X(-s) = f_X(s)$ for every $s \in [0,t],$ then $$\min_{-t \leq s \leq t} f_X(s) = \min_{0 \leq s \leq t} f_X(s).$$
On the other hand, $[t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta},t] \subset [-t,t],$ since $-t<t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta},$ which implies that $$\min_{-t \leq s \leq t} f_X(s) \leq \min_{t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta} \leq s \leq t} f_X(s).$$
Thus,
$$\begin{aligned}
U(t) - V(t) & = \int_{t}^{t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s)ds - \int_{t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta}}^{t} f_X(s) ds \leq
\int_{t}^{t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta}} \max_{t \leq s \leq t + \lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s) - \int_{t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta}}^{t} \min_{t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta} \leq s \leq t} f_X(s) = \\
& = \lambda_{t}^{\beta} \max_{t \leq s \leq t + \lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s) - \lambda_{t}^{\beta} \min_{t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta} \leq s \leq t} f_X(s) = \\
& = \lambda_{t}^{\beta} \left (\max_{t \leq s \leq t + \lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s) - \min_{t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta} \leq s \leq t} f_X(s) \right) \leq 0
\end{aligned}$$
ii\) If, $t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta} < -t:$
Observe that if $s \in [t,-t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta}],$ we have that $-s \in [t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta},-t]$ and since the density function is symmetric about $t=0,$ we know that $f_X(s) = f_X(-s).$ Hence, $$\int_{t}^{-t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s) ds = \int_{t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta}}^{-t} f_X(s)ds.$$
Since $f_X$ decreasing, we obtain the following inequalities, $$\max_{\lambda_{t}^{\beta} \leq s \leq t + \lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s) \leq \max_{-t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta} \leq s \leq \lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s) \leq \min_{0 \leq s \leq t} f_X(s).$$
Then, $$\begin{aligned}
U(t) - V(t) & = \int_{t}^{t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s)ds - \int_{t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta}}^{t} f_X(s) ds = \\
& =\int_{t}^{-t + \lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s)ds + \int_{-t + \lambda_{t}^{\beta}}^{t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s)ds - \int_{t - \lambda_{t}^{\beta}}^{-t} f_X(s)ds -
\int_{-t}^{t} f_X(s) ds = \\
& = \int_{-t + \lambda_{t}^{\beta}}^{t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s)ds - \int_{-t}^{-t} f_X(s)ds = \\
& = \int_{-t + \lambda_{t}^{\beta}}^{\lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s)ds + \int_{\lambda_{t}^{\beta}}^{t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s)ds - 2 \int_{0}^{t}f_X(s) ds \leq \\
& \leq t \max_{-t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta} \leq s \leq \lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s) + t \max_{\lambda_{t}^{\beta} \leq s \leq t + \lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s) - 2t \min_{0 \leq s \leq t} f_X(s) \leq \\
& \leq 2t \left( \max_{-t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta} \leq s \leq \lambda_{t}^{\beta}} f_X(s) - \min_{0 \leq s \leq t} f_X(s) \right) \leq 0.
\end{aligned}$$
Finally, since $U(t) + V(t) = \beta$ y $U(t) \leq V(t)$ $\Rightarrow$ $U(t) \leq \beta/2 \leq V(t).$
b\) Consider the random variable $-X$ which is absolutely continuous, symmetric and unimodal about $t=0.$ Denote $F_X$ the cumulative distribution function of $X$ and $F_{-X}$ the cumulative distribution function of $-X.$ In addition, observe that given $t \in \mathbb{R}$ $$F_{-X}(t) = P(-X \leq t) = P(X \geq -t) = 1 - F_X(-t).$$
$$\begin{aligned}
U_{-X}(t) & = F_{-X}(t + \lambda_{t}^{\beta}) - F_{-X}(t) = 1 - F_{X}(-t - \lambda_{t}^{\beta}) - \left( 1 - F_{X}(-t) \right) = \\
& = F_{X}(-t) - F_{X}(-t - \lambda_{t}^{\beta}) = V_{X}(-t).
\end{aligned}$$
Analogously, $$\begin{aligned}
V_{-X}(t) & = F_{-X}(t) - F_{-X}(t- \lambda_{t}^{\beta}) = 1 - F_{X}(-t) - \left(1 - F_{X}(-(t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta})) \right) = \\
& = F_{X}(-t + \lambda_{t}^{\beta}) - F_{X}(-t) = U_{X}(-t).
\end{aligned}$$
Then, if $t<0$ we have that $-t>0$ and since part (a) of the proof holds we have that, $$U_{-X}(-t) \leq \beta/2 \leq V_{-X}(-t) \ \Rightarrow V_{X}(t) \leq \beta/2 \leq U_{X}(t).$$
\[lema2Propiedad3\] Let $X$ be an absolutely continuous random variable with $C^1$ cumulative distribution function, $F_X.$ Let $\beta \in (0,1].$ Let $t_{0} \in \mathbb{R}$ such that the density function $f_X$ satisfies $f(t_0 - \lambda_{t_0}^{\beta}) \in Sop(f_X)$ o $f(t_0 + \lambda_{t_0}^{\beta}) \in Sop(f_X).$ Then, there exists an interval $I$ centred at $t_0$ and function $\lambda^{\beta}:I \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ such that $\lambda$ is $C^1$ on $I,$ $\lambda^{\beta}(t_0) = \lambda_{t_0}^{\beta}.$ Even more, for each $s \in I,$ $$\frac{\partial \lambda^{\beta}}{ \partial t}(s) =
- \frac{f_X(t + \lambda^{\beta}(s)) - f_X(t - \lambda^{\beta}(s))}{f_X(t + \lambda^{\beta}(s)) + f_X(t - \lambda^{\beta}(s))}$$
The proof follows straight forward applying the implicit function theorem to the function $g: \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} \rightarrow \mathbb{R},$
$$g(x,\lambda) = F_X(x+\lambda) - F_X(x-\lambda) - \beta.$$ Then we have, $$\frac{\partial g}{\partial t}(t,\lambda) = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left(F_X(t + \lambda) - F_X(t - \lambda) - \beta \right) = f_X(t + \lambda) - f_X(t-\lambda).$$ $$\frac{\partial g}{\partial \lambda}(t,\lambda) = \frac{\partial}{\partial \lambda} \left(F_X(t + \lambda) - F_X(t - \lambda) - \beta \right) = f_X(t + \lambda) + f_X(t-\lambda).$$
\[lema3Propiedad3\] Let $X$ be an absolutely continuous, symmetric and unimodal about $t=0$ random variable, such that the cummulative distribution function $F_X$ is $C^1$. Let $\beta \in (0,1],$ and $f_X$ the density function such that $f_X(t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta})f_X(t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta})>0,$ which in addition satisfies that $$\label{desigualdadLema3Propiedad3}
f_X(t) \geq 2 \frac{f_X(t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta})f_X(t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta})}{f_X(t+\lambda_{t}^{\beta})+f_X(t-\lambda_{t}^{\beta})} \ \forall t \in \mathbb{R}.$$ Then,
a) $LD_{S}^{\beta}(t,F_X)$ is non increasing if $t>0.$
b) $LD_{S}^{\beta}(t,F_X)$ is non decreasing if $t<0.$
Following Lemma \[lema2Propiedad3\] and for the sake of simplicity denote $\lambda_{t}^{\beta} = \lambda^{\beta}(t).$ It is clear that, $$LD_{S}^{\beta}(t,F_X) = \frac{2}{\beta^2} \left[ F_X(t + \lambda(t)) - F_X(t) \right] \left[ \beta - (F_X(t + \lambda(t)) - F_X(t)) \right] =
\frac{2}{\beta^2} U(t)(\beta - U(t)).$$
The derivative of $LD_{S}^{\beta}$ with respect to $t$ is: $$\frac{\partial LD_{S}^{\beta}}{\partial t}(t,F_X) = \frac{2}{\beta^2} \left[ \beta \frac{\partial U}{\partial t}(t) - 2 U(t) \frac{\partial U}{\partial t}(t) \right] =
\frac{2}{\beta^2} \frac{\partial U}{\partial t}(t) \left[ \beta - 2U(t) \right].$$
By Lemma \[lema2Propiedad3\] and considering the derivative of $U(t)$ respect to $t,$ we have that: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial U}{\partial t}(t) & = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left( F_X(t + \lambda(t)) - F_X(t) \right) =
f_X(t + \lambda(t))\left(1 + \frac{\partial \lambda}{\partial t}(t)\right) - f_X(t) = \\
& = f_X(t + \lambda(t)) + f_X(t + \lambda(t)) \frac{\partial \lambda}{\partial t}(t) - f_X(t) = \\
& = f_X(t + \lambda(t)) - f_X(t) - f_X(t + \lambda(t)) \frac{f_X(t + \lambda(t)) - f_X(t - \lambda(t))}{f_X(t + \lambda(t)) + f_X(t - \lambda(t))} = \\
& = 2 \frac{f_X(t + \lambda(t)) f_X(t - \lambda(t))}{f_X(t + \lambda(t)) + f_X(t - \lambda(t))} - f_X(t) \leq 0.
\end{aligned}$$
From Lemma \[lema1Propiedad3\] we have that:
a) If $t<0,$ $\displaystyle U(t) > \frac{\beta}{2} \Rightarrow \frac{\partial LD_{S}^{\beta}}{\partial t}(t,F_X) = \frac{2}{\beta^2} \frac{\partial U}{\partial t}(t) \left[ \beta - 2U(t) \right] \geq 0.$
b) if $t>0,$ $\displaystyle U(t) < \frac{\beta}{2} \Rightarrow \frac{\partial LD_{S}^{\beta}}{\partial t}(t,F_X) = \frac{2}{\beta^2} \frac{\partial U}{\partial t}(t) \left[ \beta - 2U(t) \right] \leq 0.$
\[lema4Propiedad3\] Let $X$ be a random variable and $\mu \in \mathbb{R}.$ Let $\beta \in (0,1]$ and $Y = X - \mu.$ Denote $F_{X}$ and $F_{Y}$ to the corresponding cumulative distribution functions, then,\
$LD_{S}^{\beta}(t,F_X) = LD_{S}^{\beta}(t-\mu,F_Y).$
Let $t \in \mathbb{R},$ we have that $F_X(t) = F_Y(t - \mu).$ Then, $$U_X(t) = F_X(t + \lambda_{t}^{\beta}) - F_X(t) = F_Y(t-\mu - \lambda_{t}^{\beta}) - F_Y(t- \mu) = U_{Y}(t - \mu).$$ entails the desired equality.
Finally we prove **P. 3.**
Let $t \in \mathbb{R}$ and $Y = X - \theta.$ Suppose that $t>\theta$ then $t-\theta>0.$ On the other hand, $(1-s)\theta + st = \theta + s(t-\theta)$ and $s(t-\theta) < t-\theta.$ Then, Lemmas \[lema3Propiedad3\] and \[lema4Propiedad3\] entail that, $$LD_S^{\beta}(t,F_X) = LD_S^{\beta}(t-\theta,F_Y) \leq LD_S^{\beta} \left( s(t-\theta),F_Y \right) =
LD_S^{\beta} \left( s(t-\theta) + \theta,F_X \right) = LD_S^{\beta}((1-s) \theta + st,F_X).$$
Let $\beta \in (0,1],$ it is clear that, $0 \leq F_f (f(x)) - F_f( f(x) - \lambda_{f(x)}^{\beta}) \leq \displaystyle\frac{\beta}{2}.$ Given that $F_f$ is a cumulative distribution function then, for every $f \in \mathbb{E}',$ $F_f( f(x) - \lambda_{f(x)}^{\beta}) \leq 1.$
Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
IDLD^{\beta}(x,P) & = \int \frac{2}{\beta^2}
\left[ F_f(f( x)) - F_f( f(x) - \lambda_{f(x)}^{\beta}) \right] \left[ F_f( f(x) + \lambda_{f(x)}^{\beta}) - F_f(f(x)) \right] dQ(f) \\
& \leq \int \frac{2}{\beta^2} \frac{\beta}{2} \left[ F_f( f(x) + \lambda_{f(x)}^{\beta}) - F_f(f(x)) \right] dQ(f) \\
& \leq \frac{1}{\beta} \int \left[1 - F_f(f(x)) \right] dQ(f) = \frac{1}{\beta} \int P(f(X) > f(x)) dQ(f).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\epsilon >0$, $M>0$ and $x \in \mathbb{E}$ such that $||x|| \leq M,$ thus $$\begin{aligned}
\int P(f(X) > f(x)) dQ(f) & \leq \int \mathcal{I}_{ \left\{ f: \ f \left( \frac{x}{||x||} \right) \leq \epsilon \right\} } dQ(f) +
\int P(f(X) > f(x)) \mathcal{I}_{ \left\{ f: \ f \left( \frac{x}{||x||} \right) \geq \epsilon \right\} } dQ(f) \\
& \leq \epsilon + \int P(f(X) \geq M \epsilon) dQ(f).\end{aligned}$$ Then $ \displaystyle \lim_{M \to +\infty} P(f(X) \geq M \epsilon) = 0$ for every $f \in \mathbb{E}',$ by the Dominated Convergence Theorem we have that $ \displaystyle \lim_{M \to +\infty} \int P(f(X) \geq M \epsilon) = 0.$
Before proving **P. 5.** the following result must be stated.
\[contenx\] Let $Z$ be an absolutely continuous random variable with cumulative distribution function $F.$ Let $ (z_n)_{ n \geq 1 }$ be a real sequence such that $z_n \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{} z$ and $\beta \in (0,1].$ Then, $$LD_{S}^{\beta}(z_n,F) \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{} LD_{S}^{\beta}(z,F).$$
Since $F$ is continuous is enough to show that $ \lambda_{z_n}^{\beta} \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{} \lambda_{z}^{\beta}.$
Let $t \in \mathbb{R},$ denote $F_z(t) = \frac{1}{2}F(t) + \frac{1}{2} \left(1 - F(2z-t) \right)$ to the symmetrize version of $F$ about $z.$ Recall that, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{z}^{\beta} & : F(z + \lambda_{z}^{\beta}) - F(z - \lambda_{z}^{\beta}) = \beta \\
\lambda_{z_n}^{\beta} & : F(z_n + \lambda_{z_n}^{\beta}) - F(z_n - \lambda_{z_n}^{\beta}) = \beta \ \mbox{ for each} \ n \in \mathbb{N}\end{aligned}$$
Then, $$\begin{aligned}
F_{z}(z + \lambda_{z}^{\beta}) & = \frac{1}{2}F(z + \lambda_{z}^{\beta}) + \frac{1}{2} \left(1 - F(2z - (z + \lambda_{z}^{\beta})) \right) =
\frac{1}{2}F(z + \lambda_{z}^{\beta}) + \frac{1}{2} \left(1 - F(z - \lambda_{z}^{\beta})) \right) \\
& = \frac{1}{2} \left[ F(z + \lambda_{z}^{\beta}) - F(z - \lambda_{z}^{\beta}) \right] + \frac{1}{2} = \frac{\beta}{2} + \frac{1}{2}.\end{aligned}$$
Meaning that $z + \lambda_{z}^{\beta} = F_{z}^{-1}(\frac{\beta}{2} + \frac{1}{2}),$ analogously for $z_n + \lambda_{z_n}^{\beta}.$ Given that $F_{z_n}(t) \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{} F_z(t)$ is clear that $$z_n + \lambda_{z_n}^{\beta} = F_{z_n}^{-1} \left( \frac{\beta}{2} + \frac{1}{2} \right) \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{} F_{z}^{-1} \left( \frac{\beta}{2} + \frac{1}{2} \right) = z + \lambda_{z}^{\beta}.$$
Let $ \left( x_n \right) _{n \geq 1}$ be a sequence on $\mathbb{E}$ such that $x_n \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{|| \ ||_{\mathbb{E}}} x,$ specifically\
$f(x_n) \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{} f(x) \ \mbox{ for every } \ f\in \mathbb{E}'.$ For each $f$ fixed, Lemma \[contenx\] states that $$LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x_n),P_f) \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{} LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_f).$$
As a consequence of the Dominated Convergence Theorem is clear that, $$LD^{\beta}(x_n,P) \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{} LD_{S}^{\beta}(x,P).$$
Let $x \in \mathbb{E}$ and $\beta \in (0,1].$ Our aim is to prove that if $P_n$ is a sequence of probability measures that converges to $P,$ then $$IDLD^{\beta}(x,P_n) \xrightarrow [n \to + \infty]{} IDLD^{\beta}(x,P).$$
Let $(X_n)_{n \geq 1} \subset \mathbb{E}$ be a sequence of continuous random elements on $\mathbb{E}$ with associated probability measure $P_n,$ such that, $X_n \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{} X$ in distribution. Van der Vaart and Wellner [@VW96] show that the convergence holds in the dual space, thus, $f(X_n) \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty] {} f(X)$ in distribution for every $ \ f \in \mathbb{E}'.$
Since $F_{n,f}$ is the cumulative distribution function of $f(X_n)$ which converges pointwise to $F_f,$ then is clear that $$LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_{n,f}) \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{} LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P).$$ The result that we want to show is an straight forward consequence of the Dominated Convergence Theorem.
Appendix B: Uniform Strong Consistency of the IDLD.
===================================================
In order to establish the uniform strong convergence of the one dimensional simplicial local depth. The following Lemma must be proved in advanced.
First of all, it is important to note the following facts. Assuming that the conditions stated in Remark 4 hold. For the sake of simplicity denote, $\lambda=\lambda_{z}^{\beta},$ $p_{+} = F(z+ \lambda),$ $p_{-} = F(z- \lambda)$ and $p = F(z).$ Let $p \in (0,1),$ then,
- $Q_{p,n} = X_{([np]+1)},$ $Q_{p_{+},n} = X_{([np_{+}] + 1)}$ and $ Q_{p_{-},n} = X_{([np_{-}] + 1)}.$
- $ \displaystyle F_n(Q_{p_{+},n}) - F_n(Q_{p_{-},n}) = \frac{[n p_{+}] + 1}{n} - \frac{[n p_{-}] + 1}{n} = \frac{ [n p_{+}] - [n p_{-}]}{n}.$
Moreover, $ \displaystyle \frac{ [n p_{+} - n p_{-}]}{n} \leq \frac{ [n p_{+}] - [n p_{-}]}{n} \leq \frac{ [n p_{+}] - [n p_{-}] + 1}{n}.$
$[n p_{+} - n p_{-}] = [n (p_{+} - p_{-})] = [n \beta].$ Then,
$ \displaystyle \frac{[n \beta]}{n} \leq F_n(Q_{p_{+},n}) - F_n(Q_{p_{-},n}) \leq \frac{[n \beta] + 1}{n}.$
- $X_{( [np_{-} ] + 1)} \leq z \leq X_{([np_{+}]+1)}.$
- $ [z - d^{(k)}(z),z + d^{(k)}(z)] \subset [ X_{ ([np_{-}] + 1)} , X_{ ([np_{+}]+1)} ].$
- $d_{(k)}(z) = \min \{z - Q_{p_{-},n}, z + Q_{p_{+},n} \}.$
- $ \displaystyle F_n(Q_{p_{+},n}) - F_n(z + d_{(k)}(z)) \leq \frac{1}{n}$ and $ \displaystyle F_n(Q_{p_{-},n}) - F_n(z - d_{(k)}(z)) \leq \frac{1}{n}.$
- $ \beta(k) \leq \beta \leq \beta(k) + 1.$
(i) It follows straight forward by definition.
(ii) Let $p \in (0,1),$ $$| F_n(Q_{p,n}) - F(x_p) | = | F_n(Q_{p,n}) - p | = \frac{[np] + 1}{n} - p = \frac{[np] - np + 1}{n} \leq \frac{1}{n}.$$
(iii) Let $p \in (0,1),$ $$\begin{aligned}
| F(Q_{p,n}) - F(x_p) | & \leq | F(Q_{p,n}) - F_n(Q_{p,n}) | + |F_n(Q_{p,n}) - F(x_p) | \nonumber \\
& \leq \sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} |F_n(t) - F(t) | + \frac{1}{n} = ||F_n - F ||_{\infty} + \frac{1}{n}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
For the sake of simplicity denote $\lambda=\lambda_{z}^{\beta}$ and $d^k=d^{(k)}(z).$
$$\begin{aligned}
& \Big| \left( F(z + \lambda) - F(z) \right) \left( F(z) - F(z - \lambda) \right) - \left( F_n(z + d^k) - F_n(z) \right) \left( F_n(z) - F_n(z - d^k) \right) \Big| = \nonumber \\
& = \Big| \left[ F(z + \lambda)F(z) - F(z + \lambda)F(z - \lambda) - F(z)^2 + F(z)F(z - \lambda) \right] - \nonumber \\
& - \left[ F_n(z + d^k)F_n(z) - F_n(z + d^k)F_n(z - d^k) - F_n(z)^2 + F_n(z)F_n(z - d^k) \right] \Big| = \nonumber \\
& = \Big| F(z + \lambda)F(z) - F(z + \lambda)F(z - \lambda) - F(z)^2 + F(z)F(z - \lambda) - \nonumber \\
& - F_n(z + d^k)F_n(z) + F_n(z + d^k)F_n(z - d^k) + F_n(z)^2 - F_n(z)F_n(z - d^k) \Big| = \nonumber \\
& \leq \Big| F(z+\lambda)F(z) - F_n(z+d^k)F_n(z) \Big| + \Big| F_n(z+d^k)F_n(z-d^k) - F(z+\lambda)F(z-\lambda) \Big| + \label{4term} \\
& + \Big| F_n(z)^2 - F(z)^2 \Big| + \Big| F(z-\lambda)F(z) - F_n(z-d^k)F_n(z) \Big| \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We analyze each term of Equation (\[4term\]),
(a) $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle
& \Big| F(z+\lambda)F(z) - F_n(z+d^k)F_n(z) \Big| = \\
& = \Big| F(z+\lambda)F(z) - F(z)F_n(Q_{p_{+},n}) + F(z)F_n(Q_{p_{+},n}) - F_n(z+d^k)F_n(z) \Big| \leq \\
& \leq F(z) \Big| F(z+\lambda) - F_n(Q_{p_{+},n}) \Big| + \\
& + \Big| F(z)F_n(Q_{p_{+},n}) - F(z)F_n(z+d^k) + F(z)F_n(z+d^k)-F_n(z+d^k)F_n(z) \Big| \leq \\
& \leq \frac{1}{n} + F(z) \Big| F_n(Q_{p_{+},n}) - F_n(z+d^k)\Big| + \Big| F(z) - F_n(z) \Big| F_n(z+d^k) \leq \\
& \leq \frac{1}{n} + \frac{1}{n} + \|F - F_n\|_{\infty} = \frac{2}{n} + \|F - F_n\|_{\infty}.\end{aligned}$$
(b) $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle
& \Big| F_n(z+d^k)F_n(z-d^k) - F(z+\lambda)F(z-\lambda)\Big| = \\
& = \Big| F_n(z+d^k)F_n(z-d^k) - F(z+\lambda)F_n(z-d^k) + \\
& + F(z+\lambda)F_n(z-d^k) - F(z+\lambda)F(z-\lambda)\Big| \leq \\
& \leq F_n(z-d^k) \Big| F_n(z+d^k) - F(z+\lambda) \Big| + F(z+\lambda) \Big| F_n(z-d^k) - F(z-\lambda) \Big| \leq \\
& \leq \Big| F_n(z+d^k) - F(z+\lambda) \Big| + \Big| F_n(z-d^k) - F(z-\lambda) \Big| \leq \\
& \leq \Big| F_n(z+d^k) - F_n(Q_{p_{+},n}) \Big| + \Big| F_n(Q_{p_{+},n}) - F(z+\lambda) \Big| + \\
& + \Big| F_n(Q_{p_{-},n}) - F_n(z-d^k) \Big| + \Big| F_n(Q_{p_{-},n}) - F(z-\lambda)\Big| \leq
\frac{1}{n} + \frac{1}{n} + \frac{1}{n} + \frac{1}{n} = \frac{4}{n}.\end{aligned}$$
(c) $$\begin{aligned}
& \Big| F_n(z)^2 - F(z)^2 \Big| = \Big| F_n(z) - F(z)\Big| \mbox{ } \Big| F_n(z) + F(z)\Big| \leq \\
& \leq 2 \Big|F_n(z) - F(z) \Big| \leq 2 \|F_n - F\|_{\infty}.\end{aligned}$$
(d) Analogue to item (a).
Finally, denote $$H = \left( F(z + \lambda)F(z) \right) \left( F(z)F(z-\lambda) \right)$$
and
$$G = \left( F_n(z+d^k) - F_n(z) \right) \left( F_n(z) - F_n(z-\lambda) \right).$$
Then, $$\begin{aligned}
& \Big| ELD_{S}^{\beta}(z,F_n) - LD_{S}^{\beta}(z,F) \Big| = \left| \frac{2}{\beta(k)^2}G - \frac{2}{\beta^2}H \right| \leq
\left| \frac{2}{\beta(k)^2}G - \frac{2}{\beta^2}G \right| + \left| \frac{2}{\beta^2}G - \frac{2}{\beta^2}H \right| \leq \\
& \leq \left( \frac{2}{\beta(k)^2} - \frac{2}{\beta^2} \right) | G | + \frac{2}{\beta^2} \Big| G-H \Big|.\end{aligned}$$
On one hand, since Proposition 2 holds its clear that each term of $G$ is smaller than or equal to $\frac{\beta(k)^2}{2}$. Hence,
$$\left( \frac{2}{\beta(k)^2} - \frac{2}{\beta^2} \right) |G| \leq \left( \frac{2}{\beta(k)^2} - \frac{2}{\beta^2} \right) \frac{\beta(k)^2}{4} =
\frac{1}{2} \left( 1 - \left( \frac{\beta(k)}{\beta} \right)^2 \right).
\label{desg1}$$
On the other hand, we already know that, $$\Big|G-H\Big| \leq \frac{8}{n} + 4\|F - F_n\|_{\infty}.
\label{desg2}$$
From Inequalities (\[desg1\]) and (\[desg2\]) we prove the inequality stated in the statement.
*(a)* Let $f \in \mathbb{E}'$ and $x \in \mathbb{E}.$ Denote $P_{f}$ to the probability measure associated to $f(X)$ where $X$ is a random element on $\mathbb{E}$ with probability measure $P.$ Analogously, denote $P_{n,f}$ to the empirical probability measure of $P_f$ based on $f(X_1), \dots, f(X_n).$
By Proposition 2 we have, $$\Big| ELD_{S}^{\beta(k)}(f(x),P_{f,n}) - LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_f)\Big| \leq \frac{1}{2} \left( 1 - \left( \frac{\beta(k)}{\beta} \right)^2 \right) + \frac{2}{\beta^2} \left(\frac{8}{n} + 4 ||P_{n,f} - P_{f}||_{\infty} \right).$$
Observe that, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \left( 1 - \left( \frac{\beta(k)}{\beta} \right)^2 \right) = \frac{1}{2} \frac{ \beta^2 - \beta(k)^2 }{\beta^2} =
\frac{1}{2} (\beta - \beta(k) ) \frac{ (\beta + \beta(k) ) }{\beta^2} \leq \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{n} \frac{2}{\beta^2} = \frac{1}{n \beta^2}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Thus, $$\Big|ELD_{S}^{\beta(k)}(f(x),P_{f,n}) - LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_f)\Big| \leq \frac{1}{\beta^2} \left(\frac{17}{n} + 8 ||P_{n,f} - P_{f}||_{\infty} \right).
\label{xfijo}$$ Since it does not depend on $x$ the inequality hold for the supreme of the left hand side of Inequality (\[xfijo\]).
$$\label{supremonodependedex}
\sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| ELD_{S}^{\beta(k)}(f(x),P_{f,n}) - LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_f) \Big| \leq \frac{1}{\beta^2} \left(\frac{17}{n} + 8 ||P_{n,f} - P_{f}||_{\infty} \right).$$
Let $\epsilon > 0,$ denote $$\displaystyle h(f(X),f(X_1),\dots,f(X_n)) = \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}}\Big| ELD_{S}^{\beta(k)}(f(x),P_{f,n}) - LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_f)\Big|.$$
Then, $$\begin{aligned}
E \left( h(f(X),f(X_1),\dots,f(X_n)) \right) = \int_{\Omega} h(f(X),f(X_1),\dots,f(X_n)) dP_f = \nonumber \\
= \int_{ \{ \omega \in \Omega \ : \ \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} h(f(X),f(X_1),\dots,f(X_n)) \leq \epsilon \} } \ h(f(X),f(X_1),\dots,f(X_n)) dP_f + \nonumber \\
+ \int_{ \{ \omega \in \Omega \ : \ \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} h(f(X),f(X_1),\dots,f(X_n)) > \epsilon \} } h(f(X),f(X_1),\dots,f(X_n)) dP_f \leq \nonumber \\
\leq \epsilon + \int_{ \{ \omega \in \Omega \ : \ \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} h(f(X),f(X_1),\dots,f(X_n)) > \epsilon \} } \ h(f(X),f(X_1),\dots,f(X_n)) dP_f. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Given that,
$$\sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| ELD_{S}^{\beta(k)}(f(x),P_{f,n}) - LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_f)\Big| \leq 1 \ \mbox{ for every } n \in \mathbb{N} \mbox{ and } \ f \in \mathbb{E}',$$ and $$\left\{ \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| ELD_{S}^{\beta(k)}(f(x),P_{f,n}) - LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_f)\Big| > \epsilon \right\} \subset \left\{ \frac{1}{\beta^2} \left(\frac{8}{n} + 4 ||P_{n,f} - P_{f}||_{\infty} \right) > \epsilon \right\}.$$
Then, $$\begin{aligned}
& E \left( \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| ELD_{S}^{\beta(k)}(f(x),P_{f,n}) - LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_f)\Big| \right) \leq
\epsilon + P \left( \frac{1}{\beta^2} \left(\frac{8}{n} + 4 \|P_{n,f} - P_{f}\|_{\infty} \right) > \epsilon \right) = \nonumber \\
& = \epsilon + P \left( ||P_{n,f} - P_{f}||_{\infty} > \frac{1}{4} \left( \epsilon \beta^2 - \frac{8}{n} \right) \right) . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
By Dvoretzky-Kiefer-Wolfowitz [@M90] inequality we have that
$$P \left( ||P_{n,f} - P_{f}||_{\infty} > \frac{1}{4} \left( \epsilon \beta^2 - \frac{8}{n} \right) \right) \leq
2 \exp \left \{ -\frac{n}{2} \left( \epsilon \beta^2 - \frac{8}{n} \right) \right \} \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{}0 \ \mbox{ for every } f\in \mathbb{E}'.
\label{cotaempproy}$$
The right hand side of Inequality (\[cotaempproy\]) does not depend on $f \in \mathbb{E}',$ hence there exists $n_0$ such that for every $n>n_0,$ we have,
$$E \left( \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big|ELD_{S}^{\beta(k)}(f(x),P_{f,n}) - LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_f)\Big| \right) < 2 \epsilon \ \mbox{ for every } f\in \mathbb{E}'.$$
*(b)* It follows straight forward from part (a) of the theorem and the fact that it is the integral of a mensurable, positive and bounded function.
$$\begin{aligned}
& E \left[ \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| EIDLD^{\beta(k)}(x,P_n) - IDLD^{\beta}(x,P) \Big| \right] \leq \nonumber \\
& \leq E \left[ \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \int \Big|ELD_{S}^{\beta(k)}(f(x),P_{f,n}) - LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_f)\Big| dQ(f) \right] = \nonumber \\
& = E \left[ \int \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big|ELD_{S}^{\beta(k)}(f(x),P_{f,n}) - LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_f)\Big| dQ(f) \right] = \nonumber \\
& = \int E \left[ \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big|ELD_{S}^{\beta(k)}(f(x),P_{f,n}) - LD_{S}^{\beta}(f(x),P_f)\Big| \right] dQ(f) \leq \nonumber \\
& = \int 2 \epsilon \ dQ(f) = 2 \epsilon \ \mbox{ if } \ n > n_0. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
Note that, $$\begin{aligned}
& P \left( \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| EIDLD^{\beta}(x,P_n) - IDLD^{\beta}(x,P) \Big| \xrightarrow[n \to +\infty]{} 0 \right) = \nonumber \\
& = P \left( \bigcap_{ \epsilon > 0} \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N} } \bigcap_{l \geq n} \left\{ \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| EIDLD^{\beta(k)}(x,P_l) - IDLD^{\beta}(x,P) \Big| < \epsilon \right\} \right) = \nonumber \\
& = 1 - P \left( \bigcup_{ \epsilon > 0} \bigcap_{n \in \mathbb{N} } \bigcup_{l \geq n} \left\{ \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| EIDLD^{\beta(k)}(x,P_l) - IDLD^{\beta}(x,P) \Big| > \epsilon \right\} \right). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
It is enough to show that $$P \left( \bigcup_{ \epsilon > 0} \bigcap_{n \in \mathbb{N} } \bigcup_{l \geq n} \left\{ \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} | EIDLD^{\beta(k)}(x,P_l) - IDLD^{\beta}(x,P) | > \epsilon \right\} \right)=0.$$
By Borell-Cantelli lemma it is enough to prove that if the probability of the sets $$A_n = \left\{ \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} |EIDLD^{\beta(k)}(x,P_n) - IDLD^{\beta}(x,P) | > \epsilon \right\},$$ are summable, then, for all $\epsilon >0, \\
P \left( \bigcap_{n \in \mathbb{N} } \bigcup_{l \geq n} \left\{ \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| EIDLD^{\beta(k)}(x,P_l) - IDLD^{\beta}(x,P) \Big| > \epsilon \right\} \right)=0 $ and the prove would be done.
Let $\epsilon > 0,$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| EIDLD^{\beta(k)}(x,P_n) - IDLD^{\beta}(x,P) \Big| = \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| \int ELD^{\beta(k)}_S (f(x),P_{n,f}) - LD^{\beta}_S (f(x),P_f) dQ \Big| \leq \\
& \leq \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \int \Big| ELD^{\beta(k)}_S (f(x),P_{n,f}) - LD^{\beta}_S (f(x),P_f) \Big| dQ = \\
& = \int \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \Big| ELD^{\beta(k)}_S (f(x),P_{n,f}) - LD^{\beta}_S (f(x),P_f) \Big| dQ \leq \\
& \leq \int \frac{1}{\beta^2} \left(\frac{8}{n} + 4 ||P_{n,f} - P_{f}||_{\infty} \right) dQ \
= \frac{1}{\beta^2}\frac{8}{n} + \frac{1}{\beta^2} 4 \int ||P_{n,f} - P_{f}||_{\infty} dQ \leq \\
& \leq \frac{8}{n \beta^2} + \frac{1}{2 \beta^2} \sup_{f \in \mathbb{E}^{'}} \|P_{n,f} - P_{f}\|_{\infty}.\end{aligned}$$
Given that $ \displaystyle \sup_{f \in \mathbb{E}'} ||P_{n,f} - P_{f}||_{\infty} < + \infty $ there exists $f_0 \in \mathbb{E}'$ such that $$\sup_{f \in \mathbb{E}'} ||P_{n,f} - P_{f}||_{\infty} \leq ||P_{n,f_0} - P_{f_0}||_{\infty} + \beta^{2} \epsilon,$$ then $$\frac{8}{n \beta^2} + \frac{1}{2 \beta^2} \sup_{f \in \mathbb{E}^{'}} \|P_{n,f} - P_{f}\|_{\infty} \leq
\frac{8}{n \beta^2} + \frac{1}{2 \beta^2} ||P_{n,f_0} - P_{f_0}||_{\infty} + \frac{\beta^2 \epsilon}{2 \beta^2}.$$
By Dvoretzky-Kiefer-Wolfowitz inequality,
$$\begin{aligned}
& P(A_n) \leq P \left( \frac{8}{n \beta^2} + \frac{1}{2 \beta^2} ||P_{n,f_0} - P_{f_0}||_{\infty} + \frac{\epsilon}{2} > \epsilon \right) =
P \left( ||P_{n,f_0} - P_{f_0}||_{\infty} > \epsilon \beta^2 - \frac{16}{n} \right) \leq \\
& \leq 2 exp \left \{ -2n \left( \epsilon \beta^2 - \frac{16}{n} \right)^2 \right \}.\end{aligned}$$
Which is bounded by Borell-Cantelli’s lemma, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n \in \mathbb{N}} P(A_n) \leq 2 \sum_{n \in \mathbb{N}} exp \left \{ -2n \left( \epsilon \beta^2 - \frac{16}{n} \right)^2 \right \} < + \infty.\end{aligned}$$
Appendix C: Proof of strong consistency of the $\alpha$ local depth inner region at locality level $\beta$
==========================================================================================================
**(I)** Let $\epsilon > 0,$ $0 < \delta < \epsilon,$ $\alpha >0$ and a sequence $\alpha_n \rightarrow \alpha.$ It is clear that since Remark 6 holds, then $$R_{n}^{\alpha_n - \delta} \subset R_{n}^{\alpha_n} \subset R_{n}^{\alpha_n + \delta}.$$ We want to prove that $R_{n}^{\alpha_n - \delta} \subset R^{\alpha - \epsilon}.$ Without loss of generality we assume that $\alpha - \epsilon > 0,$ otherwise the inclusion always holds.
The hypothesis entail that since $\alpha_n \rightarrow \alpha,$ there exists $n_1 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for $n \geq n_1$, $| \alpha_n - \alpha| < \frac{\epsilon - \delta}{2}.$ Even more, from hypothesis *(b)* it follows that there exists $n_2 > n_1$ such that if $n \geq n_2$ then, $$\displaystyle \sup_{x \in \mathbb{E}} \left| ELD^{\beta}(x,P) - LD^{\beta}(x,P) \right| \leq \frac{\epsilon - \delta}{2} \ \ \
\mbox{a.s.}$$ Let $x \in R_{n}^{\alpha_n - \delta} \cap \left( R^{\alpha - \epsilon} \right)^{c},$ if $n \geq n_2,$ we have that
$$ELD^{\beta}(x,P) - LD^{\beta}(x,P) > \alpha_n - \delta - (\alpha - \epsilon) = \alpha_n - \alpha - \delta + \epsilon \geq
- \frac{(\epsilon - \delta)}{2} + \epsilon - \delta = \frac{\epsilon - \delta}{2}.$$
Which is a contradiction, hence the intersection is empty. Then, $$\mbox{si} \ x \in R_{n}^{\alpha_n - \delta} \Rightarrow x \in R^{\alpha - \epsilon} \Rightarrow
R_{n}^{\alpha_n - \delta} \subset R^{\alpha - \epsilon}.$$
The proof of $R^{\alpha+\epsilon} \subset R_{n}^{\alpha_n + \delta},$ is analogue. **(II)** We know that $$\label{TeoremaRegionProfecu1}
\left\{ x \in \mathbb{E}: \ LD^{\beta}(x,P) > \alpha \right\} = \bigcup_{ \epsilon \in \mathbb{Q}^{+} } R^{\alpha + \epsilon} \subset
\bigcap_{\epsilon \in \mathbb{Q}^{+}} R^{\alpha - \epsilon} = \left\{ x \in \mathbb{E}: \ LD^{\beta}(x,P) \geq \alpha \right\}$$
We want to show that $\displaystyle \bigcup_{\epsilon \in \mathbb{Q}^{+}} R^{\alpha + \epsilon} \subset
\liminf R_{n}^{\alpha_n} = \bigcup_{n \geq 1} \bigcap_{k \geq n} R_{k}^{\alpha_k} $ a.s.
Let $\epsilon \in \mathbb{Q}^{+}$ and $x \in R^{\alpha + \epsilon}.$ Part *(I)* establishes that there exists $n_0$ such that $$R^{\alpha + \epsilon} \subset R_{k}^{\alpha_k} \ \mbox{ for every } k \geq n_0 \ \ \mbox{ a.s. } \Rightarrow
R^{\alpha + \epsilon} \subset \bigcap_{k \geq n_0} R_{k}^{\alpha_k} \ \ \mbox{a.s.}$$ Then, for every $$\forall \epsilon \in \mathbb{Q}^{+}, \ \ \ R^{\alpha + \epsilon} \subset
\bigcup_{n \leq 1} \bigcap_{k \geq n} R_{k}^{\alpha_k} \ \ \mbox{a.s.}
\Rightarrow \bigcup_{\epsilon \in \mathbb{Q}^{+}} R^{\alpha + \epsilon} \subset
\bigcup_{n \geq 1} \bigcap_{k \geq n} R_{k}^{\alpha_k} \ \ \mbox{a.s.}$$
It remains to prove that $\displaystyle \limsup R_{n}^{\alpha_n} = \bigcap_{n \geq 1} \bigcup_{k \geq n} R_{k}^{\alpha_k} \subset \bigcap_{\epsilon \in \mathbb{Q}^{+}} R^{\alpha - \epsilon}$ a.s.
From part *(I)* of the theorem, for $\epsilon \in \mathbb{Q}^{+}$ there exists $n_0$ such that if $k \geq n_0,$ it follows that $R_{k}^{\alpha_k} \subset R^{\alpha - \epsilon} \ \mbox{for every} \ k \geq n_0$ a.s. Also, $\displaystyle \bigcup_{k \geq n_0} R_{k}^{\alpha_k} \subset R^{\alpha - \epsilon}$ a.s.
Thus, $ \displaystyle \bigcap_{n \geq 1} \bigcup_{k \geq n} R_{k}^{\alpha_k} \subset \bigcup_{k \geq n_0} R_{k}^{\alpha_k}
\subset R^{\alpha - \epsilon}.$ a.s.
Then it holds that for every $\epsilon \in \mathbb{Q}^{+},$ $\displaystyle \bigcap_{n \geq 1} \bigcup_{k \geq n} R_{k}^{\alpha_k} \subset R^{\alpha - \epsilon}$ a.s.
Finally, since $\liminf R_{n}^{\alpha_n} \subset \limsup R_{n}^{\alpha_n},$ it follows that $$\label{TeoremaRegionProfecu2}
\bigcup_{ \epsilon \in \mathbb{Q}^{+} } R^{\alpha + \epsilon} \subset \liminf R_{n}^{\alpha_n} \subset \limsup R_{n}^{\alpha_n}
\subset \bigcap_{\epsilon \in \mathbb{Q}^{+}} R^{\alpha - \epsilon} \ \ \ \mbox{a.s.}$$
From (\[TeoremaRegionProfecu1\]) and (\[TeoremaRegionProfecu2\]),
$$\begin{aligned}
P \left( \limsup R_{n}^{\alpha_n} \neq \liminf R_{n}^{\alpha_n} \right) & =
P \left( \limsup R_{n}^{\alpha_n} - \liminf R_{n}^{\alpha_n} \right) \leq \\
& \leq P \left( R_{\alpha} - \{ x \in E: LD_{\beta}(x,P) > \alpha \} \right) = \\
& = P \left( \{ x \in E: \ LD(x,P) = \alpha \right) = 0.\end{aligned}$$
Hence the limit exists, in an analogous way, $$\begin{aligned}
P \left( R^{\alpha} \neq \lim_{n \rightarrow +\infty} R_{n}^{\alpha_n} \right) & =
P \left( R_{\alpha} - \lim_{n \rightarrow +\infty} R_{n}^{\alpha_n} \right) \leq \\
& \leq P \left( R_{\alpha} - \{ x \in \mathbb{E}: LD_{\beta}(x,P) > \alpha \} \right) = 0.\end{aligned}$$
Appendix D: Numerical Studies for Functional Data
=================================================
Simulations
-----------
This section is devoted to the empirical study of our clustering procedure when the data is functional. To the best of our knowledge, there are two local depth measures suitable for this case, the IDLD introduced in this paper (LDCI) and also the local half-region depth for functional data introduced by Agostinelli (2018), (LDCH).
When implementing the LDC clustering procedure with local depth IDLD the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ take the same values as in the multivariate case, and have been chosen following the same criteria. The number of random projections following a Brownian motion distribution for each replicate remains fixed at $N=50.$
We conduct a simulation study on four synthetic models that have been previously analyzed by Justel and Svarc (2017), when they introduced the clustering procedure for functional data DivClusFD. First of all, we analyze three different datasets that present warping, while the last one presents pointwise sampling errors.
Model A: Two clusters with $n/2$ functions generated by, $$\begin{aligned}
X_{i}(t)&=&(1+\epsilon_{1i})\sin\left(\epsilon_{3i}+ \epsilon_{4i}t\right) +(1+\epsilon_{2i})\sin\left(\frac{\left(\epsilon_{3i}+\epsilon_{4i}t\right)^2}{2\pi}\right), \label{grupoA} \\
&& t \in [0,2\pi], \mbox{ for } i=1,\dots,n/2, \nonumber \\
X_{i}(t)&=&(1+\epsilon_{1i})\sin\left(\epsilon_{3i}+\epsilon_{4i}t\right)- (1+\epsilon_{2i})\sin\left(\frac{\left(\epsilon_{3i}+\epsilon_{4i}t\right)^2}{2\pi}\right),
\label{grupoB} \\
&& t \in [0,2\pi], \mbox{ for } i=n/2+1,\dots,n. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Model B: Two clusters with $n/2$ functions generated as in the first group following (\[grupoA\]) and in the second group as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
X_{i}(t)&=&\left(1+\epsilon_{1i}\right)
\sin\left(\epsilon_{3i}+\epsilon_{4i}\left(-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{3}{4}t\right)\right)-\left(1+\epsilon_{2i}\right) \sin\left(\frac{\left(\epsilon_{3i}+\epsilon_{4i}\left(-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{3}{4}t \right)\right)^2}{2\pi}\right), \label{grupoC} \\
&&t \in [0,2\pi], \mbox{ for } i=n/2+1,\dots,n. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Model C: Three clusters with $n/3$ functions generated in the first group following (\[grupoA\]), in the second group following (\[grupoB\]) and in the third group following (\[grupoC\]).
Model D: Four groups with $n/4$ functions generated as follows $$\begin{aligned}
X_{ij}(t)&=&f_j(t)+\epsilon_i(t), \label{distribwasser} \\
&& \mbox{ for } t \in [0,1], i=1,\dots,n/4 \mbox{ and } j=1,\dots,4, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$f_1(t) = min\left(\frac{2-5t}{2},\left(\frac{2-5t}{2}^2 \sin\left(\frac{5 \pi t}{2}\right)\right)\right),$$ $$f_2(t) = -f_1(t), \;\; f_3(t) = \cos(2\pi t) \;\; \mbox{ and } \;\; f_4(t) = -f_4(t).$$ The datasets are of size $n=90$ for Models A, B and C, but of size $n=600$ for Model D. All errors $\epsilon_{1i},\dots,\epsilon_{4i}$ are independent and normally distributed with mean 0 and standard deviation 0.05. In Equation (\[distribwasser\]) the errors, $\epsilon(t),$ are normally distributed with mean 0.4, standard deviation $0.9$ and covariance structure given by, $$\rho \left( s,t\right) =0.3\exp \left( -\frac{( s-t)^2 }{0.3}\right) ,\text{ \ \ for }s,t\in \left[ 0,1\right].$$
In all these cases, except DivClusFD, the number of clusters is assumed to be known.
Recently, Yassouridis and Leisch (2017) reviewed several functional data clustering procedures, which are available in the R package *funcy.* We challenged our procedure with those methods (references therein) and also with DivClusFD. Table \[resultsimulFD\] reports the mean CCR for each model and clustering procedure; 200 replicates have been run for each model.
For the case of LDCI, we report the mean CCR for all the values of parameters considered ($\alpha $ and $\beta$) since in every case the CCR is higher than $99\%,$ hence the variance of these results is very small. For DivClusFD we only report the mean CCR when the number of clusters is correctly estimated; in every case this happens in more than $75\%$ of the replicates.
Models A and B are the easiest ones to classify. In fact, most of the clustering procedures achieve an almost perfect classification. Clustering the dataset of Model C is a more challenging task, as is clear from the results of waveclust. Over all, the clustering procedures that present the poorest performance are funclust and HDDC. The CCR of waveclust remarkably decreases as the difficulty of the clustering problem increases. Model D has a different pattern than the other models: for it, the only clustering procedures that present an outstanding performance are LDCI and DivClusFD.
\[resultsimulFD\]
Model A Model B Model C Model D
-------------- --------- --------- --------- ----------
LDCI $99.98$ $99.94$ $99.07$ $99.39$
LDCH $93.11$ $100$ $66.21$ $41.51$
DivClusFD $99.67$ $99.96$ $99.45$ $99.45$
fitfclust $99.99$ $99.93$ $98.95$ $74.65$
distclust $99.79$ $100$ $99.82$ $74.61 $
iterSubspace $99.80$ $100$ $98.89$ $73.92$
funclust $81.55$ $79.26$ $61.64$ $38.97$
funHDDC $87.88$ $95.99$ $72.02$ $ 51.15$
fscm $97.79$ $99.79$ $99.64$ $74.48 $
waveclust $99.88$ $95.94$ $89.18$ $72.98$
: Mean CCR for the different clustering procedures considered.
![(a) A dataset simulated following *Model A*. (a) Core observations of the data exhibit in (a)[]{data-label="sangalli3core"}](sangalli3core.pdf){width="4in"}
Figure \[sangalli3core\] shows the core observations for a dataset generated following Model A, with the same parameters as used in the simulation study. Even though the design is balanced, it can be seen that the number of observations is not the same for every class.
It is important to note that LDCI is more than 100 times faster than DivClusFD.
From Table \[resultsimulFD\] it is clear that LDCI and LDCH behave differently: LDCH does not always detect the center of the clusters. We generated a random sample following Model C, see Figure \[AgvsL\], where the clustering procedure fails. The palette in Figure \[AgvsL\] panels (a), respectively, (b), is descending in IDLD, respectively LDH, and it is clear that in every group there are curves with a high IDLD, but that there is one group where there are no observations with high a LDH value. Figure \[AgvsL\] presents the scatter plot of the sorted LDH vs. the corresponding value of the IDLD, showing practically no structure. In addition, the correlation between LDH and IDLD in this case is $0.27,$ which is low. This explains the difference in the clustering performances.
![(a) and (b) A dataset simulated following Model C, using a descending palette scale based on the local depth value for IDLD and LDH. (c) Scatter plot of sorted IDLD versus the corresponding LDH.[]{data-label="AgvsL"}](ldfunAgvsL2.pdf){width="4in"}
Real data examples for functional data
--------------------------------------
In this section we analyze the performance of our clustering procedure on several well known, publicly available, real-world functional datasets. As a benchmark, we also use the clustering procedures of the *funcit* R package. Four real datasets are considered: Growth, Canadian Weather, ECG200, and Tecator. Since these examples arise mainly from classification problems, the clustering configuration its known, hence we can report the CCR as in the simulation studies. The tuning parameters for the different clustering procedures remain fixed at the same values as in the simulation study. The examples analyzed are considered challenging for clustering purposes.
The Berkeley Growth Study is one of the best-known long-term development investigations ever conducted. It was introduced by Tuddenham and Snyder (1954). The heights of 54 girls and 39 boys were measured between 1 and 18 years at 31 unequally spaced time points. More measurements were taken during the later years of childhood and adolescence, when growth was more rapid, and fewer during the early years, when growth was more stable. This dataset can be found in the R package *fda*.
The Canadian Weather dataset was introduced by Ramsay and Silverman (2005) and is available in the R package *fda*. The data contains daily temperatures over the course of a year, measured at 35 monitoring stations in Canada. The data is grouped by four different geographical regions.
The ECG200 dataset consists of 200 electrocardiograms, which can be found on the UCR Time Series Classification and Clustering website (Chen et al. (2015)). The dataset consists of two groups: one with 133 and the other with 67 electrocardiograms, each one recorded at 96 equally spaced instants.
The Tecator dataset consists of 215 spectrometric curves of meat samples, along with their fat, water and protein contents obtained by analytic procedures. The curves are classified into two groups, one of them high in fat content (over 15) and the other one low in fat content (below 15). Our goal is to cluster the data into those two groups based on the spectrometric curves.
When analyzing the results presented in Table \[ccrrde\], it can be seen that there is no clustering procedure that outperforms the others in all cases, which is to be expected since, depending on the characteristics of the data, different methods will be more appropriate. However, we can see that LDCI has a very good performance in all the examples analyzed.
\[ccrrde\]
**Growth** **Canadian Weather** **ECG200** **Tecator**
-------------- ------------ ---------------------- ------------ -------------
LDCI $91.40 $ $62.86$ $76.00 $ $85.12$
fitfclust $60.22 $ $60.00 $ $65.00 $ $66.98$
distclust $66.67 $ $68.57$ $64.00 $ $66.05$
iterSubspace $56.99$ $64.28$ $64.00 $ $73.95$
funclust $77.42$ $60.00$ $52.00 $ $59.07$
funHDDC $90.32$ $71.42$ $70.00 $ $50.23$
fscm $65.59$ $ 34.29$ $67.00 $ $76.28$
waveclust $78.95$ $ 57.14$ $75.00$ $90.7$
: CCR for several real data examples.
Even though it is not reported on Table \[ccrrde\] we also did the study considering DivFunFD. This procedure could not detect correctly the number of clusters for Canadian Weather, ECG200 and Tecator,conforming spureus clusters. But for the Growth data set it identified the two clusters, with CCR$=89.25\%.$
[1]{}
Agostinelli, C. (2018). “Local half-region depth for functional data.” *Journal of Multivariate Analysis* 163, 67-79.
Chen,Y., E. Keogh, B. Hu, N. Begum, A. Bagnall, A. Mueen, and G. Batista (2015). The UCR time series classification archive. <http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~eamonn/time_series_data/>
Justel A., and M. Svarc, “A divisive clustering method for functional data with special consideration of outliers.’ *Advances in Data Analysis and Classification*, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11634-017-0290-1
Massart, M. (1990). “The Tight Constant in the Dvoretzky-Kiefer-Wolfowitz Inequality.” *Annals of Probability*, 18(3), 1269-1283.
Ramsay, J., and B. W.Silverman (2005). *Functional Data Analysis.* Springer-Verlag.
Serban N., and L.Wasserman (2005). “CATS: Cluster Analysis by Transformation and Smoothing.” *Journal of the American Statistical Association* 100, 990-999. DOI 10.1198/016214504000001574
Tuddenham R. D., and M. M.Snyder (1954). “Physical growth of California boys and girls from birth to eighteen years.” Tech. Rep. 1, University of California Publications in Child Development.
Van der Vaart, A., and A. Wellner (1996). *Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes with Applications to Statistics.* Springer-Verlag.
Yassouridis, C., and F. Leisch (2017). “Benchmarking different clustering algorithms on functional data.” *Advances in Data Analysis and Classification* 11(3), 467-492. DOI 10.1007/s11634-016-0261-y
[^1]: Corresponding author: Marcela Svarc, Departamento de Matemática y Ciencias, Universidad de San Andrés, Vito Dumas 248, Victoria, Argentina. Email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Most of super-Earths detected by the radial velocity (RV) method have significantly smaller eccentricities than the eccentricities corresponding to velocity dispersion equal to their surface escape velocity (“escape eccentricities"). If orbital instability followed by giant impacts among protoplanets that have migrated from outer region is considered, it is usually considered that eccentricities of the merged bodies become comparable to those of orbital crossing bodies, which are excited up to their escape eccentricities by close scattering. However, the eccentricity evolution in the [*in situ*]{} accretion model has not been studied in detail. Here, we investigate the eccentricity evolution through [*N*]{}-body simulations. We have found that the merged planets tend to have much smaller eccentricities than the escape eccentricities due to very efficient collision damping. If the protoplanet orbits are initially well separated and their eccentricities are securely increased, an inner protoplanet collides at its apocenter with an outer protoplanet at its pericenter. The eccentricity of the merged body is the smallest for such configuration. Orbital inclinations are also damped by this mechanism and planets tend to share a same orbital plane, which is consistent with [*Kepler*]{} data. Such efficient collision damping is not found when we start calculations from densely packed orbits of the protoplanets. If the protoplanets are initially in the mean-motion resonances, which corresponds to well separated orbits, the [*in situ*]{} accretion model well reproduces the features of eccentricities and inclinations of multiple super-Earths/Earth systems discovered by RV and [*Kepler*]{} surveys.'
author:
- 'Yuji Matsumoto,'
- Makiko Nagasawa
- Shigeru Ida
title: Eccentricity Evolution Through Accretion of Protoplanets
---
INTRODUCTION
============
About 60 close-in super-Earths ($\leq 30M_{\oplus}$, $M_{\oplus}$ is the mass of the Earth) have been discovered by the radial velocity method so far [^1]. Fabrycky et al. (2014) showed that the [*Kepler*]{} survey found more than 818 super-Earth-sized ($\leq 6R_{\oplus}$, $R_{\oplus}$ is the radius of the Earth) candidates in 333 multiple systems. These planets can be formed either by 1) type I migration of the full-sized planets that have formed in outer regions (e.g., Cresswell & Nelson 2006, Cossou et al., 2014), 2) [*in situ*]{} accretion of planetesimals that formed there or have migrated from outer regions due to aerodynamical gas drag (e.g., Raymond et al., 2007; Chiang & Laughlin 2013), 3) [*in situ*]{} accretion of protoplanets that have migrated from outer regions due to type I migration (Terquem & Papaloizou 2007; Ogihara & Ida 2009; Ida & Lin 2010). Model 1 has a difficulty of why the full-sized planets were able to avoid runaway gas accretion. In models 2 and 3, if the growth beyond a critical core mass occurs after disk gas depletion, the runaway gas accretion is avoided, while observed pile-ups near mean-motion resonances are not easy to be explained. In model 2, accumulation of large amount of planetesimals may be a difficulty[^2]. In model 3, type I migration may be able to bring larger amount of solid materials to inner regions, as explained below, although the total mass of predicted super-Earths may still be smaller than the observed one (e.g., Ida & Lin 2010, Ida et al., 2013). In model 3, giant impacts among protoplanets that have migrated from outer regions occur after disk depletion (giant impacts could also occur in model 2). It is often considered that orbital eccentricities resulted in by giant impacts are larger than the observed values (see below), which is also a problem for model 3. In the present paper, however, we will show that eccentricities resulted in by giant impacts should be as small as the observed level.
The details of model 3 are as follows. Type I migration is halted at the disk inner edge and subsequently migrating protoplanets could be trapped by mean-motion resonances of preceding one stopped at the disk edge. Terquem & Papalouzou (2007) showed that type I migration is too fast for protoplanets to be captured by resonances at first encounters. They are trapped in resonances after close scattering and coagulation near the disk edge, resulting in a few coagulated planets in resonant orbits. Their orbits are stable even after disk depletion. It is inconsistent with data of [*Kepler*]{} candidates that most of multiple systems are off-resonant, unless additional effects to deviate the planets from the resonant configurations are applied (e.g., Papaloizou 2011). Model 1 also requires a similar process to realize off-resonant orbits (Goldreich & Schlichting 2014).
Ogihara & Ida (2009) found that if type I migration rate is considerably reduced from that derived by Tanaka et al. (2002), protoplanets are resonantly trapped at first encounters, resulting in resonant systems consisting of a large number of protoplanets. In the presence of disk gas in which the eccentricities are strongly damped by planet-disk interactions (e.g., Tanaka & Ward 2004), the protoplanets’ orbits are stable. However, if the number of resonant protoplanets exceeds a critical value, the systems can become unstable after disk gas depletion (Matsumoto et al. 2012). The following orbit crossing and giant impacts result in off-resonant multiple super-Earth systems (Ogihara & Ida 2009), which could be consistent with the off-resonant [*Kepler*]{} systems.
The observed orbital eccentricities and inclinations constrain the formation model as well as semimajor axis distributions. Eccentricities are estimated by radial velocity measurements, while mutual inclinations are constrained in multiple systems by transit detection. In model 1, the planetary orbits should be almost coplanar and circular. Higher eccentricities and inclinations are expected in models 2 and 3. In this paper, we will discuss the latter model in comparison with the observation, because model 1 has a difficulty of runaway gas accretion and we will show that the eccentricities and inclinations in the latter models are not actually high.
While some gaseous giant planets have eccentricities as large as 0.9, super-Earths and Neptune-type planets generally have smaller eccentricities than gas giants (Mayor et al. 2011). Scattering between similar-sized planets can excite their velocity dispersion up to their surface escape velocities ($v_{\rm esc}$) during their assemblage stages in a gas free conditions (e.g., Safronov 1969; Aarseth et al., 1993; Kokubo & Ida 2002). If the velocity dispersion exceeds $v_{\rm esc}$, the collision cross section becomes larger than the scattering cross section, so that the excitation of eccentricities is saturated at $v_{\rm esc}$. The corresponding eccentricity is given by $e_{\rm esc} \sim v_{\rm esc}/ v_{\rm K} $ where $v_{\rm K}$ is the Kepler velocity, which we call “escape eccentricity": $$\begin{aligned}
e_{\rm esc} &=& \sqrt{\frac{2(M_k+M_l)}{M_*} \frac{a}{R_k+R_l} } \nonumber\\
&\simeq& 0.19 \left(\frac{M_k+M_l}{10M_{\oplus}} \right)^{1/3} \left( \frac{\rho}{3\ {\rm g cm^{-3}}} \right)^{1/6}\left( \frac{a}{0.1\ \rm AU} \right)^{1/2} \left( \frac{M_*}{M_{\odot} }\right)^{-1/2},
\label{eq:e_esc}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_*$ is the mass of the central star, $M_{\odot}$ is the solar mass, $M_k$ and $M_l$ are masses of protoplanets, $M_{\oplus}$ is the Earth mass, $R_k$ and $R_l$ are physical radii of protoplanets, $\rho$ is the material density of protoplanets, and $a$ is the semimajor axis of protoplanets (Kokubo & Ida 2002).
However, most of observed super-Earths have smaller eccentricities than their escape eccentricities. In Figure \[fig:Me\_e\_esc\_ob\], we show observed eccentricities of planets observed by RV method scaled by their escape eccentricities, where we omit planets inside of 0.1 AU because their eccentricities can be damped by tidal interactions with their host stars (Goldreich & Soter 1966). Since planetary radius is needed to estimate $e_{\rm esc}$ (RV observations give only planetary minimum mass), we assume a mass-radius relationship for planets whose densities are not known. Figure \[fig:Me\_e\_esc\_ob\] shows $e/e_{\rm esc}$ of observed 22 planets as a function of planetary mass. Since the mass-radius relation has large uncertainty, we tested three models. In panel (a), densities are given by 3 g/cm$^3$, independent on planetary mass. This is equivalent to the mass($M_{\rm p}$)-radius($R_{\rm p}$) relation, $M_{\rm p} /M_{\oplus}= 0.54 (R_{\rm p}/R_{\oplus})^3$, where $R_{\oplus}$ is the Earth radius. This simple model is often used in N-body simulations for rocky planetesimals or protoplanets (e.g., Kokubo et al., 2006). This panel shows that super-Earths have smaller eccentricities than their escape eccentricities. However, it is observationally suggested that larger super-Earths tend to have lower bulk densities. Lissauer et al. (2011) derived an empirical mass-radius relation as $M_{\rm p}/M_{\oplus}=(R_{\rm p}/R_{\oplus})^{2.06}$ by fitting the planet in the solar system. With this mass-radius relation, the density of $30M_{\oplus}$ planet is 1.2 g/cm$^3$. In panel (b), this relation is used. Even with different mass-radius relations, the $e/e_{\rm esc}$ distribution in panel (b) is similar to that in panel (a). Since the escape eccentricity is proportional to $\rho^{1/6}$, the different density does not significantly affect the result. From the lower density of observed larger exoplanets, Wu & Lithwick (2013) and Weiss & Marcy (2014) derived mass-radius relations with stronger density-dependence on mass. Wu & Lithwick (2013) derived $M_{\rm p}/M_{\oplus}=3(R_{\rm p}/R_{\oplus})$ for $1.6\leq R_{\rm p}/R_{\oplus}<7$ planets (Weiss & Marcy (2014) derived a similar relation). This model is adopted in panel (c). Although 4 planets have $e>e_{\rm esc}$, they can be $e < e_{\rm esc}$ within the error bars. Furthermore, all of them have $M_{\rm p}\geq 18M_{\oplus}$ and their densities are estimated to be $\rho\lesssim0.4$ g/cm$^3$, which may be lower-estimated. Thereby, We conclude that the eccentricities of super-Earths are $e<e_{\rm esc}$ . This means that super-Earths were formed through [*in situ*]{} coalescence followed by some eccentricity damping or not formed through the [*in situ*]{} coalescence.
Planetesimal accretion near 1 AU has been extensively studied. Planetesimals grow through runaway growth in early stage (e.g., Wetherill & Stewart 1989; Kokubo & Ida 1996) and the oligarchic growth follows (e.g., Kokubo & Ida 1998). In these stages, protoplanets grow up, accreting surrounding planetesimals crossing their orbits from various directions. Planetesimals prevent protoplanets from orbital crossings between protoplanets thanks to the dynamical friction. This process is referred to as the orbital repulsion (Kokubo & Ida 1995). After most protoplanets accrete planetesimals in their feeding zones, the dynamical friction becomes no more available. After disk gas is depleted, the planet-disk interaction is not available for the eccentricity damping as well. Then, orbital instability occurs. This stage is called as the giant impact stage. The accretions of protoplanets in the giant impact stage are investigated in several papers (e.g., Chambers & Wetherill 1998; Agnor et al., 1999; Raymond et al., 2004; Kokubo et al. 2006). They are successful in reproducing terrestrial planets in the solar system in some aspects, such that the Earth and Venus mass planets are formed around 1 AU, if the range of initial semimajor axes of protoplanets is relatively restricted (Hansen 2009).
The eccentricities of the formed Earth-mass planets are usually $e\simeq 0.1$ (Kokubo et al., 2006). While they are larger than the current free eccentricities of Venus and the Earth $\sim 0.02-0.03$, they are 3 times smaller than $e_{\rm esc}$. Although some external damping mechanisms, such as dynamical friction from residual planetesimals (O’Brien et al. 2006) or planet-disk interaction (dynamical friction from disk gas; Kominami & Ida 2004) need to be taken into account to reproduce the current eccentricities of Venus and the Earth, the low eccentricities of observed super-Earths can be potentially explained by the accretion through the giant impacts in gas-free environment. We will make clear why eccentricities of formed planets become smaller than $e_{\rm esc}$.
For transit of multiple planets at $a < a_{\rm out}$ to be detected, mutual inclinations must be within $2.6 (R_*/R_{\odot}) (a/0.1\ {\rm AU})^{-1}$ degree. Fabrycky et al. (2014) suggested that the typical mutual inclination of multiple super-Earths in [*Kepler*]{} candidates lies firmly in the range $i=1.0-2.2$ degree. On the other hand, numerical simulations show that close scattering between planetesimals realize $e\sim 2i$ (e.g., Ida & Makino 1992; Shiidsuka & Ida 1999). For $e\sim e_{\rm esc}$, $i\sim i_{\rm esc} \sim e_{\rm esc}/2$, which is 5.4 degree for a $10M_{\oplus}$ super-Earth at 0.1AU. This is larger than the mutual inclinations of [*Kepler*]{} systems. However, N-body simulations show that Earth mass planets formed around 1 AU normally have $i\simeq 3$ degree (e.g., Kokubo et al. 2006), while $i_{\rm esc}\sim 8.6$ degree. This result suggests that small inclinations of the [*Kepler*]{} systems can be realized by the [*in situ*]{} accretion in gas-free environment.
In this paper, we study how the final velocity dispersion becomes smaller than the escape velocity to account for the small eccentricities of observed super-Earths through $N$-body simulations of [*in situ*]{} accretion of planets in giant impact phase near the central star and analytical arguments. In Section \[sect:model\_II\], we outline the numerical methods and initial conditions of protoplanets. Our results of $N$-body simulations are presented in Section \[sect:results\_II\]. From 35 simulations in section \[sect:N\_II\], we find the eccentricity and inclination of the largest planets are typically much smaller than the escape velocity. Because planetesimals and planet-disk interaction are not included in the simulation, the low eccentricities and inclinations are not due to dynamical friction. In section \[sect:col\_3\], we find collisions in the giant impact stage tend to occur when the angles between pericenters are around 180 degree and they are responsible for the low eccentricities and inclinations. We summarize the results in Section \[sect:sum\].
NUMERICAL MODEL {#sect:model_II}
===============
We perform $N$-body simulations of the planet accretion starting from protoplanets without small planetesimals. Orbital evolution of protoplanets is obtained by the numerical integration of $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^2 \textrm{\boldmath $r$}_i}{dt^2} = -{\rm G}M_{*}\frac{\textrm{\boldmath $r$}_i}{r_i^3} - \sum_{ j \neq i} {\rm G} M_{j} \frac{\textrm{\boldmath $r$}_{ ij} }{r_{ ij}^3} - \sum_j {\rm G} M_{j} \frac{\textrm{\boldmath $r$}_j}{r_j^3},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\rm G}$ is the gravitational constant, $ \textrm{\boldmath $r$}_i$ are the coordinate of the $i$-th protoplanets numbered from the innermost, and $ \textrm{\boldmath $r$}_{ij}$ is the relative distance of the planets $i$ and $j$. In our calculations, the central star has a solar mass. The numerical scheme is the fourth-order Hermite scheme. We assume perfect accretion, i.e., planets always accrete without bouncing nor fragmenting, and the total momentum is conserved at a collision. Every time a collision is taken place, we record the orbital elements and masses of protoplanets before and after the collision.
We perform 2 sets of simulations: $5-16$ non-equal-mass protoplanets (which is hereafter referred to as “$N$-body set") and three equal-mass protoplanets (“three-planet set"). In a standard case (case A; 20 runs) of the $N$-body set, we distribute protoplanets in a range from $0.05$ AU ($=a_1$) to 0.29 AU. The number of the planets is $N=16$. Their total mass is $M_{\rm tot}=17.3M_{\oplus}$. Individual masses are given by $$\begin{aligned}
M \simeq 0.9 \left( \frac{\Sigma_{\rm 1}}{100\ {\rm g cm^{-2}}} \right)^{3/2} \left( \frac{a}{\rm 0.1\ AU} \right)^{3/4} M_{\oplus},\end{aligned}$$ with $\Sigma_{\rm 1}=100 \ {\rm g cm^{-2}}$. Although these protoplanets may have migrated from outer regions, we used a formula for isolation masses in [*in situ*]{} oligarchic growth (Kokubo & Ida 2002). Orbital separations ($b$) are $10r_{\rm H}$ where $r_{\rm H}$ is the Hill radius. The initial individual masses do not affect the results as long as $b\sim 10r_{\rm H}$. We also performed similar simulations with different $\Sigma_1$ and $N$ (accordingly, $M_{\rm tot}$ is also different) with the same $b$: case B, C, and D (5 runs for each set). Planetary physical radii are calculated using a material density of $\rho=3\ {\rm g cm^{-3}}$. The initial eccentricities and inclinations of protoplanets are given by the Rayleigh distribution. The dispersions of eccentricity and inclination are $\langle e^2 \rangle^{1/2}=3\times10^{-2}(\Sigma_1/100\ {\rm gcm^{-2}})^{1/2}$ and $\langle i^2 \rangle^{1/2}=6\times10^{-4}(\Sigma_1/100\ {\rm gcm^{-2}})^{1/2}$ radian. The initial conditions are summarized in Table \[table:cases\_N\]. The simulations follow the evolution of protoplanet systems for $10^8$ Kepler time of the innermost planet. In some simulations, we calculate $3\times 10^8$ Kepler time and confirm that the resultant planet are stable.
In the next set of simulations, we perform many runs using equal-mass three-planets for statistical surveys. These simple-settings enable us to control planetary masses and semimajor axes of colliding bodies. In the three-planet cases, we give the semimajor axes of middle planets ($a_2$). Inner planets and outer planets are set at $a_{1, 3} = a_2 \pm \tilde{b}r_{\rm H}$. The Hill radius is given by $r_{\rm H}=(2M_{\rm p}/3M_*)^{1/3}a_2 \simeq 1.26\times10^{-3}(M_{\rm p}/M_{\oplus})^{1/3} (a_2/{\rm 0.1\ AU})$ AU. The planetary radius ($R_{\rm p}$), planetary mass $(M_{\rm p})$, the semimajor axis of the middle planet ($a_2$), the orbital separations normalized by the Hill radius ($\tilde{b}$), and the initial eccentricities ($e_{\rm ini}$) are free parameters. The orbits of planets are coplanar. We perform 11 cases in total, and we calculate 100 runs in each case changing initial orbital angles of the protoplanets randomly. The initial conditions are summarized in Table \[table:cases\_3\]. We also calculate systems composed by non-zero inclination planets ($a_2i_{\rm ini}\leq2r_{\rm H}$), and confirm that collisions between inclined planets show the same tendency of collisions between planets in coplanar orbits, although the results in non-coplanar cases are not presented in this paper.
RESULTS {#sect:results_II}
=======
We first present the results of the $N$-body set ($N=5-16$). We focus on the eccentricities and longitudes of pericenter before and after collisions to investigate eccentricity evolution through collisions. Next, we show the results of the three-planet set, to study the dependences of eccentricity evolution on initial conditions. Through these calculations, we explain intrinsic dynamics to cause the efficient collisional damping for the systems starting from moderately separated orbits.
Results of $N$-body Set {#sect:N_II}
-----------------------
The typical orbital evolution is shown in the left penal of Figure \[fig:evolution\_example\]. This figure shows time evolution of semimajor axes, pericenters, and apocenters of planets for $1.0\times 10^5$ yr. In this calculation, six planets are finally formed. They have final masses between $1.3 M_{\oplus}$ and $4.5 M_{\oplus}$. Their escape eccentricities are $e_{\rm esc}= 0.079$ - 0.23 (equation (\[eq:e\_esc\])). The final eccentricities of planets are between 0.015 and 0.047, which are much smaller than $e_{\rm esc}$. The $\langle e \rangle / e_{\rm esc}$ of the largest, the second largest, and other planets in case A, B, C and D are summarized in Table \[table:results\_N\_1\_2\]. In all cases, $\langle e \rangle / e_{\rm esc}$ is less than unity. In particular, for the largest bodies, $\langle e \rangle / e_{\rm esc}$ is only 0.1-0.2 except case D in which $M_{\rm tot}$ is extremely small ($\sim0.15M_{\oplus}$).
These $e/e_{\rm esc}<1$ features are caused only by collisions. The middle panel of Figure \[fig:evolution\_example\] is the closeup of the eccentricity evolution of protoplanets at a collision. The fourth innermost planet with $2.1M_{\oplus}$ and the fifth one with $1.2M_{\oplus}$ collide at $t\simeq 4.6\times 10^4$ yr. The eccentricities of the inner and outer planets are 0.066 and 0.10 just before the collision, which are comparable to $e_{\rm esc}\sim 0.1$. However, the eccentricity of the merged body is 0.012 just after the collision, which is an order of magnitude smaller than $e_{\rm esc}$.
We show the orbits of two planets just before the collision in the right panel of Figure \[fig:evolution\_example\]. The locations of the collision and their pericenters at the collision are shown by filled circles and crosses, respectively. The azimuthal velocity at the apocenter of the inner planet is given by $\sqrt{GM_* (1-e_1)/a_1(1+e_1)} \simeq v_{\rm K} (1-e_1)$, where $v_{\rm K} $ is the Keplerian velocity at the collision location, while that at the pericenter of the outer planet is $v_{\rm K} (1+e_2)$. Since they have similar masses and eccentricities, the velocity of the merged body should be $\sim v_{\rm K}$ due to conservation of total momentum, which means that the orbit of the merged body is nearly circular. If the orbital separation is comparable to radial excursion due to the eccentricities, collisions occur only when the apocenter of the inner planet meets the pericenter of the outer planet (if their pericenters are aligned, their orbits never cross). For such orbital separation, the collisional damping for eccentricity is always very efficient. If the orbits of protoplanets are nearly circular and well separated, the eccentricities are excited only by secular perturbations. The eccentricities are secularly increased until the apocenter distance of the inner planet approaches the pericenter distance of the outer planet and a collision between them occurs.
More detailed analysis can be done using Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector. The mass-weighted total Lenz vector is conserved during scattering and even collisions under Hill’s approximation (Nakazawa & Ida 1988). According to the conservation, when two planets $k$ and $l$ collide and are merged into a planet $kl$, the eccentricity of the merged body ($e_{kl}$) is written as $$\begin{aligned}
(M_k+M_l)^2 e_{kl}^2 = M_k^2 e_k^2 + M_l^2 e_l^2 + 2 M_k M_l e_k e_l \cos{(\varpi_k-\varpi_l)},
\label{eq:LRL}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varpi$ are longitudes of pericenters of the bodies. When longitudes of pericenters of bodies are randomly distributed, the average of $e_{kl}^2$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
(M_k+M_l)^2 e_{kl}^2 = M_k^2 e_k^2 + M_l^2 e_l^2.
\label{eq:Ohtsuki1992}\end{aligned}$$ This equation means that the eccentricity of the merged body is comparable with those of the colliding bodies; in the case of $M_k=M_l$ and $e_k=e_l$, $e_{kl}=e_k/\sqrt{2}$. The approximation of random $\varpi$ is valid if we consider a radially packed distribution of bodies. The validity of equation (\[eq:Ohtsuki1992\]) is confirmed by the $N$-body simulations for random velocity evolution of packed planetesimals (Ohtsuki 1992).
However, as already mentioned, in the case of giant impacts of protoplanets that have initially well separated orbits, $\Delta \varpi = \varpi_k-\varpi_l$ may be $\sim 180$ degree. In this case, equation (\[eq:LRL\]) implies $$\begin{aligned}
(M_k+M_l)^2 e_{kl}^2 \sim M_k^2 e_k^2 + M_l^2 e_l^2 - 2 M_k M_l e_k e_l.
\label{eq:LRL_protoplanets}\end{aligned}$$ When $M_k\sim M_l$, $e_{kl}^2\sim (e_k-e_l)^2/4$, which is much smaller than $e_{kl}^2\sim (e_k^2+e_l^2)/4$ given by equation (\[eq:Ohtsuki1992\]).
For the collision in Figure \[fig:evolution\_example\], the inner planet has $M_k=2.1M_{\oplus}$ and $e_k = 0.066$ and the outer planet has $M_l=1.2M_{\oplus}$ and $e_l = 0.10$. We found $\Delta \varpi=171$ degree. If we use equation (\[eq:Ohtsuki1992\]), the estimated value of $e_{kl}$ is $\sim 0.056$. However, it is $\sim 0.0080$ with equation (\[eq:LRL\]), which is much more consistent with the orbital integration.
The collisions like the right panel of Figure \[fig:evolution\_example\] occur commonly between separated protoplanets. In case A, there are 203 collisions in 20 runs. The panel A of Figure \[fig:sort\_varpi\_diff\_N\] shows the distribution of $\Delta \varpi$ obtained in the 203 collisions. It clearly shows that collisions tend to occur around $\Delta \varpi=180$ degree. Despite the difference in the number, masses, semimajor axes of protoplanets, similar peaks at $\Delta \varpi=180$ degree are found in the other cases. The numbers of collisions are 13 in case B, 24 in case C, and 21 in case D. The mean values and variances of $\Delta \varpi$ are $180\pm53$ degree in case A, $177\pm30$ degree in case B, $178\pm63$ degree in case C, and $187\pm55$ degree in case D.
This means that the eccentricity of merged protoplanets tend to be much smaller than the estimation in equation (\[eq:Ohtsuki1992\]). This efficient eccentricity damping was mentioned in Raymond et al. (2006), although they did not analyzed the concentration of $\Delta \varpi$ around 180 degree.
If orbit crossing still continues, the damped eccentricity is excited again to $\sim e_{\rm esc}$. However, because timescales ($\tau_{\rm cross}$) for orbital instability to start sensitively depend on the initial orbital separations (e.g., Chambers et al. 1996), $\tau_{\rm cross}$ of a system can jump up by several orders of magnitude at a collisional merging (see Figure 3 in Ida & Lin 2010). After that, the system becomes stable during main-sequence lifetime of the host stars and the damped eccentricities are remained.
We find inclinations are also significantly damped through collisions. Figure \[fig:ik\_ikl\_ALL\] shows the inclinations just before and after collisions. The velocity component normal to the invariant plane depends on the ascending node. When a collision occurs at the ascending node and descending node of colliding bodies, the velocity component normal to the invariant plane of the merged body is much smaller than those of colliding bodies.
The largest planets formed in case A have the averaged inclination of $\langle i\rangle=1.2\pm1.8$ degree. Since the largest planets have a mean mass $\sim 4.4M_{\oplus}$ and semimajor axis $\sim0.2$ AU (Table \[table:results\_N\_1\_2\]), $i_{\rm esc}\sim e_{\rm esc}/2\simeq 6$ degree. The inclinations of the largest planets are considerably smaller than $i_{\rm esc}$. In other $N$-body set cases, formed planets also have smaller inclinations than $i_{\rm esc}$. The inclinations of the largest bodies are $\langle i \rangle=4.7\pm1.9$ degree, $1.9\pm3.0$ degree, and $0.70\pm0.23$ degree in case B, case C, and case D, respectively. Mutual inclinations in case A and C agree with those of [*Kepler*]{} planets, $i=1.0-2.2$ degree (Fabrycky et al. 2014). Because of the inclination damping, the final planetary systems tend to be coplanar. The means and variances of the typical mutual inclinations among all planets in a system are $\langle i_{\rm rel} \rangle=1.3\pm1.7$ degree, $4.4\pm7.0$ degree, $0.78\pm1.3$ degree, and $6.8\times10^{-3}\pm8.6\times10^{-3}$ degree in case A, case B, case C, and case D. Because of larger semimajor axes of planets in case B, $i_{\rm esc}$ is larger. Accordingly, $\langle i \rangle$ of the largest planets and $\langle i_{\rm rel} \rangle$ are larger in case B than those in the other cases, although $\langle i \rangle$ and $\langle i_{\rm rel} \rangle$ are still $< i_{\rm esc}$. In general, angular momentum deficits (AMDs) are increased from initial values by scattering. However, the increase is not so significant except in case B (Figure \[fig:amd\_io\_caseN\]).
In case A, C, and D, protoplanets tend to collide with the neighboring protoplanets rather than undergo global orbital instability. In the proximity of their host stars, the ratio of Hill radii to physical radii is small, so that scatterings are less dominated over collisions than in outer regions. In other words, $e_{\rm esc}$ and $i_{\rm esc}$ are smaller for smaller semimajor axis. Furthermore, $e$ and $i$ are significantly smaller than $e_{\rm esc}$ and $i_{\rm esc}$. Therefore, $e$ and $i$ can be very small through collisional damping in close-in regions. Our results are not affected by the assumption of perfect accretion. It was shown that the eccentricities in hybrid N-body and SPH simulations allowing collisional fragmentation by Kokubo & Genda (2010) do not differ from those obtained in perfect accretion simulations.
Results of Three-Planet Set {#sect:col_3}
---------------------------
The very effective eccentricity damping comes from the concentration of $\Delta \varpi$ on $180$ degree in collisions. Let $\epsilon_{\varpi}=|\Delta \varpi-\pi|$. Assuming $\epsilon_{\varpi}\ll1$, equation (\[eq:LRL\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
(M_k+M_l)^2 e_{kl}^2 = (M_k e_k - M_l e_l)^2 + M_k M_l e_k e_l \epsilon_{\varpi}^2,
\label{eq:LRL_epsilon}\end{aligned}$$ when $M_k=M_l$ and $e_k=e_l\sim e_{\rm esc}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{e_{kl} }{e_{\rm esc} } \sim \frac{ \epsilon_{\varpi} }{2} \sim \frac{ \epsilon_{\varpi} }{115\ {\rm degree}},
\label{eq:LRL_epsilon_2}\end{aligned}$$ If $\epsilon_{\varpi} \lesssim$ 10 degree, the eccentricity of the merged body is an order of magnitude smaller than $e_{\rm esc}$.
In this section, we investigate how the concentration occurs through simpler three-planet simulations. We change planetary radii, planetary masses, initial semimajor axes of the middle planets, initial orbital separations, and initial eccentricities. The initial conditions are summarized in Table \[table:cases\_3\]. The general features of results of three-planet calculations are basically similar to those of $N$-body set in the previous section. The $\Delta \varpi$ distributions are peaked at $180$ degree, $e_{kl}$ is significantly smaller than $e_{\rm esc}$, and the estimated eccentricities in equation (\[eq:LRL\]) agree with $e_{kl}$.
With initial spacing we use, the system in the three-planet set readily becomes unstable and orbit crossing starts. In this case, the system enters stable state after a first collision and the eccentricity damped at the collision is not usually excited any more. Thereby, $\Delta \varpi$, the degree of eccentricity damping and their dependences on initial conditions are better described than in $N$-body set.
Case 3A is the standard case of three-planet calculations. In this case, the second innermost planet is at 0.1 AU. All planets have the same masses ($1M_{\oplus}$), radii ($1R_{\oplus}$), and initially circular orbits ($e=0$). The initial orbital separations are given as $4r_{\rm H}$, which is equal to $5.04\times10^{-3}$ AU. The distribution of differences between pericenters of colliding bodies ($\Delta \varpi$) in 100 simulations is shown in Figure \[fig:3A\]. The $\Delta \varpi$ distribution in case 3A is peaked at $180$ degree, in the same manner as case A (Figure \[fig:sort\_varpi\_diff\_N\]). The variance of the $\Delta \varpi$ distribution ($\sigma_{\varpi}$) is 17 degree.
Typical evolution of eccentricities and arguments of pericenters in case 3A is as follows. Eccentricities of planets increase by mutual scatterings, and collisions occur not long after their eccentricities exceed the eccentricities required for orbital crossing ($e_{\rm cross}= da/2a$). When the orbits of two planets first become able to collide with each other, their orbits should have $e\sim e_{\rm cross}$. However, the planets usually undergo close encounters and their $e$ are excited from $e_{\rm cross}$ before an actual collision. In case 3A, the mean of the larger eccentricity between colliding planets before the collision is 0.094, which is larger than $e_{\rm cross}$($\simeq 0.028$), and comparable to $e_{\rm esc}$($\simeq 0.11$). The detailed eccentricity evolution shows that colliding planets, which have typically $e=0.041\simeq 1.5e_{\rm cross}$ are pumped up to above eccentricity just before the collision. The mean eccentricity after the collision is reduced to 0.015. Substituting $\Delta \varpi=180\pm 17$ degree, $M_k=M_l$, and $e_k\sim e_l$ into equation (\[eq:LRL\]), we get $e_{kl}/e_{k}=0.15$, which agrees well with the numerical value $0.015/0.094=0.16$.
In the following, we discuss $\Delta \varpi$ distribution using the pericenter dispersion $\sigma_{\varpi}$. First, we analytically estimate $\sigma_{\varpi}$. If eccentricities secularly increase from zero, the collision between two planets becomes possible when the apocenter of the inner planet ($Q_1$) contacts with a pericenter of the outer planet ($q_2$) with $\Delta \varpi=180$ degree. In the following analysis, we neglect eccentricity excitation from $e_{\rm esc}$ for simplicity. Although the assumption is not relevant enough, the analytical discussion neglecting the excitation well reproduces the numerical results.
If we take into account physical radii of planets, the collisional point can rotate by an angle $\epsilon_{\varpi}$ from the pericenter of the outer planet (Figure \[fig:collidable\_angle\]). In this case, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{a_2(1-e_2^2)}{1+e_2 \cos \epsilon_{\varpi}}-R_2 = a_1(1+e_1)+R_1,\end{aligned}$$ where $R_1$ and $R_2$ are planetary physical radii of the inner and outer planets, respectively, and the true anomaly of the outer planet is equal to $\epsilon_{\varpi}$. Under the assumption that planets collide at $Q_1$, the angle $\epsilon_{\varpi}+ \Delta \varpi=\pi$. When we assume $Q_1 \simeq q_2 \gg R_{\rm tot}=R_1+R_2$, $$\begin{aligned}
e_2 \cos \epsilon_{\varpi}= e_2-\frac{1+e_2}{1-e_2}\frac{R_{\rm tot}}{a_2}.
\label{eq:condition_col}\end{aligned}$$ Assuming $e_2=e \ll 1$, $\epsilon_{\varpi} (\ll1$ radian) is $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{\varpi} \simeq \sqrt{\frac{2R_{\rm tot}}{ea_2}}.
\label{eq:eps_Rea}\end{aligned}$$ With $e \simeq e_{\rm cross}= da/2a_2={\tilde b} r_{\rm H}/2a_2$, equation (\[eq:eps\_Rea\]) reads as $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{\varpi} &\sim& 2
\sqrt{\frac{2R_{\rm p}}{{\tilde b}r_{\rm H}}} \\
&=& 15 \left( \frac{R_{\rm p}}{R_{\oplus}}\right)^{1/2}
\left( \frac{M_{\rm p}}{M_{\oplus}}\right)^{-1/6}
\left( \frac{\tilde{b}}{4} \right)^{-1/2} \left( \frac{M_{*}}{M_{\odot}}\right)^{1/6}
\left( \frac{a}{0.1\ {\rm AU}} \right)^{-1/2} \ {\rm [degree]}.
\label{eq:epsomega}\end{aligned}$$ The estimation of $\epsilon_{\varpi}$ agrees well with $\sigma_{\varpi}$ in case 3A ($\sigma_{\varpi}$=17 degree). For collisions with $e>e_{\rm cross}$, simulated $\sigma_{\varpi}$ is larger than $\epsilon_{\varpi}$ given by equation (\[eq:epsomega\]), resulting in inefficient eccentricity damping. In the case of a dense orbital distribution of planetesimals, $\Delta \varpi$ is uniformly distributed without any concentration at $\pi$. Then, the collisional damping is not effective and the eccentricities of merged bodies are similar to those during orbit crossing.
To check the validity of equation (\[eq:epsomega\]), we perform additional runs. Figure \[fig:sort\_varpi\_diff\_R\] shows the results of different $R_{\rm p}$. We found $\sigma_{\varpi}=$17, 24, and 39 degree in case 3A ($R_{\rm p}=R_{\oplus}$), case 3B ($R_{\rm p}=10^{1/2}R_{\oplus}$), and case 3C ($R_{\rm p}=10R_{\oplus}$), respectively. They agree with corresponding estimations, $\epsilon_{\varpi} \sim 15$, 27, and 47 degree. We also perform calculations with changing planetary radii and masses in case 3D and case 3E, keeping $R_{\rm p}/da$ constant, which means that $\epsilon_{\varpi}$ is constant (Figure \[fig:sort\_MR\]). The resultant $\sigma_{\varpi}$ is $16-18$ degree in all cases, while $R_{\rm p}$ changes a factor of 10. These results also indicate that $M_{\rm p}$ affects $\sigma_{\varpi}$ through $da={\tilde b}r_{\rm H}$, and $\sigma_{\varpi}$ is proportional to $M_{\rm p}^{-1/6}$.
Next, we change $da$ by changing $a_2$ and $b$ with fixed $M_{\rm p}$. The dependence on $a_2$ is shown in Figure \[fig:sort\_a\]. For $a_2=0.1^{3/2}$ AU (case 3F), 1 AU (case 3A) and $0.1^{1/2}$ AU (case 3G), $\sigma_{\varpi}$ obtained by simulations are 22, 18 and 17 degree. The estimated $\epsilon_{\varpi}$ by equation (\[eq:epsomega\]) is not relevant enough in case 3G, because eccentricities are more highly pumped up before collisions. Figure \[fig:sort\_b\] shows the results with ${\tilde b}=4$ (case 3A), 5 (case 3H) and 6 (case 3I). Although the timescale for orbital instability to start is very different (e.g., Chambers et al. 1996), $\sigma_{\varpi}$ are similar: 17 degree in case 3A (${\tilde b}=4$), 16 degree in case 3H (${\tilde b}=5$), 21 degree in case 3I (${\tilde b}=6$), which are consistent with $\epsilon_{\varpi}\sim 15({\tilde b}/4)^{-1/2}$ degree (equation (\[eq:epsomega\])). These results show that concentrations of $\Delta \varpi$ at $\pi$ with $\sigma_{\varpi}\simeq 20$ degree is quite common as long as close-in regions ($\lesssim0.3$ AU) are considered.
The above results are applied to the systems in which mean orbital separations are larger than $2\sqrt{3}r_{\rm H}$ and orbital crossing doe not occur until eccentricities are gradually increased by distant perturbation. In a system of equal-mass bodies with surface density $\Sigma$ at $a$, the mean orbital separation is $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{b} \simeq 14\left(\frac{M}{M_{\oplus}}\right)^{2/3} \left(\frac{\Sigma}{3\times10^3\ {\rm gcm^{-2}} }\right)^{-1}
\left(\frac{a}{\rm 0.1\ AU}\right)^{-2}.\end{aligned}$$ If we consider early stages in which the systems consist of plenty of small planetesimals, ${\tilde b}$ is far smaller than $2\sqrt{3}$. Then, the concentration of $\Delta \varpi$ does not occur and the collisional damping should be weak. If $e$ is set such that the radial excursions are larger than orbital separations ($ea_2>{\tilde b}r_{\rm H}$), a situation is similar. We set $ea_2>{\tilde b}r_{\rm H}$ in case 3K. As expected, we obtain a relatively large value of $\sigma_{\varpi}$ (=56 degree) in this case, because collisions occur regardless of the directions of pericenters and $\Delta \varpi$ is no longer concentrated (Figure \[fig:sort\_varpi\_diff\_e\]).
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION {#sect:sum}
======================
We have investigated the eccentricity damping through the giant impacts of the protoplanets in the proximity of the host stars. First, we performed 20 runs of $N$-body simulations of protoplanets starting from 16 bodies of about Earth-mass at $0.05-0.29$ AU with orbital separation of 10 Hill radii (“$N$-body set"). We also performed simulations of runs with more and less massive bodies and runs at larger semimajor axes. We have confirmed that eccentricities of formed planets are significantly lower than the eccentricity corresponding to velocity dispersion of their surface escape velocity (“escape" eccentricities $e_{\rm esc}$; see Section \[sect:N\_II\]). For an Earth-mass body at 0.1AU, $e_{\rm esc}\sim0.1$. During orbital crossing, eccentricities increase due to the mutual scatterings among protoplanets and reaches $\sim e_{\rm esc}$. However, the eccentricities are damped by an order of magnitude at a collision. When the orbits of the protoplanets are relatively separated and their eccentricities are secularly increased, the differences between the pericenters of colliding planets tend to be $\Delta \varpi\sim 180$ degree, i.e., the collisions occur at the apocenter of the inner body and the pericenter of the outer body. Since the azimuthal velocity of the inner body is slower than the local Keplerian velocity and that of the outer body is faster and the two bodies have similar masses, the velocity of the merged body should be close to the local Keplerian velocity, which means that the orbit of the merged body is nearly circular. We also described more detailed discussion on why the collision damping is so efficient, using conservation of Lenz vector in Hill’s approximation.
The damped eccentricities are again excited up to $\sim e_{\rm esc}$ if orbital crossing continues. However, after some merging, the planets become isolated from one another and the planets are remained in stable orbits with $e\ll e_{\rm esc}$. We found that the inclinations of protoplanets are also damped through collisions. The mutual inclinations among formed planets in the massive systems in close-in regions (case A and C) are $\langle i \rangle=1.3\pm1.7$ degree in case A and $\langle i \rangle=0.78\pm1.3$ degree in case C, respectively, which agree with those of observed super-Earths, $i=1.0-2.2$ degree (Fabrycky et al. 2014).
Next, we performed three-planet calculations (“Three-planet set"). With these simple systems, more detailed analysis on the collision damping can be done. The eccentricity of a merged body is given approximately by $e\sim (\epsilon_{\varpi}/115\ {\rm degree})e_{\rm esc}$ where $\epsilon_{\varpi}$ is the width of the concentration of $\Delta \varpi$ around 180 degree (equation (\[eq:LRL\_epsilon\_2\])). If the concentration is high ($\epsilon_{\varpi}$ is small), $e$ can be much smaller than $e_{\rm esc}$. Through the analytical argument and the results of the three-planet calculations, we found that $\epsilon_{\varpi}$ is approximated as $\epsilon_{\varpi}\sim 2(2R_{\rm p}/da)^{1/2}$ where $R_{\rm p}$ is planetary physical radius and $da$ is initial orbital separation. That is, $e\sim 0.13(R_{\rm p}/R_{\oplus})^{1/2}(da/0.05 \ {\rm AU})^{-1/2} e_{\rm esc}$. Note that in runaway and oligarchic stage, the collision damping is weak and $e\sim e_{\rm esc}$, because $da$ is very small and accordingly $\Delta \varpi$ is uniformly distributed.
Volk & Gladman (2015) studied orbital stability of multiple super-Earth systems analogous to the systems discovered by [*Kepler*]{} and found that in some systems, global instability occurred and the collision velocities are larger than $2 v_{\rm esc}$ (the collisions are disruptive), while in our simulations, no global instability occurred and collision velocities are smaller than $1.5 v_{\rm esc}$. Although Volk & Gladman (2015) did not explain the conditions for global instability, initial planetary mass distribution may have caused the difference. In their calculations, the maximum mass ratios among initial planets are generally much larger than ours. If a small-mass body collides with another small-mass one after scattering by a massive planet, the collision velocity can be larger than $v_{\rm esc}$ of the small bodies. While the results of Volk & Gladman (2015) can be applied to some of Kepler systems, our results can be applied to other systems. Detailed investigation of scattering in systems with initially large mass ratios is left for future work.
Figure \[fig:Me\_e\_esc\_calc\]A shows the eccentricities $e$ and masses $M_{\rm p}$ of the formed planets in $N$-body set (cases A and C). Observed data of super-Earths in Figure \[fig:Me\_e\_esc\_ob\] (a) are also plotted for comparison (Figure \[fig:Me\_e\_esc\_calc\]a). We only plot planets at $a > 0.1$ AU, because eccentricities of planets at $a < 0.1$ AU may be damped by tidal dissipation. The eccentricities of the formed super-Earths in our calculations are $e<0.5e_{\rm esc}$ except a few planets. In the observed data, when we adopt $\rho=3$ g/cm$^3$, all planets have $e< e_{\rm esc}$. The data are consistent with our result, although our results show slightly smaller $e$. Even if we use a more realistic mass-radius relation based on the Solar system planets derived by Lissauer et al. (2011), the result is hardly changed. With the mass-radius relation of Wu & Lithwick (2013) that produces lower bulk density, $e > e_{\rm esc}$ for planets with $\gtrsim 20 M_{\oplus}$. However, $\rho \sim 0.4$ g/cm$^3$ for these planets may be too small. Furthermore, the best-fit eccentricities of planets detected with the low signal-to-noise ratio and the small number of observations by RV surveys tend to be larger than the true values (Shen & Turner 2008). Therefore, we conclude that the eccentricities of observed close-in super-Earths are not inconsistent with our results. Note that our results with $\rho=3$ g/cm$^3$ are equivalent to the results with other density and semimajor axis according to a scaling. The dynamical process is scaled by the ratio of the geometrical cross section to the scattering cross section with radius $r_{\rm H}$, which is proportional to $\rho^{-2/3}a^{-2}$. So, our results at $a=0.5$ AU correspond to the case of $\rho=1$ g/cm$^3$ and $a=0.035$ AU. For example, GJ 667C c has $e=0.97e_{\rm esc}$ and $4.2M_{\oplus}$. GJ 667C is a member of a triple stellar system. The eccentricity of GJ 677C c could be affected by GJ 667A and GJ 667B. Therefore, the eccentricities of super-Earths in observed data may be consistent with those obtained in our N-body simulations.
As we described in section 1, three models have been proposed for formation of close-in super-Earths: 1) type I migration of the full-sized planets that have formed in outer regions, 2) [*in situ*]{} accretion of planetesimals that formed there or have migrated from outer regions due to aerodynamical gas drag, and 3) [*in situ*]{} accretion of protoplanets that have migrated from outer regions due to type I migration. As explained in Introduction, none of these can completely explain the presently known super-Earth systems. What we argued in the present paper is that relatively low eccentricity found in [*Kepler*]{} systems is not a negative factor for a formation model of close-in super-Earth systems via giant impacts of protoplanets. With this result, model 3 might look promising. However, more detailed discussions on different aspects are needed to clarify the origin of super-Earth systems discovered by [*Kepler*]{}.
{#section .unnumbered}
We thank David Minton for comments that helped us improve the manuscript. This research was supported by a grant for the Global COE Program, ¡ÉFrom the Earth to ¡ÉEarths¡É¡É, MEXT, Japan and a grant for JSPS (23103005) Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas. Numerical computations were in part carried out on PC cluster at Center for Computational Astrophysics, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.
Aarseth, S. J., Lin, D. N. C., & Palmer, P. L. 1993, , 403, 351
Agnor, C. B., Canup, R. M., & Levison, H. F. 1999, , 142, 219
Chambers, J. E., & Wetherill, G. W. 1998, , 136, 304
Chambers, J. E., Wetherill, G. W., & Boss, A. P. 1996, , 119, 261
Chiang, E., & Laughlin, G. 2013, , 431, 3444
Cossou, C., Raymond, S. N., Hersant, F., & Pierens, A. 2014, , 569, AA56
Cresswell, P., & Nelson, R. P. 2006, , 450, 833
Fabrycky, D. C., Lissauer, J. J., Ragozzine, D., et al. 2014, , 790, 146
Goldreich, P., & Schlichting, H. E. 2014, , 147, 32
Goldreich, P., & Soter, S. 1966, , 5, 375
Hansen, B. M. S. 2009, , 703, 1131
Ida, S., Lin, D. N. C., & Nagasawa, M. 2013, , 775, 42
Ida, S., & Lin, D. N. C. 2010, , 719, 810
Ida, S., & Makino, J. 1992, , 96, 107
Kokubo, E., & Genda, H. 2010, , 714, L21
Kokubo, E., & Ida, S. 1995, , 114, 247
Kokubo, E., & Ida, S. 1996, , 123, 180
Kokubo, E., & Ida, S. 1998, , 131, 171
Kokubo, E., & Ida, S. 2002, , 581, 666
Kokubo, E., Kominami, J., & Ida, S. 2006, , 642, 1131
Kominami, J., & Ida, S. 2002, , 157, 43
Kominami, J., & Ida, S. 2004, , 167, 231
Lissauer, J. J., and 24 colleagues 2011. Architecture and Dynamics of Kepler’s Candidate Multiple Transiting Planet Systems. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 197, 8.
Matsumoto, Y., Nagasawa, M., & Ida, S. 2012, , 221, 624
Mayor, M., Marmier, M., Lovis, C., et al. 2011, arXiv:1109.2497
Nakazawa, K., & Ida, S. 1988, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 96, 167
O’Brien, D. P., Morbidelli, A., & Levison, H. F. 2006, , 184, 39
Ogihara, M., & Ida, S. 2009, , 699, 824
Ohtsuki, K. 1992, , 98, 20
Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2011, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 111, 83
Raymond, S. N., Quinn, T., & Lunine, J. I. 2004, , 168, 1
Raymond, S. N., Quinn, T., & Lunine, J. I. 2006, , 183, 265
Raymond, S. N., Scalo, J., & Meadows, V. S. 2007, , 669, 606
Safronov, V. S. 1969, Evolution of the Protoplanetary Cloud and Formation of the Earth and Planets (Moscow: Nauka)
Shen, Y., & Turner, E. L. 2008, , 685, 553
Shiidsuka, K., & Ida, S. 1999, , 307, 737
Tanaka, H., Takeuchi, T., & Ward, W. R. 2002, , 565, 1257
Tanaka, H., & Ward, W. R. 2004, , 602, 388
Terquem, C., & Papaloizou, J. C. B. 2007, , 654, 1110
Volk, K., & Gladman, B. 2015, , 806, L26
Weiss, L. M., & Marcy, G. W. 2014, , 783, L6
Wetherill, G. W., & Stewart, G. R. 1989, , 77, 330
Wu, Y., & Lithwick, Y. 2013, , 772, 74
![ The orbital configuration of colliding planets is illustrated. The large filled circle is the central star, and the small two filled circles are planets. The two ellipses are the orbits of planets, and a dashed line is connecting the pericenter and apocenter of a planet. The angle between the pericenters is $\Delta \varpi$. Planets collide at the apocenter of the inner planet ($Q_1$), which is $\epsilon_{\varpi}$ rotated by the pericenter of the outer planets ($q_2$). []{data-label="fig:collidable_angle"}](Fig7.eps){width=".5\linewidth"}
[cccccccc]{}
case A & 16 & 100 & 0.05& 17.3 & $3.16\times10^{-2}$ & 0.99 & 20\
case B & 5 & 100 & 0.68& 25.3 & $3.16\times10^{-2}$ & 1.90 & 5\
case C & 8 & 300 & 0.05& 37.2 & $5.48\times10^{-2}$ &1.72 &5\
case D & 8 & 10 & 0.05& 0.148 & $1.00\times10^{-2}$ & 0.31 &5
[ccccccc]{}
case 3A & 1 & 1 & 0.1 & 4 & 0 & $5.04\times10^{-3}$\
case 3B & $10^{1/2}$ & 1 & 0.1 & 4 & 0 & $5.04\times10^{-3}$\
case 3C & 10 & 1 & 0.1 & 4 & 0 & $5.04\times10^{-3}$\
case 3D & $10^{-1/3}$ & 0.1 & 0.1 & 4 & 0 & $2.34\times10^{-3}$\
case 3E & $10^{1/3}$ & 10 & 0.1 & 4 & 0 & $1.09\times10^{-2}$\
case 3F & 1 & 1 & $0.1^{3/2}$ & 4 & 0 & $5.04\times10^{-4}$\
case 3G & 1 & 1 & $0.1^{1/2}$ & 4 & 0 & $1.59\times10^{-3}$\
case 3H & 1 & 1 & 0.1 & 5 & 0 & $6.30\times10^{-3}$\
case 3I & 1 & 1 & 0.1 & 6 & 0 & $7.56\times10^{-3}$\
case 3J & 1 & 1 & 0.1 & 4 & 2.5 & $5.04\times10^{-3}$\
case 3K & 1 & 1 & 0.1 & 4 & 5 & $5.04\times10^{-3}$
[@cccccccccccc]{}
case A & $5.85\pm1.01$ & $4.41\pm0.85$ & $0.20\pm0.05$ &$0.18\pm0.08$ & $3.72\pm0.66$ & $0.17\pm0.06$ & $0.24\pm0.26$ &$0.40\pm0.32$\
case B &$2.20\pm0.40$& $16.7\pm2.8$ & $1.05\pm0.23$ & $0.16\pm0.14$ & $7.10\pm2.4$ & $1.04\pm0.56$ & $0.41\pm0.35$ & $0.33\pm0.0060$\
case C & $3.20\pm0.98$& $17.2\pm3.6$ & $0.11\pm0.03$ & $0.16\pm0.32$ & $11.7\pm3.4$ & $0.11\pm0.05$ & $0.32\pm0.20$ & $0.62\pm 0.53$\
case D & $3.80\pm0.75$& $0.0504\pm0.0092$ & $0.060\pm0.002$ & $0.47\pm0.37$ & $0.0441\pm0.0076$ & $0.057\pm0.003$ &$0.36\pm0.10$ & $0.44\pm 0.23$
[^1]: http://exoplanets.org
[^2]: Note that Chiang & Laughlin (2013) assumed that the feeding zone width is as large as orbital radius itself, while it is usually set to be several to ten Hill radii. So, much larger planetesimal surface density would actually be required than that estimated by Chiang & Laughlin (2013).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: '*Supplementary Materials for*\'
---
Theoretical results: Proofs of Lemma \[main:lem:halipw1\] and Theorem \[main:th:halipw1\] {#proofs}
=========================================================================================
For simplicity of notation, let $G^\dagger = \logit G$. Define a set of score functions generated by a path $\{1+\epsilon h(s,j)\} \beta_{n,s,j}$ for a bounded vector $h$ as $$S_h(G_{n,\lambda_n}) = \frac{d}{dG^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n}} L(
G^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n}) \left\{ \sum_{(s,j)} h(s,j) \beta_{n,s,j} \phi_{s,j}
\right\}.$$ When $L(\cdot)$ is the log-likelihood loss function, $L(G) = A \log \left(\frac{G}{1-G}\right) +\log(1-G)$ Thus, $L(G^\dagger) = A \log G^\dagger +\log(G^\dagger -1)$ and $S_h(G) = (A - G_{n,\lambda_n}) \left\{\sum_{(s,j)} h(s,j)
\beta_{n,s,j} \phi_{s,j} \right\}$. Let $r(h,G_{n,\lambda_n}) = \sum_{(s,j)} h(s,j) \lvert \beta_{n,s,j} \rvert$. For small enough $\epsilon$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{(s,j)} \lvert \{1+\epsilon h(s,j)\} \beta_{n,s,j} \rvert &= \sum_{(s,j)}
\{1 + \epsilon h(s,j)\} \lvert \beta_{n,s,j} \rvert \\
&=\sum_{(s,j)} \lvert \beta_{n,s,j} \rvert + \epsilon r(h,G_{n,\lambda_n}).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, for any $h$ satisfying $r(h,G_{n,\lambda_n})=0$, we have $P_n
S_h(G_{n,\lambda_n}) = 0$. Let $D\{f,G_{n,\lambda_n}\} = f \cdot (A - G_{n,\lambda_n})$, where $f$ is a càdlàg function with a finite sectional variation norm, and let $\tilde{f}$ be an approximation of $f$ using the basis functions that satisfy condition (\[main:eq:basis\]). Then, $D\{\tilde{f}, G_{n,\lambda_n}\} \in
\{S_h(G_{n,\lambda_n}): \lVert h \rVert_{\infty} < \infty \}$. Thus, there exists $h^{\star}$ such that $D(\tilde{f}, G_{n,\lambda_n}) = S_{h^{\star}}
(G_{n,\lambda_n})$; however, for this particular choice of $h^{\star}$, $r(h,G_{n,\lambda_n})$ may not be zero. Now, define $h$ such that $ h(s,j)
= h^{\star}(s,j)$ for $(s,j) \neq (s^{\star}, j^{\star})$; $\tilde{h}
(s^{\star}, j^{\star})$ is defined such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:restr}
\sum_{(s,j) \neq (s^{\star},j^{\star})} h^{\star}(s,j) \lvert
\beta_{n,s,j} \rvert + h(s^{\star}, j^{\star})
\lvert \beta_{n, s^{\star}, j^{\star}} \rvert = 0.\end{aligned}$$ That is, $h$ matches $h^{\star}$ everywhere but for a single point $(s^{\star}, j^{\star})$, where it is forced to take a value such that $r(h,G_{n,\lambda_n})=0$. As a result, for such a choice of $h$, $P_n S_{h}
(G_{n,\lambda_n}) = 0$ by definition. Below, we show that $P_n
S_{h}(G_{n,\lambda_n}) - P_n D\{\tilde{f}(W), G_{n,\lambda_n}\} = o_p(n^{-1/2})$ which then implies that $P_n D\{\tilde{f}(W), G_{n,\lambda_n}\}
= o_p(n^{-1/2})$. We note that the choice of $(s^{\star}, j^{\star})$ is inconsequential. $$\begin{aligned}
P_n S_{h}(G_{n,\lambda_n}) - P_n D\{\tilde{f}, G_{n,\lambda_n}\} &= P_n
S_{h}(G_{n,\lambda_n}) - P_n S_{h^*}(G_{n,\lambda_n}) \\ &=P_n \left\{
\frac{d}{dG^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n}} L( G^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n})
\left[\sum_{(s,j)} \left\{h(s,j) - h^{\star}(s,j)\right\} \beta_{n,s,j}
\phi_{s,j} \right] \right\} \\ &= P_n
\left[\frac{d}{dG^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n}} L( G^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n}) \left\{
h(s^{\star},j^{\star}) - h^{\star}(s^{\star},j^{\star})\right\}
\beta_{n,s^{\star},j^{\star}} \phi_{s^{\star},j^{\star}} \right] \\ & = P_n
\left[\frac{d}{dG^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n}} L( G^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n})
\kappa(s^{\star},j^{\star}) \phi_{s^{\star},j^{\star}} \right]\\ &=
\kappa(s^{\star},j^{\star}) P_n \left[\frac{d}{dG^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n}} L(
G^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n}) \phi_{s^{\star},j^{\star}} \right],\end{aligned}$$ where the third equality follows from equation (\[eq:restr\]) above with $$\kappa(s^{\star},j^{\star}) = -\frac{\sum_{(s,j) \neq (s^{\star},j^{\star})}
h^{\star}(s,j) \lvert \beta_{n,s,j} \rvert }{\lvert
\beta_{n,s^{\star},j^{\star}} \rvert} \beta_{n,s^{\star},j^{\star}} -
h^{\star}(s^{\star},j^{\star}) \beta_{n,s^{\star},j^{\star}}.$$ Moreover, $$\left\lvert \kappa(s^{\star},j^{\star}) \right\rvert \leq \sum_{(s,j)}
\lvert h^{\star}(s,j) \beta_{n,s,j} \rvert.
$$ Assuming $f$ has finite sectional variation norm, the $L_1$ norm of the coefficients approximating $ f$ will be finite which implies that $\sum_{(s,j)}
\lvert h^{\star}(s,j) \beta_{n,s,j} \rvert$ is finite, and thus $\lvert \kappa(s^{\star},j^{\star}) \rvert = O_p(1)$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
P_n S_{h}(G_{n,\lambda_n}) - P_n D(\tilde{f}, G_{n,\lambda_n}) &=
O_p \left(P_n \left[\frac{d}{dG^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n}} L(
G^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n})\phi_{s^{\star},j^{\star}} \right] \right) \\
& = o_p(n^{-1/2}),\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from the assumption that $\min_{(s,j) \in
\mathcal{J}_n } \lVert P_n \frac{d}{dG^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n}}
L(G^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n}) (\phi_{s,j}) \rVert = o_p(n^{-1/2})$ for $L(\cdot)$ being log-likelihood loss. As $P_n S_{{h}}(G_{n,\lambda_n}) = 0$, it follows that $P_n D(\tilde{f},G_{n,\lambda_n}) = o_p(n^{-1/2})$. Using this result, it may be shown that, $P_n D(f,G_{n,\lambda_n})= o_p(n^{-1/2})$ under mild assumptions as well. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:prooflem1}
P_n D(\tilde{f}, G_{n,\lambda_n}) - P_n D(f,G_{n,\lambda_n}) &=
P_n (\tilde{f} - f) \left\{ \frac{d}{dG^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n}}
L(G^\dagger_{n,\lambda_n})\right\} \nonumber \\ &= P_n (\tilde{f} - f)
\left\{\frac{d}{dG^\dagger_{0}} L( G^\dagger_{0})\right\} + P_n (\tilde{f} - f) (G_{0} - G_{n,\lambda_n}) \nonumber\\ &= o_p(n^{-1/2})
+ (P_n - P_0) (\tilde{f} - f)(G_{0} - G_{n,\lambda_n})\nonumber \\ & \quad
+ P_0 (\tilde{f} - f) (G_{0} - G_{n,\lambda_n})\nonumber\\ &= o_p(n^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ In the third equality, we use standard empirical process theory, the fact that $P_0 \{f - \tilde{f}\}^2 \rightarrow 0$, and a Donsker class assumption to show that $$\begin{aligned}
P_n (\tilde{f} - f)\left\{\frac{d}{dG^\dagger_{0}} L( G^\dagger_{0})\right\}
&= (P_n-P_0) (\tilde{f} - f) \left\{\frac{d}{dG^\dagger_{0}}
L(G^\dagger_{0})\right\} \\ &= o_p(n^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ The last equality (\[eq:prooflem1\]) follows from the convergence rate of the highly adaptive lasso estimate (i.e., $\lVert G_{0} - G_{n,\lambda_n}
\rVert_{2,P_0} = o_p(n^{-1/4})$) and the rate assumption $\lVert f - \tilde{f}
\rVert_{2,P_0} = O_p(n^{-1/4})$.
By definition, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(P_n, G_{n,\lambda_n}) - \Psi(P_0, G_{0}) = \{\Psi(P_n, G_{n,\lambda_n})
- \Psi(P_n, G_{0})\} + \{\Psi(P_n, G_{0}) - \Psi(P_0, G_{0})\}.\end{aligned}$$ The term $\Psi(P_n, G_{0})$ corresponds to an inverse probability weighted estimator with known $G$; thus, it is asymptotically linear with influence function $U_{G_0}(\psi_0) = (AY / G_0) -\psi_0$ for $\psi_0 = \Psi(P_0)$. The term in the first bracket requires further attention, as it involves an estimate of the nuisance functional parameter. This term may be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(P_n, G_{n,\lambda_n}) - \Psi(P_n, G_{0}) &= P_n
\left\{U_{G_{n,\lambda_n}}( \Psi)-U_{G_{0}}( \Psi)\right\} \\
& = (P_n - P_0) \left\{U_{G_{n,\lambda_n}}(\Psi)-U_{G_{0}}(\Psi)
\right\} + P_0 \left\{U_{G_{n,\lambda_n}}( \Psi)-U_{G_{0}}(
\Psi)\right\} \\
& = o_p(n^{-1/2}) + P_0 \left\{U_{G_{n,\lambda_n}}(
\Psi)-U_{G_{0}}( \Psi)\right\}
$$ The last equality follows from the assumption that $G_0$ has finite sectional variation norm which implies that $\{U_{G_{n,\lambda_n}}(\Psi)-U_{G_{0}}
(\Psi)\}$ also has finite sectional variation norm. By using standard empirical process theory and a Donsker class assumption, we have $(P_n - P_0)\{U_{G_{n,\lambda_n}}(\Psi) - U_{G_{0}}(\Psi)\} = o_p(n^{-1/2})$. Define $D_{\text{CAR}}(Q_0,G_0,G_{n,\lambda_n}) = Q_0(1,w) \left(\frac{A -
G_{n,\lambda_n}} {G_{0}} \right)$; then, the last term on the right-hand side of the equation above may be expressed $$\begin{aligned}
P_0 \left\{U_{G_{n,\lambda_n}}(\Psi)-U_{G_{0}}( \Psi)\right\}
&= P_0 \left\{G_{0} Q_0(1) \left(\frac{G_{0} - G_{n,\lambda_n}}
{G_{n,\lambda_n}G_{0}} \right)\right\} \\
&= P_0 \left\{ Q_0(1) \left(\frac{G_{0} - G_{n,\lambda_n}}{G_{0}}
\right) \right\} + P_0 \left\{\frac{Q_0(1)}{G_{n,\lambda_n}}
\left(G_{0} - G_{n,\lambda_n} \right)^2 \right\} \\
&= P_0 \left\{ Q_0(1) \left(\frac{G_{0} - G_{n,\lambda_n} }{G_{0}}
\right) \right\} + o_p(n^{-1/2})\\
& = -(P_n - P_0) \left\{D_{\text{CAR}}(Q_0,G_0,G_{n,\lambda_n})\right\}
- P_n \left\{D_{\text{CAR}}(Q_0,G_0,G_{n,\lambda_n}) \right\} \\
& \hspace{2in}+ o_p(n^{-1/2}) \\
& = -(P_n - P_0) \left\{D_{\text{CAR}}(P_0)
\right\} - P_n \left\{D_{\text{CAR}}(Q_0,G_0,G_{n,\lambda_n}) \right\} \\
& \hspace{2in}+ o_p(n^{-1/2}), \\
$$ where $D_{\text{CAR}}(P_0) = Q_0(1,w) \left(\frac{A - G_{0}}{G_{0}} \right)$. The third equality follows from the convergence rate of the highly adaptive lasso estimator (i.e., $\lVert G_{0} - G_{n,\lambda_n} \rVert_2 =
o_p(n^{-1/4})$) [@vdl2017generally]. The last equality follows from the Donsker class condition, yielding $(P_n - P_0) \left\{D_{\text{CAR}}(P_0) -
D_{\text{CAR}}(Q_0,G_0,G_{n,\lambda_n}) \right\} = o_p(n^{-1/2})$. Applying Lemma \[main:lem:halipw1\] with $f = Q_0(1,w) / G_0$, it readily follows that $P_n \left\{D_{\text{CAR}}(Q_0,G_0,G_{n,\lambda_n}) \right\} = o_p(n^{-1/2})$.
Finally, gathering all of the above terms, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(P_n, G_{n,\lambda_n}) - \Psi(P_0, G_{0}) = (P_n - P_0)
\left\{U_{G_0}(\Psi) - D_{\text{CAR}}(P_0) \right\} + o_p(n^{-1/2}),\end{aligned}$$ where $U_{G_0}(\Psi) = (AY / G_0) - \Psi$. Further, the canonical gradient of $\Psi$ at $P$ is given by $$D^{\star}(P) = U_G(\Psi) - \prod \{U_G(\Psi) \mid T_{\text{CAR}}\}.$$ Following @vdl2003unified, $\prod \{U_G(D^F) \mid T_{\text{CAR}}\}$ is given by $\E \{U_G(O,\Psi) \mid A = a, W\} - \E \{U_G(O,\Psi) \mid W \}$, which may be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\text{CAR}}(P) = \frac{A - G(A \mid W)}{G(A \mid {W})} Q(1, W).\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof, establishing the asymptotic linearity and efficiency of our proposed estimators.
\[th:halipwcross\] Let $G_{n,\lambda_n}$ be a cross-fitted highly adaptive lasso estimator of $G_0$ using bound on the $L_1$-norm equal to $\lambda_n$, where $\lambda_n$ is a data-dependent parameter chosen to satisfy condition (\[main:eq:basis\]). Under the positivity assumption and Assumption \[main:ass:proj\], the estimator $\hat{\psi}^{cf} = \Psi(P_{n,v}^1, G_{n,\lambda_n})$ will be asymptotically efficient with influence function $$\hat{\psi}^{cf} - \psi_0 = P_n \{U_{G_0}(\Psi) - D_{\text{CAR}}(P_0) \} +
o_p(n^{-1/2}),$$ where $\psi_0=\Psi(P_0)$.
Define the cross-fitted inverse probability weighted estimator $\widehat{\Psi}(P_{n,v}^1, G_{n,\lambda})$ is defined as the solution to $\frac{1}{V} \sum_{v=1}^V P_{n,v}^1 U_{G_{n,\lambda,v}}(\Psi)=0$, where $G_{n, \lambda, v}(A \mid W)$ is the estimate of $G_{0}(A \mid W)$ applied to the training sample for the $v^{\text{th}}$ sample split for a given $\lambda$. Moreover, by Lemma \[main:lem:halipw1\], for any given $v$, $P_{n,v}^1
D_{CAR}(G_{n,\lambda,v},Q_0) = o_p(n^{-1/2})$. Thus, for any finite $V$, $\frac{1}{V} \sum_{v=1}^V P_{n,v}^1 D_{CAR}(G_{n,\lambda,v},Q_0) =
o_p(n^{-1/2})$. Let $D^{\star}(G, Q, \psi) = U_{G}(\psi) - D_{CAR}(G,Q)$ be the efficient influence function. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \psi-\psi_0 &= -\frac{1}{V} \sum_{v=1}^V P_0
D^{\star}(G_{n,\lambda,v},Q_0,\hat{\psi}) \\
&= \frac{1}{V} \sum_{v=1}^V (P_{n,v}^1-P_0)
D^{\star}(G_{n,\lambda,v},Q_0,\hat \psi) -
\frac{1}{V} \sum_{v=1}^V P_{n,v}^1 D^{\star}(G_{n,\lambda,v},
Q_0, \hat{\psi}) \\
&= \frac{1}{V} \sum_{v=1}^V (P_{n,v}^1-P_0) D^{\star}(G_{n,\lambda,v},
Q_0, \hat{\psi}) + o_p(n^{-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ Conditioning on the training sample, the term $\frac{1}{V} \sum_{v=1}^V
(P_{n,v}^1 - P_0) D^{\star}(G_{n,\lambda,v},Q_0, \hat{\psi})$ is an empirical mean of mean-zero random variables. Thus, under consistency of the estimator $G_{n,\lambda}$ and the positivity assumption, for any given fold $v$, it follows that $(P_{n,v}^1-P_0) D^{\star}(G_{n,\lambda,v},Q_0, \hat{\psi})
\rightsquigarrow N(0, \mathbb{V}\{D^{\star}(G_{0}, Q_0, \psi_0)\})$.
Additional Simulation Studies {#addl_sims}
=============================
To further evaluate the performance of our proposed procedures, we interrogate our estimators in three additional sets of simulation studies. In each scenario, we compare five variants of our inverse probability weighted estimators to an alternative unadjusted estimator that considers only $\E Y$ in the treatment group (i.e., $A = 1$). The inverse probability weighted estimators are constructed using varied selectors for the highly adaptive lasso estimator of the propensity score, including
1. global cross-validation to choose the $L_1$-norm;
2. undersmoothing with minimization of the cross-validated mean of $D_{\text{CAR}}$ (as per equation \[main:eq:udcar\]), with and without $\kappa$-truncation; and
3. solving the cross-validated score-based criterion arising (from equation \[main:eq:score\]), with and withou $\kappa$-truncation.
Each of the inverse probability weighted estimators was constructed using 5-fold cross-fitting, as discussed in Section \[main:estim\_cv\]. In the sequel, we consider scenarios across which the true treatment assignment mechanism ranges from randomization to a complex function of the covariates $W$.
In the first scenario, the treatment assignment mechanism is randomized, such that the baseline covariates have no impact on the probability of receiving treatment. In the second scenario, we consider a treatment assignment mechanism that includes interaction terms between baseline covariates and in which the positivity assumption strongly holds. In the third and final scenario, we consider a treatment mechanism that includes interaction terms between baseline covariates and in which the probability of receiving treatment is extremely low for certain strata of the covariates $W$. In all sets of simulation studies, we consider estimation of $\Psi(P_0)
= \E_{P_0}\{Y(1)\}$, the counterfactual mean for having received treatment. In each scenario, $n$ independent and identically distributed observations were drawn from the given data-generating mechanism, for each of the sample sizes $n
\in \{100, 400, 900, 1600\}$. Throughout, $\epsilon \sim \text{Normal}(\mu = 0,
\sigma = 0.1)$ and $\expit(x) = \{1 + \exp(-x) \}^{-1}$. Each of the estimators is compared in terms of their raw (unscaled) bias, scaled (by $n^{1/2}$) bias, scaled (by $n$) mean squared error, and the coverage of 95% Wald-style confidence intervals. For each sample size, the experiment was repeated between 200 and 500 times, with estimator performance evaluated by aggregation across these repetitions. All numerical experiments were performed using the `R` language and environment for statistical computing [@R].
Simulation \#1: Randomized controlled trial {#sim:1b}
-------------------------------------------
We evaluate the inverse probability weighted estimators based on data from the following data-generating mechanism: $W_1 \sim \text{Uniform}(0.2, 0.8)$, $W_2 \sim \text{Bernoulli}(p = 0.3)$; $A \mid W \sim \text{Bernoulli}(p = 0.5)$; and $Y \mid A, W = A \cdot (W_1 + W_2 + W_1 \cdot W_2) + (1 - A) \cdot W_1 +
\epsilon$. The true value of the target parameter was numerically approximated, $\psi_0
= 0.95$. In this setting, it is expected that the unadjusted estimator be unbiased, with mean squared error low enough that confidence intervals attain the nominal coverage rate. By contrast, the undersmoothing-based estimators would be expected to show low bias, with (scaled) mean squared error tending to the efficiency bound. A comparison of the relative performance of the inverse probability weighted estimators is presented in Figure \[fig:dgp1b\].
![Relative performance of a simple unadjusted estimator and cross-fitted inverse probability weighted estimators based on the undersmoothing selectors and the cross-validation selector, in a randomized controlled trial.[]{data-label="fig:dgp1b"}](supp_dgp1b_comparison)
Of the six estimators, all show negligible bias regardless of sample size. The undersmoothing-based estimators that select the highly adaptive lasso propensity score fit to minimize the cross-validated mean of $D_{\text{CAR}}$ provide the best performance. In particular, the truncated variant of this estimator (green triangle) uniformly achieves the lowest bias, has scaled mean squared error nearest the efficiency bound, and results in confidence intervals that cover at the nominal rate across all sample sizes. The non-truncated variant of this estimator (red triangle) has the next lowest scaled mean squared error but appears to suffer from a finite-sample bias that compromises the coverage of its resultant confidence intervals.
The inverse probability weighted estimator that relies upon the cross-validation selector (dark purple circle) has negligible bias, but fails to achieve the efficiency bound or produce confidence intervals covering at the nominal rate; thus, we conjecture its loss of efficiency to be due to a comparatively increased variance. The estimator using the score-based selector without truncation (cyan diamond) displays higher bias and lower efficiency than the highly adaptive lasso-based estimator using the truncated $D_{\text{CAR}}$ selector, but this is not surprising, as our simulation experiments reported in Section \[main:sim\] showed similarly compromised performance in relatively small samples. Interestingly, the variant with truncation (purple square) displays compromised performance (unlike in the case of the $D_{\text{CAR}}$ selector), causing an asymptotic bias that sharply degrades its efficiency. As expected, the unadjusted estimator (“x”) shows negligible bias but makes a different bias-variance tradeoff than the undersmoothing-based estimators. In particular, the unadjusted estimator displays similar scaled mean squared error to the estimator based on the cross-validation selector. Altogether, our findings suggest that choosing the highly adaptive lasso estimator that minimizes the $D_{\text{CAR}}$ term of the efficient influence function equation while (allowing a degree of truncation) yields inverse probability weighted estimators that are unbiased and more efficient than their standard counterparts in these relatively limited sample sizes.
Simulation \#2: Observational study without positivity violations {#sim:1a}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this setting, we evaluate the estimators based on data from the following data-generating mechanism: $W_1 \sim \text{Uniform}(0.2, 0.8)$, $W_2 \sim \text{Bernoulli}(p = 0.6)$; $A \mid W \sim \text{Bernoulli}(p = \expit(2W_1 - W_2 - W_1 \cdot W_2))$; and $Y \mid A, W = A \cdot (W_1 + W_2 + W_1 \cdot W_2) + (1 - A) \cdot W_1 +
\epsilon$. By numerical approximation, the true value of the target parameter was found to be $\psi_0 = 1.40$. The treatment mechanism of this data-generating process is not subject to positivity violations, with the probability of receiving treatment conditional on covariates being bounded in $[0.31, 0.83]$. In this setting, it would be expected that the unadjusted estimator would be quite biased, with mean squared error growing with sample size and confidence interval coverage approaching zero. By contrast, the undersmoothing-based estimators would be expected to show low bias, with mean squared error asymptotically tending to the efficiency bound. The estimator based on the global cross-validation selector would also be expected to perform poorly in terms of both bias and efficiency. The performance of the inverse probability weighted estimators is compared in Figure \[fig:dgp1a\].
![Relative performance of a simple unadjusted estimator and cross-fitted inverse probability weighted estimators based on the undersmoothing selectors and the cross-validation selector, in an observational study without positivity violations in the treatment mechanism.[]{data-label="fig:dgp1a"}](supp_dgp1a_comparison)
Examination of Figure \[fig:dgp1a\] reveals that all four of the undersmoothing-based estimators display desirable performance. As expected, the estimators based on minimization of $D_{\text{CAR}}$ (red/green triangles) provide the best finite-sample performance. As truncation makes no apparent difference between these two estimator variants, we conjecture that the truncation selector opts to avoid truncation, which is desirable in a setting without positivity violations. The inverse probability weighted estimator constructed from the score-based selector without truncation (cyan diamond) achieves comparable performance, with very low bias and scaled mean squared error stabilizing slightly above the efficiency bound. Importantly, this estimator was not necessarily expected to provide desirable finite-sample performance but does indeed do so, illustrating that our undersmoothing-based estimators would have provided a viable option even without knowledge of the exact form of the efficient influence function equation. The truncated variant of this estimator (purple square) exhibits performance similar to its non-truncated counterpart in smaller samples ($n \in \{100, 400\}$) but appears to make a suboptimal tradeoff in larger samples, with slightly higher bias and confidence intervals failing to cover at the nominal rate.
Still, three of the undersmoothing-based estimator variants allow the construction of confidence intervals that cover at (nearly) the nominal rate, regardless of sample size. By comparison, the estimator based on global cross-validation (dark purple circle) displays considerable bias and mean squared error, both increasing with sample size. Interestingly, the scaled bias of this estimator appears to stabilize with increasing sample size; this consistency suggests that the resultant estimator is asymptotically linear, though it fails to be efficient. Confidence intervals based on this estimator display very poor coverage, which decreases sharply with sample size. As expected, the unadjusted estimator (“x”) fares poorly — that is, it displays a diverging bias, with similarly increasing mean squared error, and confidence interval coverage that decreases to nearly zero by $n = 400$. These results speak favorably of our proposed undersmoothing-based estimators, showing that they may succesfully be used to construct unbiased and efficient estimators in observational studies in which the treatment mechanism is not a simple linear function of baseline covariates.
Simulation \#3: Observational study with near-positivity violations {#sim:2a}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In this setting, we evaluate the estimators based on data from the following data-generating mechanism: $W_1 \sim \text{Uniform}(0, 0.6)$, $W_2 \sim \text{Bernoulli}(p = 0.05)$; $A \mid W \sim \text{Bernoulli}(p = \expit(2W_1 - 4W_2 + W_1 \cdot W_2))$; and $Y \mid A, W = A \cdot (W_1 + W_2) + (1 - A) \cdot W_1 + \epsilon$. Numerical approximation was used to ascertain the true value of the target parameter: $\psi_0 = 0.35$. The treatment mechanism of this data-generating process is subject to positivity violations, with the probability of receiving treatment conditional on covariates having a minimum of $0.018$. The unadjusted estimator would be expected to be quite biased, with mean squared error growing with sample size and confidence interval coverage converging to zero asymptotically. By contrast, the undersmoothing-based estimators would be expected to show low bias, with mean squared error asymptotically tending to the efficiency bound. Such expectations might be particularly true of the truncated $D_{\text{CAR}}$-based estimator variant, which may cope better with the presence of destabilizing positivity violations. The estimator based on global cross-validation would also be expected to perform poorly, failing to select an $L_1$-norm appropriate for constructing an asymptotically linear estimator. The performance of the inverse probability weighted estimators is presented in Figure \[fig:dgp2a\].
![Performance of the unadjusted estimator and cross-fitted inverse probability weighted estimators based on the undersmoothing selectors and the cross-validation selector, in an observational study with positivity violations in the treatment mechanism.[]{data-label="fig:dgp2a"}](supp_dgp2a_comparison)
Most estimator variants perform quite poorly in this setting, though this is expected of inverse probability weighted estimators. Since the treatment mechanism includes severely destabilizing positivity violations, the inverse probability of treatment weights can tend to very large values for a subset of observed units, leading to bias and inefficiency in all estimators that consistently estimate the propensity score. As expected, the unadjusted estimator (“x”) and the estimator based on global cross-validation (dark purple circle) display the worst performance, with asymptotically increasing bias and mean squared error as well as confidence interval coverage tending to zero. By comparison, the undersmoothing-based estimators perform better, though not as well as might be desirable. In particular, the undersmoothing-based estimator variant minimizes the cross-validated mean of $D_{\text{CAR}}$ and utilizes truncation (green triangle) displays an asymptotically increasing bias, suggesting that an optimal choice of the truncation parameter $\kappa$ was not available to it. What’s more, this bias contributes directly to increasing its scaled mean squared error and adversely affects the coverage of its resultant confidence intervals. As the truncation inherent in this estimator ought to protect against the destabilizing bias caused by overly large inverse probability of treatment weights, we surmise that pairing of the undersmoothing and truncation selectors results in a suboptimal bias-variance tradeoff in this case. Still, this estimator variant proves to be the second most efficient in smaller sample sizes ($n < 1600$).
Somewhat contrary to expectations, the undersmoothing-based estimator without truncation (red triangle) exhibits the best performance, with uniformly negligible bias and mean squared error tending to the efficiency bound by $n
= 1600$. Unfortunately, the coverage of Wald-style confidence intervals based on this procedure fail to attain the nominal rate of 95%. Taken together with the vanishing bias of this estimator, this relatively poor coverage suggests that the estimator may suffer from instability in variance estimates in a handful of instances. Surprisingly, the estimator constructed from the score-based selector without truncation (cyan diamond) displays a bias that decreases with sample size and appears promising asymptotically. This estimator variant displays relatively good scaled mean squared error, tending to the efficiency bound at $n = 1600$; confidence intervals based on this estimator provide increasing coverage with sample size, comparable to those of the non-truncated $D_{\text{CAR}}$-based estimator in larger samples ($n \in \{900, 1600\}$). In particular, this increasing coverage suggests that confidence intervals of this estimator variant may tend to coverage at the nominal rate asymptotically. The $\kappa$-truncated variant of this estimator (purple square) generally displays worse performance than its non-truncated counterpart, with uniformly higher bias and scaled mean squared error. Interestingly, confidence intervals of this estimator variant achieve better coverage than those of the truncated $D_{\text{CAR}}$-based variant despite its lower efficiency, suggesting that truncation may induce a higher variance in estimators derived from the score-based selectors.
As expected, the unadjusted estimator (“x”) and the inverse probability weighted estimator based on the cross-validation selector (dark purple circle) provide the worst performance, with increasing scaled bias and mean squared error, and constructed confidence intervals whose coverage degrades sharply with increasing sample size. Altogether, this set of numerical experiments suggests undersmoothing-based estimators may not be appropriate for settings in which the true treatment mechanism is subject to positivity violations in the relatively small sample sizes we consider. Still, both the non-truncated $D_{\text{CAR}}$-based estimator and the score-based estimator exhibit acceptable performance, though doubly robust estimators may prove a generally better choice than inverse probability weighted estimators in settings with such severe positivity violations. We leave further examination of these estimators, and possible adjustments to the truncated estimator variants, as an area of future investigation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The interpretation of hypernuclear $\gamma$-ray data for p-shell hypernuclei in terms of shell-model calculations that include the coupling of $\Lambda$- and $\Sigma$-hypernuclear states is briefly reviewed. Next, / and are considered, both to exhibit features of $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling and as possible source of observed, but unassigned, hypernuclear $\gamma$ rays. Then, the feasibility of measuring the ground-state doublet spacing of Be, which, like , could be studied via the $(K^-,\pi^0\gamma)$ reaction, is investigated. Structural information relevant to the population of states in these hypernuclei in recent $(e,e''K^+)$ studies is also given. Finally, the extension of the shell-model calculations to sd-shell hypernuclei is briefly considered.'
address: 'Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973, USA'
author:
- 'D.J. Millener'
title: 'Shell-model calculations for p-shell hypernuclei'
---
Hypernuclei; Shell-model
Introduction {#intro}
============
This article provides an update on the shell-model interpretation of $\gamma$-ray transitions in p-shell hypernuclei [@millener08] from a previous special issue on recent advances in strangeness nuclear physics and the start of an extension to sd-shell hypernuclei. The experimental data available at the time was reviewed by Tamura in the same volume [@tamura08] and consisted of 22 $\gamma$-ray transitions in , , , , , , and , together with a limit on the ground-state doublet spacing in . Since then, new results on and from KEK E566 using an upgraded germanium detector array, Hyperball2, have been reported at the Hyp-X conference by Tamura [@tamura10] and Ma [@ma10]. The ground-state doublet spacing in is established as 161 keV both from the direct observation of the 161 keV $\gamma$-ray and from transitions from an excited $1^-$ state at 2832 keV. The ground-state doublet spacing is closely related to that of which is $< 100$ keV. It seems that the difference between and can be explained only by invoking the coupling between $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma$ hypernuclear states [@millener10] ($\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling).
Section \[sec:shell\] describes the shell model calculations and Section \[sec:doublet\] summarizes the previously obtained results for transitions observed in the Hyperball experiments. Sections \[sec:a8\], \[sec:lli9\], and \[sec:a10\] discuss the $A\!=\!8$, 9, and 10 hypernuclei. Section \[sec:be\] contains some information on contributions to the ground-state binding energies of p-shell hypernuclei. Section \[sec:sd\] is devoted to while Section \[sec:discussion\] contains a concluding discussion.
Shell-model calculations {#sec:shell}
========================
Shell-model calculations for p-shell hypernuclei start with the Hamiltonian $$H = H_N + H_Y + V_{NY} \; ,
\label{eq:hamyn}$$ where $H_N$ is an empirical Hamiltonian for the p-shell core, the single-particle $H_Y$ supplies the $\sim 80$MeV mass difference between $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma$, and $V_{NY}$ is the $YN$ interaction. The shell-model basis states are chosen to be of the form $|(p^n\alpha_{c}J_{c}T_{c},j_Yt_Y)JT\rangle$, where the hyperon is coupled in angular momentum and isospin to eigenstates of the p-shell Hamiltonian for the core, with up to three values of $T_c$ contributing for $\Sigma$-hypernuclear states. This is known as a weak-coupling basis and, indeed, the mixing of basis states in the hypernuclear eigenstates is generally very small. In this basis, the core energies are taken from experiment where possible and from the p-shell calculation otherwise.
The $\Lambda N$ effective interaction can be written [@gsd] $$V_{\Lambda N}(r) = V_0(r) + V_{\sigma}(r)\vec{s}_N\cdot
\vec{s}_{\Lambda} + V_{\Lambda }(r)\vec{l}_{N\Lambda }\cdot
\vec{s}_{\Lambda} + V_{\rm N}(r)\vec{l}_{N \Lambda }\cdot
\vec{s}_{N} + V_{\rm T}(r)S_{12},
\label{eq:vlam}$$ where $S_{12} = 3(\vec{\sigma}_{N}\cdot\vec{r})(\vec{\sigma}_{\Lambda}
\cdot\vec{r})-\vec{\sigma}_{N}\cdot\vec{\sigma}_{\Lambda}$. The spin-orbit interactions can alternatively be expressed in terms of the symmetric (SLS) and antisymmetric (ALS) spin-orbit operators $\vec{l}_{N\Lambda }\cdot (\vec{s}_{\Lambda}\pm\vec{s}_{N})$. The five $p_N s_\Lambda$ two-body matrix elements depend on the radial integrals associated with each component in Eq. (\[eq:vlam\]), conventionally denoted by the parameters $\overline{V}$, $\Delta$, $S_\Lambda$, $S_N$ and $T$ [@gsd]. By convention [@gsd], $S_\Lambda$ and $S_N$ are actually the coefficients of $\vec{l}_N\cdot\vec{s}_\Lambda$ and $\vec{l}_N\cdot\vec{s}_N$. Then, the operators associated with $\Delta$ and $S_\Lambda$ are $\vec{S}_N\cdot \vec{s}_{\Lambda}$ and $\vec{L}_{N}\cdot \vec{s}_{\Lambda}$.
The parametrization of Eq. (\[eq:vlam\]) applies to the direct $\Lambda N$ interaction, the $\Lambda N$–$\Sigma N$ coupling interaction, and the direct $\Sigma N$ interaction for both isospin 1/2 and 3/2. Values for the parameters based on various Nijmegen models of the $YN$ interactions are given in Section 3 of Ref. [@millener10]. Formally, one could include an overall factor $\sqrt{4/3}\,t_N\cdot t_{\Lambda\Sigma}$ in the analog of Eq. (\[eq:vlam\]) that defines the interaction, where $t_{\Lambda\Sigma}$ is the operator that converts a $\Lambda$ into a $\Sigma$. Then, the core operator associated with $\overline{V}'$ is $T_N = \sum_i t_{Ni}$. This leads to a non-zero matrix element only between $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma$ states that have the same core, with the value $$\langle (J_cT,s_\Sigma)JT |V'_{\Lambda\Sigma}|(J_cT,s_\Lambda)JT\rangle
= \sqrt{4/3}\ \sqrt{T(T+1)}\ \overline{V}'\; ,
\label{eq:fermi}$$ in analogy to Fermi $\beta$ decay of the core nucleus. Similarly, the spin-spin term involves $\sum_i s_{Ni}t_{Ni}$ for the core and connects core states that have large Gamow-Teller (GT) matrix elements between them. This point has been emphasized by Umeya and Harada [@umeya11] in a recent article on the effects of $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling in $^{7-10}_{\ \ \ \Lambda}$Li.
In an LS basis for the core, the matrix elements of $\vec{S}_N\cdot \vec{s}_{\Lambda}$ are diagonal (similarly for $\vec{L}_{N}\cdot \vec{s}_{\Lambda} =
(\vec{J}_N -\vec{S}_N)\cdot \vec{s}_{\Lambda}$) and depend just on the intensities of the total $L$ and $S$ for the hypernucleus. Because supermultiplet symmetry $[f_c]K_cL_cS_cJ_cT_c$ is generally a good symmetry for p-shell core states, only one or two values of $L$ and $S$ are important. The mixing of different $[f_c]L_cS_c$ is primarily due to the vector (SLS plus ALS) terms in the p-shell Hamiltonian. Of the remaining $\Lambda N$ parameters, $\overline{V}$ contributes only to the overall binding energy; $S_N$ does not contribute to doublet splittings in the weak-coupling limit but a negative $S_N$ augments the nuclear spin-orbit interaction and contributes to the spacings between states based on different core states; in general, there are not simple expressions for the coefficients of $T$.
Many hypernuclear calculations have used the venerable Cohen and Kurath interactions [@ck65]. Here, the p-shell interaction has been refined using the following strategy. The one-body spin-orbit splitting between the $p_{3/2}$ and $p_{1/2}$ orbits is fixed to give a good description of the light p-shell nuclei (say for $A\leq 9$). The overall strength of the tensor interaction is also fixed, ultimately to produce the cancellation in $^{14}$C $\beta$ decay. The well-determined linear combinations of the central and vector p-shell interactions are then chosen by fitting the energies of a large number of states that are known to be dominantly p-shell in character, including the large spin-orbit splitting at $A\!=\!15$. A detailed discussion of p-shell nuclei is given in Section 5 of Ref. [@millener07].
[@l@ccrrrrrrr]{} & $J^\pi_u$ & $J^\pi_l$ & $\Lambda\Sigma$ & $\Delta$ & $S_\Lambda$ & $S_N$ & $T$ & $\Delta E^{th}$ & $\Delta E^{exp}$\
& $3/2^+$ & $1/2^+$ & 72 & 628 & $-1$ & $-4$ & $-9$ & 693 & 692\
& $7/2^+$ & $5/2^+$ & 74 & 557 & $-32$ & $-8$ & $-71$ & 494 & 471\
& $3/2^+$ & $5/2^+$ & $-8$ & $-14$ & $37$ & $0$ & $28$ & $44$ & 43\
& $7/2^+$ & $5/2^+$ & 56 & 339 & $-37$ & $-10$ & $-80$ & 267 & 264\
& $3/2^+$ & $1/2^+$ & 61 & 424 & $-3$ & $-44$ & $-10$ & 475 & 505\
& $2^-$ & $1^-$ & 61 & 175 & $-12$ & $-13$ & $-42$ & 153 & 161\
& $3/2^+_2$ & $1/2^+_2$ & 65 & 451 & $-2$ & $-16$ & $-10$ & 507 & 481\
& $1^-$ & $0^-$ & $-33$ & $-123$ & $-20$ & 1 & 188 & 23 & 26\
& $2^-$ & $1^-_2$ & 92 & 207 & $-21$ & 1 & $-41$ & 248 & 224\
Measured doublet spacings {#sec:doublet}
=========================
Table \[tab:spacings\] gives a summary of the contributions from $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling and the $\Lambda N$ interaction parameters to all 9 of the measured doublet spacings. Details, such as figures showing spectra and tables giving breakdowns of energy-level spacings, wave functions, and transition rates, can be found in Refs. [@millener08; @millener07]. The set of parameters used for and (chosen to fit the energy spacings in ) is (parameters in MeV) $$\Delta= 0.430\quad S_\Lambda =-0.015\quad {S}_{N}
= -0.390 \quad {T}=0.030 \; .
\label{eq:param7}$$ The matrix elements for the $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling interaction, based on the G-matrix calculations of Ref. [@akaishi00] for the nsc97$e,f$ interactions [@rijken99], are [@millener08; @millener07] $$\overline{V}' = 1.45\quad \Delta'= 3.04\quad S_\Lambda' = S_N' = -0.09
\quad T' = 0.16 \; .
\label{eq:paramls}$$ These parameters are kept fixed throughout the p-shell in the present calculations.
The ground-state doublet in and the exited-state doublets in and are based on core states that are largely $L_c\!=\!0$ and $S_c\!=\!1$. This limits contributions from other than $\Delta$, which enters with a large coefficient of 3/2 in the $L_c\!=\!0$ limit, and $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling. The coefficient of $\Delta$ for the excited state doublet is 7/6 for $L_c\!=\!2$, $S_c\!=\!1$, $J_c\!=\!3$ but here $S_\Lambda$ and $T$ enter with substantial coefficients. The $3^+$ core state is the lowest member of an $L_c\!=\!2$, $S_c\!=\!1$ triplet and moves down in energy if the strength of the nuclear spin-orbit interaction is increased, as it is by $S_N$, in the hypernucleus. The value of $S_N$ in Eq. (\[eq:param7\]) is chosen to reproduce the 2.05-MeV excitation energy of the $5/2^+$ state in .
The $^8$Be core state for the doublet has mainly $L_c\!=\!2$ and $S_c\!=\!0$, giving a coefficient of $-5/2$ for $S_\Lambda$. The contributions from $\Delta$ and $T$, arising from small $S_c\!=\!1$ components, together with the small $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling contribution, happen to more or less cancel. This means that the doublet spacing demands a small value for $S_\Lambda$.
The doublet spacings for the heavier p-shell hypernuclei consistently require a smaller value for $\Delta$ $$\Delta= 0.330\quad S_\Lambda =-0.015\quad {S}_{N}
= -0.350 \quad {T}=0.0239 \; .
\label{eq:param11}$$ $T$ plays a particularly important role in the ground-state doublet ($p_{1/2}^{-1}s_\Lambda$) splitting of and is determined from a measurement of the doublet spacing [@ukai08; @ukai04]. The ground-state doublet spacing of , which is closely related to that of , is missing form Table \[tab:spacings\] because the transition to the $1/2^+$ state from the 2268-keV $1/2^+;1$ level is not observed due to a subtle cancellation [@millener08; @millener07]. However, mesonic weak-decay studies have determined that the ground-state spin-parity of is $3/2^+$ [@agnello09; @gal09]. In Eq. (\[eq:param11\]), $S_N$ fits the increase in the excitation energy of the excited-state doublet over the spacing of the p-hole states in $^{15}$O.
As can be seen from Table \[tab:spacings\], there is a consistent description of the doublet spacings once a larger value of $\Delta$ is taken for . A conjecture, as yet unproven, is that shell-model admixtures beyond $0\hbar\omega$ for the lightest p-shell nuclei ($^6$Li in particular) involve mainly excitations from the s-shell to the p-shell, thus permitting an active role for $s_Ns_\Lambda$ matrix elements that are larger than those for $p_Ns_\Lambda$. For $A\!=\!10$ and beyond, higher admixtures involve $p\to sd$ excitations and bring in smaller $\Lambda N$ matrix elements.
Finally, it is clear [@millener08; @millener10; @millener07] that a term such as $S_N$ is necessary to describe the spacings between states based on different core states. Formally, the $S_N$ term arises from a combination of the SLS and ALS interactions but, in practice, $S_N$ is treated as a fitting parameter. A two-body $NN$ ALS interaction that gives rise to similar effects comes from the double one-pion exchange $\Lambda NN$ interaction averaged over the $s_\Lambda$ wave function, as in the original work of Gal, Soper, and Dalitz [@gsd]. While a one-body $S_N$ term appears to be adequate near the beginning and end of the p-shell, there is a need for a much larger effect for (at least) , , and . The high excitation energy (1483 keV) of the first $1/2^+$ state in , taken together with the known spacings of the ground-state and first-excited state doublets, means that the spacing of the doublet centroids is 1669 keV compared with the $1^+$/$3^+$ core separation of 718 keV. However, the $S_N$ value of Eq. (\[eq:param11\]) gives just over 400 keV towards the difference. While there is sensitivity to the core wave functions, the high excitation energies of 2832 keV for the $1^-_2$ state of and 4880 keV for the $3/2^+_1$ state in cannot be explained either with this value of $S_N$.
The $A\!=\!8$ hypernuclei {#sec:a8}
=========================
![The spectrum of . The $^7$Li core states are shown on the left. The $\gamma$-ray branching ratios and lifetimes are theoretical. For each state of , the calculated energy shifts due to $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling are given. All energies are in keV.[]{data-label="fig:lli8"}](lli8-bw1.eps){width="12.0cm"}
Figure \[fig:lli8\] gives a theoretical spectrum, including $\gamma$-ray branching ratios and lifetimes, for . Because the lowest $3/2^-$ and $1/2^-$ states of $^7$Li are closely spaced and both have $L_c\!=\!1$, the bound $1^-$ states of involve significant mixing ($|1^-_1\rangle =
0.946\,(3/2^-)\times s_\Lambda -0.319\,(1/2^-)\times s_\Lambda$) of the configurations based on them. On a historical note, the spin-parity of [@davis63] and restrictions on the mixing [@bohm74] were derived from emulsion data on the decay $\to \pi^-$ + $^8{\rm Be}^*\to \pi^-
+\alpha + \alpha$. The next largest admixtures are actually from the corresponding $\Sigma$-hypernuclear states.
As can be see from Fig. \[fig:lli8\], the energy shift due $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling for the $1^-$ ground state is large in strong contrast to that for the $2^-$ member of the doublet. In fact, $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling is predicted to account for a third of the doublet spacing. The predicted energy spacing is very close to the 442.1(21) keV energy of a $\gamma$-ray observed following the production of highly-excited states of via the $(K^-,\pi^-)$ reaction [@chrien90]. The 442 keV $\gamma$-ray was tentatively attributed to or its mirror hypernucleus [@chrien90], the $2^-$ state of which could be reached by $l\!=\!1$ deuteron emission from the $s^4p^4(sd)s_\Lambda$ component of the $3^+$ $s_n^{-1}s_\Lambda$ substitutional state in (the excited-state doublet in was studied following $l\!=\!0$ $^3$He emission from the same state [@ukai06]). If confirmed, the 442-keV $\gamma$-ray would provide additional strong support for the important role played by $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling in hypernuclear spectra.
A 1.22(4)-MeV $\gamma$-ray, seen after $K^-$ mesons were stopped in a $^9$Be target [@bejidian80], was tentatively ascribed to , possibly as a transition between the $1^-$ states in Fig. \[fig:lli8\]. In Ref. [@mgdd85], it was found to be difficult to explain such a high energy. This is still the case despite the addition of 136 keV to the transition energy from $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling.
The role of $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling for the ground-state doublet and the excited $1^-$ state can be seen from the interplay of $\overline{V}'$ and $\Delta'$ in the coupling matrix elements and the use of perturbation theory for the energy shifts ($\sim
v^2/{\Delta E}$ with $\Delta E\sim 80$ MeV). From Eq. (\[eq:paramls\]), $\overline{V}'$ gives a contribution of 1.45 MeV to the diagonal coupling matrix elements involving the same core state. Adding the remaining $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ contributions (mainly from $\Delta'$) for the $3/2^-$ core states gives 2.6524 MeV for $J^\pi\!=\!1^-$ and 0.7286 MeV for $J^\pi\!=\!2^-$. The off-diagonal matrix elements (from $\Delta'$) involving $1/2^-$ and $3/2^-$ core states are both $-1.5094$ MeV, while the diagonal $1/2^-$ matrix element is 1.4761 MeV. In the weak-coupling limit, the push on the ground state is 88 keV from the $(3/2^-\times s_\Sigma)$ state and 28 keV from the $(1/2^-\times s_\Sigma)$ state while the push on the $2^-$ state is only 7 keV. The mixing between the $(3/2^-\times s_\Lambda)$ and $(1/2^-\times s_\Lambda)$ states increases the $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling matrix elements for the lower $1^-$ state and decreases them for the upper state; putting in the numbers from above, an estimate of 157 keV is obtained for the push on the ground state.
As far as electromagnetic transitions are concerned, the p-shell wave functions account well for the M1 properties of the $3/2^-$ and $1/2^-$ core states using the bare M1 operator, leaving room for the expected small enhancement of the isovector matrix elements by meson-exchange currents [@marcucci08]; the calculated magnetic moments of $^7$Li and $^7$Be are 3.145 $\mu_N$ and $-1.263$ $\mu_N$ compared with the experimental values of 3.256 $\mu_N$ and $-1.399$ $\mu_N$, respectively. Because the M1 matrix element for the ground-state doublet transition is proportional to $g_c -g_\Lambda$ ($g_\Lambda\!=\!-1.226$) in the weak-coupling limit [@dg78] the transition is going to be much faster in the odd-proton nucleus . This simple approximation does not apply because of the configuration mixing in the $1^-$ wave functions. The M1 transition strengths end up being 1.086 W.u. in and 0.043 W.u. in ($\tau\!=\!8.37$ ps). For the decay of the $1^-_2$ state in , one obtains a branch of 64% to the ground state and a lifetime of 46 fs. All these low-energy transitions are little affected by their E2 components.
As a further example of the effects of $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling, the ground-state doublet is predicted to have a spacing of 101 keV with $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ contributions of 154 and 182 keV to the binding energies of the $1^-$ and $2^-$ states, respectively. In this case, $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling reduces the doublet spacing by 28 keV.
The hypernucleus {#sec:lli9}
================
There is interest in because it has been studied using the $^9$Be$(e,e'K^+)$ reaction at JLab [@cusanno10] and could be studied via the $^9$Be$(K^-,\pi^0\gamma)$ reaction at J-PARC. In addition, it is the possible source of a 1303-keV $\gamma$-ray seen in a stopped $K^-$ experiment [@miwa05], most strongly on a $^9$Be target.
Figure \[fig:lli9\] gives a theoretical spectrum, including $\gamma$-ray branching ratios and lifetimes, for . Because non-spin-flip production is dominant in the $(K^-,\pi^0)$ reaction at rest, the only likely candidate for the 1303-keV $\gamma$-ray is the excited $3/2^+$ to ground state transition. In this case, an 840-keV transition to the lowest $5/2^+$ state should also be observable. The predicted energy of 1430 keV is too high. For comparison, the $\Lambda N$ parameter set in Eq. (\[eq:param11\]) predicts the $3/2^+_2$ state at 1331 keV and the $5/2^+_1$ state at 471 keV. It is clear that an in-flight $(K^-,\pi^0\gamma)$ study with the Hyperball-J at an incident $K^-$ energy where spin-flip amplitudes are important is desirable.
![The spectrum of . The $^8$Li core states are shown on the left along with the spectroscopic factors for proton removal from $^9$Be. The $\gamma$-ray branching ratios and lifetimes are theoretical. For each state of , the calculated energy shifts due to $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling are given. All energies are in keV. On the right, the structural factors (defined in Appendix A) giving the relative population of levels in purely non-spin-flip ($\Delta S\!=\!0$) and purely spin-flip ($\Delta S\!=\!1$) production reactions on a $^9$Be target are given.[]{data-label="fig:lli9"}](lli9-bw.eps){width="12.0cm"}
From the $^9$Be$(t,\alpha)^8$Li study by Liu and Fortune [@liu88] and the pickup spectroscopic factors given in Fig. \[fig:lli9\], the bulk of the cross section for the production of $s_\Lambda$ states in the $^9$Be$(e,e'K^+)$ reaction is expected to be concentrated in states built on the lowest three states of $^8$Li (see Ref. [@sotona94] for an early theoretical study). This is indeed the case [@cusanno10]. The strongest observed state is the upper member of the ground-state doublet but there appears to be more strength in the states based on the $3^+$ core state than predicted and a disagreement about the location of the strength based on the $1^+$ state. The strength based on the $1^+_2$ state is close enough to the neutron threshold that the states should be narrow and any significant strength associated with them should be observable in the electro-production reaction. This would be the case for the (8-16)2BME and (8-16)POT interactions of Cohen and Kurath [@ck65] but not for the (6-16)2BME interactions or the various fitted interactions used in recent hypernuclear studies. The former interactions favor the second $1^+$ state in proton removal from $^9$Be because the lowest $1^+$ state is dominantly $L_c\!=\!1$, $S_c\!=\!1$ rather than strongly mixed $S_c\!=\!0$ and $S_c\!=\!1$. The use of the (8-16)2BME interaction is the reason that the spectrum of Umeya and Harada [@umeya11] looks rather different from the one in Fig. \[fig:lli9\].
The $A\!=\!10$ hypernuclei {#sec:a10}
==========================
Figure \[fig:lbe10\] gives a theoretical spectrum, including $\gamma$-ray branching ratios, pickup spectroscopic factors, and formation factors for .
is another hypernucleus that could be studied via the $(K^-,\pi^0\gamma)$ reaction with the Hyperball-J at J-PARC, this time with a $^{10}$B target. A strong reason for doing so would be to try to measure the ground-state doublet spacing by observing transitions to both members from a higher level. The obvious candidate is the $2^-$ level based on the $5/2^-$ core level of $^9$Be. Unfortunately, the $2^-\to 2^-$ transition is strongly hindered with respect to the $2^-\to 1^-$ transition by a factor of 15 from the recoupling coefficient (but gains something back on the $2J_f\!+\!1$ factor). In the weak-coupling limit, the $2^-\to 2^-$ branch would be only 9% but something is gained from configuration mixing. Again, the E2 components of the transitions are not very important.
The spacings of the ground-state and excited-state doublets are predicted to be very similar. This could certainly be checked in a $(K^-,\pi^0\gamma)$ experiment and which $\gamma$-ray is which could be determined by choosing $K^-$ momenta for which the ratio of spin-flip to non-spin-flip is quite different. The $1^-$ level based on the broad $1/2^-$ level in $^9$Be could be populated via the reaction on $^{10}$Be if only a thick enough $^{10}$Be target could be made.
![The spectrum of . The $^9$Be core states are shown on the left along with the spectroscopic factors for proton removal from $^{10}$B. The $\gamma$-ray branching ratios and lifetimes are theoretical. For each state of , the calculated energy shifts due to $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling are given. All energies are in keV. On the right, the structural factors giving the relative population of levels in purely non-spin-flip ($\Delta S\!=\!0$) and purely spin-flip ($\Delta S\!=\!1$) production reactions on a $^{10}$B target are given.[]{data-label="fig:lbe10"}](lbe10-bw.eps){width="12.0cm"}
As far as production reactions are concerned, the $^{10}$B reaction has been studied in KEK E336 [@hashtam06]. From the spectroscopic factors for proton or neutron removal from $^{10}$B, one expects to see four strong peaks up to about 10 MeV in excitation energy. In the experiment, these are not cleanly resolved but the data has been fitted to extract energies and relative yields [@hashtam06]. The relative yields are in good agreement with the $\Delta S\!=\!0$ structure factors in Fig. \[fig:lbe10\] but the spectrum is somewhat expanded with respect to that extracted from the data (the extracted energy may be affected by the steeply rising background that extends under the fourth peak). A spectrum in which the four peaks, based on the core states reached strongly by proton removal from $^{10}$B, are cleanly separated has recently been obtained using the $^{10}$B$(e,e'K^+)$ reaction at JLab [@tang12]. This is as predicted by Motoba et al. [@motoba94] and by the results in Fig. \[fig:lbe10\] based on more recent information on in-medium $YN$ interactions. States involving a $p_\Lambda$ coupled to the same core states are also expected to be strongly populated (again see Ref. [@motoba94]) and it will be interesting to make a detailed comparison between theory and experiment.
Contributions to $\Lambda$ binding energies {#sec:be}
===========================================
[@c@rrrrrrrrr]{} & $J^\pi$ & $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ & $\Delta$ & $S_\Lambda$ & $S_N$ & $T$ & Sum & $B_\Lambda^{expt}(\Delta B)$ & $\!\!\overline{V}$\
& $1/2^+$ & 101 & 1 & 0 & 176 & 0 & 278 & &\
& $1^-$ & 154 & 152 & $-13$ & 454 & $-38$ & 709 & 7.16(70) & $-1.11$\
& $1/2^+$ & 253 & 6 & 0 & 619 & 1 & 879 & &\
& $1/2^+$ & 78 & 419 & 0 & 94 & $-2$ & 589 & 5.58(3) & $-0.94$\
& $1^-$ & 160 & 288 & $-6$ & 192 & $-9$ & 625 & 6.80(3) & $-1.02$\
& $3/2^+$ & 183 & 350 & $-10$ & 434 & $-6$ & 952 & 8.50(12) & $-1.06$\
& $1^-$ & 275 & 175 & $-11$ & 595 & $-12$ & 1022 & &\
& $1/2^+$ & 4 & 0 & 0 & 207 & 0 & 211 & 6.71(4) &\
& $1/2^+$ & 99 & 2 & 0 & 540 & 0 & 641 & &\
& $0^-$ & 158 & $-76$ & $-15$ & 554 & 127 & 748 & &\
& $1^-$ & 35 & 125 & $-13$ & 386 & $-15$ & 518 & 8.89(12) & $-1.05$\
& $5/2^+$ & 66 & 203 & $-20$ & 652 & $-43$ & 858 & 10.24(5) & $-1.04$\
& $1^-$ & 103 & 108 & $-14$ & 704 & $-29$ & 869 & 11.37(6) & $-1.05$\
& $1/2^+$ & 130 & 197 & $-6$ & 621 & $-57$ & 885 & &\
& $1^-$ & 255 & 115 & $-13$ & 458 & $-30$ & 785 & &\
& $1/2^+$ & 28 & $-4$ & 0 & 841 & $-1$ & 864 & 11.69(12) & $-0.96$\
& $1^-$ & 75 & 47 & 6 & 816 & $-40$ & 904 & 12.17(33) & $-0.91$\
& $1/2^+$ & 116 & 8 & 0 & 636 & 2 & 762 & &\
& $3/2^+$ & 59 & 40 & 12 & 630 & $-69$ & 726 & 13.59(15) & $-0.97$\
& $1^-$ & 62 & 94 & 6 & 349 & $-45$ & 412 & 13.76(16) & $-0.93$\
Table \[tab:be\] shows the $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ and spin-dependent contributions to the ground-state binding energies for a wide range of p-shell hypernuclei. The sum of these contributions can reach 1 MeV. The experimental $B_\Lambda$ values are from emulsion studies [@davis86] (a number of mirror hypernuclei are not listed) except for where the value comes from a study using the $^{16}$O$(e,e'K^+)$ reaction [@cusanno09] (the observed $1^-$ state is actually 26 keV above the $0^-$ ground state [@ukai08; @ukai04]). The remaining hypernuclei that are listed are chosen because the neutron-rich p-shell cores have higher isospin and can exhibit larger effects from $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling.
The spin-independent central component $\overline{V}$ of the $\Lambda N$ interaction doesn’t affect the spectra but can be estimated from the binding energies by taking $B_\Lambda$() = 3.12 MeV as the $s_\Lambda$ single-particle energy and using $$B_\Lambda = 3.12 - n\, \overline{V} + {\rm Sum}\, ,
\label{eq:vbar}$$ where $n$ is the number of p-shell nucleons in the core. The values of $\overline{V}$ so extracted are given in the last column of Table \[tab:be\]. The $\overline{V}$ are relatively constant and close to the values derived from $\Lambda N$ potential models [@millener10]. In reality, small repulsive contributions quadratic in $n$ are expected from the double one-pion exchange interaction [@gsd] which would then call for a somewhat more attractive $\overline{V}$. Quite good estimates can be made for $B_\Lambda$ values. In the case of $\Lambda\Lambda$ hypernuclei, two spin-averaged $B_\Lambda$ values enter into the binding energy along with a $\Lambda\Lambda$ two-body matrix element that is known to be quite small ($-0.67$ MeV). Then, it is clear that the knowledge of single-$\Lambda$ binding energies can be used to make reliable estimates for the binding energies of $\Lambda\Lambda$ hypernuclei [@gal11].
sd-shell hypernuclei {#sec:sd}
====================
An extension of the studies of $\gamma$-ray transitions in p-shell hypernuclei is planned for in J-PARC E13 [@tamura12]. The reason for choosing $^{19}$F as a target is that $^{18}$F has a primarily $L\!=\!0$, $S\!=\!1$ ground state so that one should observe a relatively large ground-state doublet spacing for , in complete analogy to (and the doublet based on the second $1^+$ state in $^{15}$N); $^{19}$F itself has a primarily $L\!=\!0$, $S\!=\!1/2$ ground state, which is why an (impractical) $^{20}$Ne target was considered by Millener et al. [@mgdd85].
The $^{18}$F core nucleus has quite a dense spectrum, including $3^+;0$, $0^+;1$, $0^-;0$, and $5^+;0$ states close to 1 MeV (see Fig.3 in Ref. [@tamura12]). The wave functions for the lowest $1^+$ and $3^+$ states are given in a $jj$-coupling basis in Table \[tab:cw\]. The $1^+$ state is actually 92.7% $L\!=\!0$, $S\!=\!1$ (amplitudes 0.8985 and $-0.3461$ for SU(3) symmetry $(4\,0)$ and $(0\,2)$, respectively), while the $3^+$ state is 96.9% $L\!=\!2$, $S\!=\!1$ (amplitudes 0.9722 and $-0.1548$). Historically, this simplicity for $^{18}$F and $^{19}$F was a significant factor in the introduction of Elliott’s SU(3) model [@elliott99].
[@c@rrrrrr]{} $J^\pi$ & $d_{5/2}^2$ & $d_{5/2}d_{3/2}$ & $d_{3/2}^2$ & $d_{5/2}s_{1/2}$ & $d_{3/2}s_{1/2}$ & $s_{1/2}^2$\
$1^+$ & 0.6038 & $-0.6539$ & $-0.0515$ & & 0.1130 & 0.4386\
$3^+$ & 0.5721 & $-0.2397$ & $-0.0026$ & 0.7844 & &\
[@c@rrrrr]{} & & HO & WS & WS & WS\
& $J$ & $b\!=\!1.741$ fm & ${\rm BE}\!=\!{\rm Exp.}$ & ${\rm BE}\!=\!9$ MeV & ${\rm BE}\!=\!1$ MeV\
$\langle 1s_{1/2}s_\Lambda|V|1s_{1/2}s_\Lambda\rangle$ & 0 & $-1.6067$ & $-1.2774$ & $-1.3181$ & $-0.6529$\
& 1 & $-1.1817$ & $-0.9524$ & $-0.9822$ & $-0.4915$\
$\langle 0d_{3/2}s_\Lambda|V|1s_{1/2}s_\Lambda\rangle$ & 1 & $-0.1254$ & $-0.1062$ & $-0.1174$ & $-0.0610$\
$\langle 0d_{3/2}s_\Lambda|V|0d_{3/2}s_\Lambda\rangle$ & 1 & $-0.4883$ & $-0.4890$ & $-0.5522$ & $-0.3828$\
& 2 & $-0.5184$ & $-0.5107$ & $-0.5747$ & $-0.4033$\
$\langle 0d_{5/2}s_\Lambda|V|0d_{3/2}s_\Lambda\rangle$ & 2 & $0.1301$ & $0.1333$ & $0.1459$ & $0.0936$\
$\langle 0d_{5/2}s_\Lambda|V|0d_{5/2}s_\Lambda\rangle$ & 2 & $-1.0508$ & $-1.0708$ & $-1.1026$ & $-0.7453$\
& 3 & $-0.9863$ & $-1.0009$ & $-1.0309$ & $-0.6958$\
In the sd-shell, there are 8 $(sd)_Ns_\Lambda$ matrix elements; 4 central, one each for LS and ALS in relative p states, and 2 tensor (in both even and odd states). These are shown as a function of binding energy in Table \[tab:sd\]. Here, a radial representation of the $\Lambda N$ interaction that reproduces the matrix elements of Eq.(\[eq:param11\]) is used (cf. Ref. [@millener10]). Table \[tab:sd\] demonstrates that the matrix elements are sensitive to the binding energies of the sd-shell orbits, especially the noded $1s$ orbit. We note that sd-shell orbits indeed become loosely bound and the $1s$ orbit moves below the $0d_{5/2}$ orbit for states in p-shell hypernuclei.
Combining the Woods-Saxon matrix elements for the Exp. case in Table \[tab:sd\] with the wave functions in Table \[tab:cw\], the doublet spacings for states based on the lowest $1^+$ and $3^+$ states are 305 keV and 196 keV, respectively. This calculation is for simple weak-coupling states without the inclusion of $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling and calculations similar to those performed for p-shell hypernuclei remain to be performed. In addition, $^{18}$F has low-lying negative parity states that can be reached in the reaction [@tamura12]. The lowest $0^-$ and $1^-$ states are predominantly of the form $p_{1/2}^{-1}\times {^{19}{\rm F}(gs)}$ (89% and 81% for $0^-$ and $1^-$ in a full $1\hbar\omega$ shell-model calculation; alternatively 72.4% and 74.6% $(6\,1)$ SU(3) symmetry). The $1\hbar\omega$ hypernuclear basis requires $(sd)^2p_\Lambda$ states in addition to $p^{-1}(sd)^3s_\Lambda$ and $(sd)(pf)s_\Lambda$ to make a non-spurious basis.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Calculations using refined ($0\hbar\omega$) interactions for p-shell core nuclei, with the inclusion of $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling, have been quite successful in that a large body of data on hypernuclear level spacings has been correlated with relatively few $YN$ parameters. The introduction of explicit $\Lambda$-$\Sigma$ coupling is generally beneficial. It is necessary to understand the s-shell hypernuclear binding energies, especially for and . It makes significant contributions of varying size relative to the dominant $\Lambda N$ spin-spin interaction in p-shell doublet spacings and binding energies. In particular, it seems necessary to understand the ground-state doublet spacings in both (a limit) and . These effects involve the interplay of Fermi and Gamow-Teller type matrix elements connecting core states.
The remaining problems are to understand (1) the need for different $\Lambda N$ spin-spin interaction strengths at either end of the p-shell and (2) the need for a stronger enhancement of the nuclear vector interaction terms (LS and ALS) near mid shell by the presence of the $\Lambda$. The next steps are to expand the shell-model basis and to reintroduce the double one-pion exchange $\Lambda NN$ interaction considered by Gal, Soper, and Dalitz [@gsd].
For consistency, one has to go beyond $2\hbar\omega$ states for the core and the $\Lambda$ configurations which makes for a challenging problem. A somewhat more tractable problem is to treat the full $1\hbar\omega$ basis of hypernuclear states [@zofka91]. This is necessary to (1) treat properly $p_\Lambda$ states in both the p- and sd-shells and (2) estimate decay widths for particle emission from unbound hypernuclear states [@majling92; @majling97], this being the way in which $\gamma$ transitions in daughter hypernuclei have been studied.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work has been supported by the US Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886 with Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Appendix A. Structure factors for production reactions {#sec:appendix .unnumbered}
======================================================
For a particular $l_n\to l_\Lambda$ transition, it is possible to pull out a structure factor that multiplies a particular distorted (or plane) wave radial integral and governs the relative cross sections for related states. See, for example, Section 3.2 of Ref. [@auerbach83] where the structure factor is $(2J_f+1)/(2J_i+1)$ times the square of an LS one-body density-matrix (OBDME) for the transition, together with some common factors such as the square of the isospin Clebsch-Gordan coefficient for the transition. For the predominantly non-spin-flip transitions in or reactions, there is a single OBDME with $S\!=\!0$. In the case $(e,e'K^+)$ reactions, the Kroll-Ruderman term ${\bf\sigma}\cdot {\bf\epsilon}$ is dominant and one needs to evaluate the magnetization current contributions to the transverse electric and magnetic operators that appear in the $(e,e')$ cross section, specifically the $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma'$ terms that appear in Eqs.(22b) and (22c), and given in Eqs.(1d) and (1e), of Donnelly and Haxton [@donnelly79]. For the same L, we can pull out a common radial factor, basically the longitudinal form factor $F_L$. For the electric terms with $L\!=\!J$, we get just $F_L$, while for the magnetic terms we get $\sqrt{(J+1)/(2J+1)}\;
F_L$ for $L\!=\!J\!-\!1$ and $\sqrt{J/(2J+1)}\;F_L$ for $L\!=\!J\!+\!1$. To get the structure factors, we multiply by the OBDME with the given (LSJ), square, and add the statistical $(2J_f+1)/(2J_i+1)$ factor. Note that in the case of a simple particle-hole excitation for a closed-shell target nucleus, the $jj$ OBDME is just a phase factor so that the (LSJ) OBDME is given by a normalized 9J symbol for the $jj\to LS$ transformation.
In this paper, we have just the simple $p_N\to s_\Lambda$ transition so that for $S\!=\!0$ we need the OBDME $(101)^2$, while for $S\!=\!1$ we need the combination $(111)^2+3/5(112)^2$. These are multiplied by $2\,C^2\,(2J_f+1)/(2J_i+1)$, where $C$ is the isospin Clebsch-Gordan coefficient.
[99]{}
D.J. Millener, Nucl. Phys. A 804 (2008) 84.
H. Tamura, Nucl. Phys. A 804 (2008) 73.
H. Tamura, Nucl. Phys. A 835 (2010) 3.
Y. Ma et al., Nucl. Phys. A 835 (2010) 422.
D.J. Millener, Nucl. Phys. A 835 (2010) 11.
A. Gal, J.M. Soper, R.H. Dalitz, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 63 (1971) 53.
A. Umeya, T. Harada, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 034310.
S. Cohen, D. Kurath, Nucl. Phys. 73 (1965) 1.
D.J. Millener, Springer Lecture Notes in Physics, 724 (2007) 31.
Y. Akaishi, T. Harada, S. Shinmura, K.S. Myint, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 3539.
Th.A. Rijken, V.J.G. Stoks, Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. C 59 (1999) 21.
M. Ukai et al., Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 054315.
M. Ukai et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 232501.
M. Agnello et al., Phys. Lett. B 681 (2009) 139.
A. Gal, Nucl. Phys. A 828 (2009) 72.
D.H. Davis, R. Levi Setti, M. Raymund, Nucl. Phys. 41 (1963) 73; R.H. Dalitz, Nucl. Phys. 41 (1963) 78.
G. Bohm et al. Nucl. Phys. B 74 (1974) 237; D. Zieminska, R.H. Dalitz, Nucl. Phys. B 74 (1974) 248.
R.E. Chrien et al., Phys. Rev. C 41 (1990) 1062.
M. Ukai et al., Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006) 012501(R).
M. Bejidian et al., Phys. Lett. B 94 (1980) 480.
D.J. Millener, A. Gal, C.B. Dover, R.H. Dalitz, Phys. Rev. C 31 (1985) 499.
L.E. Marcucci, M. Pervin, S.C. Pieper, R. Schiavilla, R.B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008) 065501.
R.H. Dalitz, A. Gal. Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 116 (1978) 167.
F. Cusanno et al., Nucl. Phys. A 835 (2010) 129.
K. Miwa et al., Nucl. Phys. A 754 (2005) 80c.
G.-B. Liu, H.T. Fortune, Phys. Rev. C 38 (1988) 1985.
M. Sotona, S. Frullani, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 117 (1994) 151.
O. Hashimoto, H. Tamura, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57 (2006) 564.
L. Tang, private communication.
T. Motoba, M. Sotona, K. Itonaga, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 117 (1994) 123.
D.H. Davis, J. Pniewski, Contemp. Phys. 27 (1986) 91; D.H. Davis, Nucl. Phys. A 754 (2005) 3c.
F. Cusanno et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 202501.
A.Gal, D.J. Millener, Phys. Lett. B 701 (2011) 342.
H. Tamura, in this issue.
W. Chung, PhD thesis, Michigan State University, 1976.
J.P. Elliott, J.Phys. G 25 (1999) 577.
J. Žofka, L. Majling, V.N. Fetisov, R.A. Eramzhyan, Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 22 (1991) 628.
L. Majling, R.A. Eramzhyan, V.N. Fetisov, Czech. J. Phys. 42 (1992) 1197.
L. Majling, R.A. Eramzhyan, V.N. Fetisov, Phys. Part. Nucl. 28 (1997) 101.
E.H. Auerbach et al., Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 148 (1983) 381.
T.W. Donnelly, W.C. Haxton, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 23 (1979) 103.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
**Abstract**\
author:
- Lorenzo Dominici
- 'Ricardo Carretero-González'
- Antonio Gianfrate
- 'Jesús Cuevas-Maraver'
- 'Augusto S. Rodrigues'
- 'Dimitri J. Frantzeskakis'
- Giovanni Lerario
- Dario Ballarini
- Milena De Giorgi
- Giuseppe Gigli
- 'Panayotis G. Kevrekidis'
- Daniele Sanvitto
title: Interactions and scattering of quantum vortices in a polariton fluid
---
**Introduction**\
Quantum vortices [@huang_quantum_2015] correspond to wave field rotations in systems described by means of complex wavefunctions. In contrast to the classical case, the continuity of the phase constrains the phase circulation (also called phase winding or topological charge $l$) to be an integer number. A direct consequence is that the fluid velocity—that in a superfluid is proportional to the phase gradient—decays as $1/r$ away from the vortex core. Quantum vortices are commonly observed in a wide range of contexts including condensates [@stringari; @fetter; @DarkBook; @Lagoudakis2008; @Sanvitto2010], superconductors [@blatter_vortices_1994], optics [@willner_different_2012; @molina-terriza_twisted_2007], free electron beams [@uchida_generation_2010], and even in the recently detected gravitational waves originating from the merging of two spinning black holes [@abbott_observation_2016]. In particular, quantum vortex configurations and pairing in condensates are fundamental in relation to their long-range order coherence, phase transitions, and quantum turbulence [@BPA; @dagvadorj_nonequilibrium_2015; @serafini_vortex_2017]. Nonlinear effects enable the motion of vortices in external density and phase field gradients [@kivshar_dynamics_1998]. These interactions result in quantum vortices experiencing two main driving velocities: one parallel to phase gradients and another perpendicular to density gradients. In atomic Bose Einstein condensates (BECs), both the case of cowinding and that of counterwinding two or few vortices have been studied [@navarro_dynamics_2013; @torres_dynamics_2011; @theo; @li_dynamics_2016; @middelkamp_guiding-center_2011]. When considering the spinor nature of two-component condensates, recent works pointed to the possible representation in terms of vortex molecules [@nitta_vortex_2014; @kasamatsu_vortex_2004] and to the more complex nature of the corresponding interactions [@pshenichnyuk_pair_2017; @tylutki_confinement_2016; @kasamatsu_short-range_2016; @eto_interaction_2011]. One driving concept in such theoretical works is the perpendicular velocity exerted by the vortices on each other [@calderaro_vortex_2017], resulting in the orbiting/parallel motion of two co-/counter-winding vortex cores, respectively. Experimental collisional dynamics [@seo_collisional_2016], were recently induced on the time-scale of seconds in the case of an antiferromagnetic spinor BEC, exploiting the counter-rotating orbits of opposite charge vortices. rich phenomenology of vortex dynamics observed in BECs reaches far out of their specific physical domains, including their role as cosmological simulators [@Zurek1985; @jeff]. In that context, among the proposals for physical theories are schemes describing the quantum vacuum as a special superfluid/BEC medium [@Huang20161; @fedi_superfluid_2016; @sbitnev_hydrodynamics_2016_I], and the elementary particles as quantized vortex excitations on such background [@sbitnev_hydrodynamics_2016_II].
In this work we use a compact solid-state device to explore the fundamental nonlinear interactions between vortices and their dynamics in an exciton polariton BEC [@sanvitto_road_2016; @Byrnes2014]. Semiconductor microcavity polaritons represent a convenient platform to achieve condensates of strongly coupled exciton and photon fields [@Byrnes2014; @Kasprzak2006], for the study of two-dimensional (2D) quantum hydrodynamics and topological excitations [@Lagoudakis2008; @Lagoudakis2009; @roumpos2; @Amo2009; @Sanvitto2010; @Amo2011; @Manni2012] in dissipative and interacting superfluids. Polariton fluids are hence similar to nonlinear optics media and atomic BECs, yet possessing their own peculiarities, such as Rabi coupling [@Dominici2014], nonparabolic dispersions (e.g., negative mass) [@gianfrate_superluminal_2018] and strong nonlinearities [@dominici_real-space_2015]. One of their assets is the ability to readily a given initial state (setting velocity, directionality, , etc.), therefore providing a full control over the quantum state of the polariton fluid [@sanvitto_all-optical_2011]. Polaritons support rich spinorial patterns, in analogy to optical (multi-frequency or multi-polarization) systems and multi-component BECs [@Kevrekidis2016140; @kasamatsu_multi_review_2005]. Full- and half-integer quantum vortices [@Liew2007; @Rubo2007; @Voronova2012] have attracted recent interest since they can be studied both under spontaneous as well as resonant generation, and offer the possibility to shape vortex-antivortex pair-creation events [@sanvitto_all-optical_2011], vortex lattices [@Hivet2014; @boulier_vortex_2015] and spin-vortex textures [@Manni2013; @Liu2015; @donati_twist_2016], together with highly nonlinear dynamics [@dominici_vortex_2015] .
We using a resonant pulsed excitation beam with a modified Laguerre-Gauss (LG) spatial profile. In this manner we are able to seed vortices (initially locked by the resonant photonic ) at any desired locations . . After the pulsed pump , we track the ensuing vortex dynamics for different pumping which amounts to controllably varying the nonlinearity in the system. When the external pumping is increased—thus the total population and hence the effective nonlinearity—vortices are able to interact more strongly. Furthermore, contrary to the case of vortices in atomic, one-component, BECs, we observe that, for high enough pumping power, vortices start to approach each other. Such effect grants access to vortex-vortex scattering scenarios. We deploy a theoretical model to understand why vortices get closer to each other and conclude that this effect is due to strong spiral density patterns—mediated by the intrinsic excitonic nonlinearity—that channel the vortices to get closer to each other and eventually scatter.\
**Results**\
**A multicomponent polariton fluid.** Our physical system consists of four components: the exciton and the photon fields in both the $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ polarizations . Both spin polarizations of the photon field can be accessed (measured) independently in the experiment, while the exciton fields are not accessible for measurement. However, given that the system is only excited in one of its two normal modes, the lower polariton branch, the photon field corresponds to a one-to-one mapping of the exciton field (apart from a $\uppi$-phase shift) and, in essence, of the polariton field. In our experiments (see the Methods section below for more details), the ultrafast imaging of the quantum fluid over tens of picoseconds, reveals the in-situ (2+1)D hydrodynamics, where the vortices can be individually tracked and their full $(x,y,t)$ trajectories retrieved. This is a significant advantage over atomic BECs, where, typically, only the density can be monitored (not the phase) and where only a few snapshots from a given experimental sequence can be obtained [@Freilich1182].\
**Vortex dynamics.** The spatial structure of the vortices is reported in Fig. \[fig:FIG1\],, where the left panels show the photonic emission from the initial state of the polariton fluid . The pumping density and phase distribution is the same for all the different pulse powers used here—that in turn correspond to the initial total polariton populations denoted $P_{1-6}$, see Fig. \[fig:FIG1\]—and, more importantly, the phase winding is the same in spinorial components . We note that we only display in Fig. \[fig:FIG1\] the $\sigma^+$ spin polarization photon field as the $\sigma^-$ field is perfectly synchronized and follows, indistinguishably, the dynamics of the $\sigma^+$ field (). The phase map allows for the precise determination of vortex locations (small black spots in the amplitude maps ) . It is evident that the total topological charge (i.e., ), is composed of two separated cores in the central region. The initial vortex separation, which can be controlled upon proper tuning of the optical , is $\sim16~\upmu\text{m}$. In Fig. \[fig:FIG1\] we show three snapshots of the fluid at time intervals of $5~\text{ps}$, for the case with the largest density ($P_6$). Note that the vortices rotate around the center of the configuration and approximately maintain the same mutual distance, while some circular ripples are induced in the density. It is also relevant to mention that the initial size of vortex cores (as seeded by the pump) is about three times larger than the healing length $\xi$ expected from the initial polariton density ($\xi \sim 4.5~\upmu\text{m}$ for $P_1$ at $2.5~\text{ps}$). However, at very long times, when the polariton population decreases significantly (population at $30~\text{ps}$ is about $30\%$ of the maximum population), $\xi$ should increase by less than a factor of two. Nevertheless, since the healing length represents a value for the vortex core size, we can exclude any substantial effect of $\xi$ on the observed dynamics, for any of the six different power regimes\
![[**Vortex-vortex dynamics.**]{} Polariton (**a**) amplitude and (**b**) phase maps at different times ($t = 0, 5$ and $10$ ps) for the initial total polariton population $P_6$. The two phase singularities are in **a** . Intervortex (**c**) distance and (**d**) angle for six initial total polariton populations ($P_{1}$–$P_{6})$. . In **d** the open symbols are the experimental points and the solid lines represent fitting curves using the theoretical toy-model introduced in the . The six pump powers correspond to the following initial populations: $P_{1-6} \equiv 60\cdot 10^{3}$, $150\cdot 10^{3}$, $300\cdot 10^{3}$, $0.6\cdot 10^{6}$, $1.0\cdot 10^{6}$, $1.5\cdot 10^{6}$ polaritons. The background shaded area in **d** depicts a time-series of the total polariton population plotted against []{data-label="fig:FIG1"}](Fig1_sm.jpg.ps){width="1\linewidth"}
The vortex-vortex dynamics are summarized in the time plots in Fig. \[fig:FIG1\], which show, respectively, the intervortex distance $d_{\alpha\beta}(t)$ and angle $\theta_{\alpha\beta}(t)$ in the $\Delta t = 0 \text{ -- } 32.5~\text{ps}$ time range . The cores separation in Fig. \[fig:FIG1\] slightly decreases during the whole dynamics, with approximately the same constant speed for all the different initial densities (that is an average $v \sim 0.04~\upmu \text{m} \cdot \text{ps}^{-1}$ for each of the two vortices). We ascribe this continuous slow vortex approach to the presence of an inward phase gradient in the pump beam as it can be clearly the spiral phase patterns in Fig. \[fig:FIG1\] . Such a gradient represents an external linear drive that was set upon fine tuning of the optical focusing of the pump, in order to weakly push the vortices towards each other.\
The nonlinear rotation of the vortices is evident from Fig. \[fig:FIG1\] (such manifest since the early times of the dynamics, the precise duration depending on power). It is crucial to note that this rotational effect is generated by the circular superfluid currents (proportional to the ) independently generated by each vortex on the location of its partner. Furthermore, we observe that the rate of rotation of the vortices increases for stronger pump powers. This is to the case in atomic BECs where the vortex interactions increase with the strength of the nonlinearity in the system. In our case, as the pump power is increased, the polariton population increases and the effective nonlinearity—proportional to the exciton density \[see Eq. (\[eq:coupled\_GPEs\_1\])\]. At a first order approximation, this action is expected to depend on the instantaneous and local density, which rises during the pump pulse arrival and then exponentially decays due to dissipation associated with polariton lifetime (mainly due to photon emission). The overall effect of this rise and fall of the effective nonlinearity is expected to induce a fast rotation followed by a slow deceleration in time, qualitatively resulting in an overall sigmoid shape of the $\theta_{\alpha\beta}(t)$ curves. However, such a simplified scheme is able to capture the vortex dynamics only for short times, as shown by the solid lines in Fig. \[fig:FIG1\] which are fitting curves using the theoretical toy-model introduced in . In the experiments, we observe the presence of an additional counter-rotating effect at later times for the largest powers ( , manifesting at $t = 17, 12$ and $8~\text{ps}$ for $P_{4,5,6}$, respectively) which leads to a reversal of the rotation (rather than simply to its saturation). Here, the nonlinear reshaping of the fluid results in the formation of circular density ripples whose radial gradient represents an additional azimuthal drive on vortex motion. As the vortices ride on the of these (circular) radial ripples—they provide a sharp radial density gradient that is responsible for the vortices rotating in a direction that overcomes the mutual vortex-vortex counter-clockwise motion. Our numerical results, implementing the generalized open-dissipative Gross-Pitaevskii model described in the Methods section , do produce the radial ripples, however they are generated further away from the center and, therefore, they do not affect the vortex rotation (i.e., the model does not precisely reproduce the intensity or the spatial location of the II). Nonetheless, we have checked that by changing the strength of the nonlinear interaction terms and/or the size of the pump spot width, and the initial location of the vortices, it is possible to qualitatively reproduce this rotation reversal . Furthermore, our numerical simulations also reproduce the main experimental observations, including the slow vortex approach ( the pump radial phase), the increase of the rate of rotation as the nonlinearity increases ( I), and also corroborates the sigmoid saturation which is present in the experiment for low enough powers .\
{width="1\linewidth"}
{width="1.00\linewidth"}
**Scattering-like events.** We explore the scattering between vortices initially placing the two cores closer to each other. The corresponding experimental dynamics are shown in Fig. \[fig:FIG2\], where the initial core separation is $d_{\alpha\beta}\sim 10~\upmu\text{m}$. The first two rows in the figure show the amplitude and phase maps at the initial time and successive instants, for two powers $P_1$ (Fig. \[fig:FIG2\]) and $P_3$ (Fig. \[fig:FIG2\]). In both cases there is a given time frame (respectively $t=3.5\text{ ps}$ and $t=0\text{ ps}$) at which the two vortex cores appear to merge and then separate again (see right panels). When the vortices reach their closest proximity (comparable with their core radius), they cannot be clearly resolved apart in the amplitude maps. Given the access to the phase maps, where the phase singularities can be pinpointed with pixel resolution, the dynamics of the point-like entities can be tracked even when the vortex cores are nearly overlapping with each other (see also , reporting the amplitude and phase for the first four powers $P_{1,2,3,4}$, respectively). The associated $(x,y,t)$ trajectories extracted from the phase maps are reported in the panels of Fig. \[fig:FIG2\], for the time range $\Delta t=-2.5 \text{ -- } 9.5\text{ ps}$. The time-space vortex filaments highlight the approach and bounce-back of the two cores that, after the scattering, emerge rotated compared to their initial locations. The deformation of the vortex strings in the $(x,y,t)$ domain is related to the nonlinear energy stored and released by the fluid during the scattering. Nevertheless, these coherent structures robustly emerge (as individual entities) from the scattering events.
The vortex-vortex collisions are mapped in Fig. \[fig:FIG2\], as the $(x,y)$ trajectories for the two vortices. Upon larger initial densities, the phase singularities reach a more intimate proximity, confirming a nonlinear scattering-like process. Trajectories from the numerical simulations are reported in Fig. \[fig:FIG2\], and qualitatively reproduce the experiments. They show how the phase singularities, slightly wandering at low power, go through stronger scattering paths upon increasing the population. We point out that in the numerical model the scattering-like events are also observed when starting with an outward phase gradient of the resonant pump, when increasing the density (). This is a further confirmation that the scattering events are an inherent nonlinear effect, independent from the external action of the initial pump gradient.\
The collisional features are recognizable in the time plots for the intervortex angle and distance in Fig. \[fig:FIG3\],, respectively. The angle $\theta_{\alpha\beta}(t)$ remains approximately constant before suddenly suffering a sharp change and then settling again (sigmoid feature). The intervortex distance $d_{\alpha\beta}(t)$ reaches a minimum for a time in close correspondence to the inflection point of the angle $\theta_{\alpha\beta}(t)$ curve, hence at the maximum of the angular speed, before the two vortices bounce back. We performed a fitting of the $d_{\alpha\beta}(t)$ curves, to retrieve an empirical trend for the collisional events upon larger excitation density. The scattering time $t_{sc}$ and time width $\sigma_{sc}$ parameters correspond to: 3.6, 1.7, $-0.2$, $-1.2$ and 4.7, 3.8, 2.3, 1.4 , respectively, for the $P_{1-4}$ cases. The results for this set of experiments, and the corresponding modeling, highlight that earlier (and faster) scattering events are associated to larger powers. The rotational component during the scattering events is outlined in Fig. \[fig:FIG3\], showing the angular velocity as a function of the separation. All the $P_{1-4}$ curves represent a decreasing trend in the $\dot{\theta}(d)$ dependence, and lie between $1/d^2$ and $1/d^4$ power laws. It is important to contrast this observed trend in the context of point-vortices in superfluid BECs. Since the tangential superfluid velocity in a BEC vortex is inversely proportional to the distance from the core, the angular velocity of a vortex pair rotating under the mutual azimuthal interaction [@Jackson1998; @DarkBook; @Kevrekidis_MPLB_2004] is proportional to $1/d^2$. However, in our system $\dot\theta(d)$ seems to decay faster. This is attributed to the fact that the derivation of $\dot\theta\propto 1/d^2$ assumes an effectively constant density background, while in the polariton case there is an exponentially decreasing density with time (similar results are obtained with the numerical model, ).\
{width="1.00\linewidth"}
Finally, we show the radial acceleration during the scattering events in Fig. \[fig:FIG3\]. This plot helps to interpret the collisional dynamics as driven by an effective radial pull-push. For relatively large distances, the effective force is approximately zero leading to circular-like motion; while, at shorter ranges, the effective force acquires a negative component (and stronger for higher densities) and thus induces the vortices to get closer to each other. It is important to mention that the curves depicted in Fig. \[fig:FIG3\] are drawn under non-equilibrium conditions and cannot be straightforwardly assigned to a genuine pairwise potential between the vortices. Nonetheless, the results suggest that it is possible to induce two cowinding vortices to get closer to each other and modulate (increase) the rate of approach upon increasing the condensate’s density. Numerical simulations of our model of Eqs. (\[eq:coupled\_GPEs\_1\])-(\[eq:coupled\_GPEs\_2\]) suggest that, while the polariton vortices drag each other in a mutual circular dance, as standard cowinding vortices do, they also induce local spiral density patterns self-channeling their approach and scattering. A cleaner depiction of this self-channeling density spiral is presented in (see also ). Parametric explorations within the numerical model allow us to conclude that the vortex approach is mediated by a combination of the photonic kinetic energy term, the Rabi coupling between the photonic and excitonic components, and the intrinsic excitonic nonlinearity. The induced represents a novel fundamental effect to be used at the basis of more complex quantum hydrodynamics and turbulence scenarios as well as in the nonlinear shaping of multi-component vortex lattices.\
{width="1.00\linewidth"}
Here explore the effect of the mutual azimuthal thrust on the core dynamics when seeding composite vortices relying on same, as well as opposite, charges between the different spin components . In contrast to the results presented in Fig. \[fig:FIG1\] where both $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ spin polarizations remained synchronized during evolution, here the different interactions inside each of the two spin polarizations result in the two components evolving independently. We therefore need to individually measure and display the evolution in each spin component. The results are reported in Fig. \[fig:FIG4\] and validate that the rotation effect and its direction are due to the phase drive of the two vortex currents inside the spinorial component. Indeed, in the cowinding case, the rotation is in the same direction for both the $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ vortex doublets, as shown in Fig. \[fig:FIG4\]. The initial configuration is almost identical in both spin populations albeit with a small deviation of the vortex positions between components. Despite this small initial deviation, the vortices across components stay close to each other and the overall dynamics between components stays synchronized, due to the same () existing in both spin populations. It is also possible that the weak attractive inter-spin interactions help in stabilizing against small differential disorder between the spin populations [@dominici_vortex_2015]. In contrast, for the counterwinding case, the observed trajectories (see blue and red orbits in Fig. \[fig:FIG4\]) are (left-to-right) mirrored across the components. The (2+1)D vortex lines for both co- and counter-rotating cases are reported in Fig. \[fig:FIG4\], respectively. by using two lines (blue and red, at any time frame) linking the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ cores inside any of the two spin populations \[and with the lines drawing two sheets in the $(x,y,t)$ domain\].\
In the time plots of Fig. \[fig:FIG5\] we confirm the opposite rotations (as solid blue and red line) in time $\theta_{\alpha\beta}(t)$, and the faster rotation when increasing power (as dashed lines). The separation of the corresponding $\alpha$ and $\beta$ between the two spins is reported in Fig. \[fig:FIG5\] ( distances are labeled as $d_{\alpha\alpha}^{\pm}$ and $d_{\beta\beta}^{\pm}$). The resulting counter-rotation of the doublets leads to the separation of at least one interspin couple, for which the distance increases approximately linearly (see $\alpha\alpha$, solid purple line). Due to slight asymmetries in the initial conditions (not a perfect alignment/tuning of the phase shaping), the second couple separation actually decreases (although, for later times, we see it separating as well, see $\beta\beta$, solid magenta line). These observations are also exhibited by the numerical simulations, that use the experimental profiles as an initial condition. In fact, the numerical plots of the intervortex angles and distance in Fig. \[fig:FIG5\], qualitatively reproduce those of Fig. \[fig:FIG5\],. In contrast, the cowinding and co-rotating doublets preserve the initial overlapping for the corresponding cores between the spins (the interspin cores distance is $\sim1~\upmu\text{m}$ during the whole dynamics, see dashed light and dark orange lines in Fig. \[fig:FIG5\]). In summary, the above set of experiments show that the vortex-vortex interactions within the same spin component dominate the dynamics, while the interactions across the components are weaker and, thus, are not essential to understand the rotational dynamics. In fact, further numerical tests, including cases varying the strength, and even eliminating, the spin-orbit coupling yielded almost identical results. Nonetheless, the two independent intra-spin rotational drives can affect the overall resulting spinorial state. For instance, topological charges as full-vortices keep rotating jointly. In contrast, when as spin-vortices they dissociate due to the effect of the opposite nonlinear rotation. Therefore, the two couples get split into four [@Rubo2007; @Manni2013; @donati_twist_2016; @dominici_vortex_2015].\
\
We have studied the external and internal of two quantum vortices in a nonlinear and out-of-equilibrium 2D polariton fluid The results show that stronger density regimes enhance the interactions, accelerating or even reversing the mutual rotation effect and giving rise to unexpected radial dynamics. Indeed, nonlinearity fuels the azimuthal phase drive between vortices resulting in an increase of the speed of the circular motion for same-charge vortices. Strikingly, at short range, the intrinsic excitonic nonlinearity induces an effective radial thrust that compels the cores to approach and bounce back from each other. We exploit this feature to demonstrate vortex-vortex scattering events. These represent an original scenario that could be further investigated in other multicomponent superfluids, and would be particularly interesting in the nonlinear shaping of vortex or vortex-antivortex lattices.
further study the effects of seeding opposite-charge couples between the two spinorial components. As a result, the vortex-vortex doublets’ rotational direction in each of the two spin is opposite, which in turn splits these composite spin-vortices into . These structures, consisting of a unitary charge coupled to a chargeless configuration, are relevant in a wide range of fields within optical, nonlinear, atomic or high energy physics, where they are also known as Poincaré beams, vortex-bright solitons, or filled-core vortices [@Cardano2013; @DarkBook; @Kevrekidis2016140].
**Methods**\
**Acknowledgments**\
We thank Romuald Houdré and Alberto Bramati for the microcavity sample. We kindly acknowledge Lorenzo Marrucci and Bruno Piccirillo for providing the $q$-plate devices. We acknowledge the European Research Council project POLAFLOW (Grant 308136), the Italian Ministero dell’Istruzione dell’Universitá e della Ricerca project “Beyond Nano” and the project “Molecular nAnotechnologies for heAlth and environmenT” (MAAT, PON02-00563-3316357 and CUP B31C12001230005) for financial support. R.C.G. and P.G.K. acknowledge support from NSF-DMS-1309035, PHY-1603058, NSF-DMS-1312856, and PHY-1602994. J.C.M. thanks financial support from MAT2016-79866-R project (AEI/FEDER, UE).\
[10]{}
, [*Observation of [Gravitational]{} [Waves]{} from a [Binary]{} [Black]{} [Hole]{} [Merger]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116 (2016), p. 061102.
, [*[Superfluidity of polaritons in semiconductor microcavities]{}*]{}, Nat. Phys., 5 (2009), pp. 805–810.
, [*[Polariton superfluids reveal quantum hydrodynamic solitons.]{}*]{}, Science, 332 (2011), pp. 1167–1170.
, [*[Role of supercurrents on vortices formation in polariton condensates]{}*]{}, Opt. Express, 20 (2012), pp. 16366–16373.
, [*Vortices in high-temperature superconductors*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys., 66 (1994), pp. 1125–1388.
, [*[Vortex Chain in a Resonantly Pumped Polariton Superfluid]{}*]{}, Sci. Rep., 5 (2015), p. 9230.
, [*Exciton-polariton condensates*]{}, Nat. Phys., 10 (2014), pp. 803–813.
, [*Vortex dynamics in coherently coupled [Bose]{}-[Einstein]{} condensates*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, 95 (2017), p. 023605.
, [*Topological order and thermal equilibrium in polariton condensates*]{}, Nat. Mater., 17 (2017), pp. 145–151.
, [ *[Generation and dynamics of optical beams with polarization singularities.]{}*]{}, Opt. Express, 21 (2013), pp. 8815–8820.
, [*Nonequilibrium [Phase]{} [Transition]{} in a [Two]{}-[Dimensional]{} [Driven]{} [Open]{} [Quantum]{} [System]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. X, 5 (2015), p. 041028.
, [*Ultrafast control and [Rabi]{} oscillations of polaritons*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 113 (2014), p. 226401.
, [ *Ultrafast topology shaping by a [Rabi]{}-oscillating vortex.*]{}, (2018), p. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.02580.
, [*Vortex and half-vortex dynamics in a nonlinear spinor quantum fluid*]{}, Sci. Adv., 1 (2015), p. e1500807.
, [*Real-space collapse of a polariton condensate*]{}, Nat. Commun., 6 (2015), p. 8993.
, [ *Twist of generalized skyrmions and spin vortices in a polariton superfluid*]{}, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 113 (2016), pp. 14926–14931.
, [ *Interaction of half-quantized vortices in two-component [Bose]{}-[Einstein]{} condensates*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, 83 (2011), p. 063603.
, [*[A superfluid Theory of Everything?]{}*]{}, (2016), pp. Preprint at https://hal.archives–ouvertes.fr/hal–01312579.
, [*Rotating trapped [Bose-Einstein]{} condensates*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys., 81 (2009), pp. 647–691.
, [*[Exploiting quantum coherence of polaritons for ultra sensitive detectors.]{}*]{}, (2012), p. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1187.
, [*Vortex-antivortex pair dynamics in an exciton-polariton condensate*]{}, New J. Phys., 11 (2009), p. 113048.
, [*Real-time dynamics of single vortex lines and vortex dipoles in a [Bose-Einstein]{} condensate*]{}, Science, 329 (2010), pp. 1182–1185.
, [*Superluminal [X-waves]{} in a polariton quantum fluid*]{}, Light Sci. Appl., 7 (2018), p. e17119.
, [ *Interaction-shaped vortex-antivortex lattices in polariton fluids*]{}, Phys. Rev. B, 89 (2014), p. 134501.
, [*Quantum vorticity in nature*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 30 (2015), p. 1530056.
, [*A superfluid universe*]{}, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 2016.
, [*Vortex formation in dilute inhomogeneous [Bose-Einstein]{} condensates*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80 (1998), pp. 3903–3906.
, [*Short-range intervortex interaction and interacting dynamics of half-quantized vortices in two-component [Bose]{}-[Einstein]{} condensates*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, 93 (2016), p. 013615.
, [*Vortex [Molecules]{} in [Coherently]{} [Coupled]{} [Two]{}-[Component]{} [Bose]{}-[Einstein]{} [Condensates]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 93 (2004), p. 250406.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*Vortices in multicomponent [B]{}ose-[E]{}instein condensates*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B, 19 (2005), pp. 1835–1904.
, [*[Bose-Einstein condensation of exciton polaritons.]{}*]{}, Nature, 443 (2006), pp. 409–414.
, [*Solitons in coupled nonlinear [Schr[ö]{}dinger]{} models: A survey of recent developments*]{}, Rev. Phys., 1 (2016), pp. 140 – 153.
, [*Vortices in [B]{}ose-[E]{}instein condensates: Some recent developments*]{}, Mod. Phys. Lett. B, 18 (2004), pp. 1481–1505.
, [*The defocusing nonlinear Schr[ö]{}dinger equation: from dark solitons and vortices to vortex rings*]{}, SIAM, Philadelphia, 2015.
, [*Dynamics of optical vortex solitons*]{}, Opt. Commun., 152 (1998), pp. 198–206.
, [*A tale of two distributions: from few to many vortices in quasi-two-dimensional [Bose-Einstein]{} condensates*]{}, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 470 (2014), p. 20140048.
, [*Observation of half-quantum vortices in an exciton-polariton condensate*]{}, Science, 326 (2009), pp. 974–976.
, [*Quantized vortices in an exciton-polariton condensate*]{}, Nat. Phys., 4 (2008), pp. 706–710.
, [*Dynamics of a coupled spin-vortex pair in dipolar spinor [Bose]{}-[Einstein]{} condensates*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, 93 (2016), p. 053602.
, [*Excitation of vortices in semiconductor microcavities*]{}, Phys. Rev. B, 75 (2007), p. 241301(R).
, [*A new type of half-quantum circulation in a macroscopic polariton spinor ring condensate*]{}, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 112 (2015), pp. 2676–2681.
, [*[Dissociation dynamics of singly charged vortices into half-quantum vortex pairs]{}*]{}, Nat. Commun., 3 (2012), p. 1309.
, [ *[Hyperbolic spin vortices and textures in exciton-polariton condensates]{}*]{}, Nat. Commun., 4 (2013), p. 2590.
, [*[Optical Spin-to-Orbital Angular Momentum Conversion in Inhomogeneous Anisotropic Media]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96 (2006), p. 163905.
, [*Guiding-center dynamics of vortex dipoles in [Bose]{}-[Einstein]{} condensates*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, 84 (2011), p. 011605(R).
, [*Twisted photons*]{}, Nat. Phys., 3 (2007), pp. 305–310.
, [*[Selective photoexcitation of confined exciton-polariton vortices]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. B, 82 (2010), p. 073303.
, [ *Dynamics of a [Few]{} [Corotating]{} [Vortices]{} in [Bose]{}-[Einstein]{} [Condensates]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110 (2013), p. 225301.
, [*Characteristics of two-dimensional quantum turbulence in a compressible superfluid*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111 (2013), p. 235301.
, [*Vortex [Molecules]{} in [Bose]{}-[Einstein]{} [Condensates]{}*]{}, J. Low Temp. Phys., 175 (2014), pp. 177–188.
, [*Bose-Einstein Condensation*]{}, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003.
, [*Pair interactions of heavy vortices in quantum fluids.*]{}, (2017), p. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.10072.
, [*From nodeless clouds and vortices to gray ring solitons and symmetry-broken states in two-dimensional polariton condensates*]{}, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 26 (2014), p. 155801.
, [*[Half vortices in exciton polariton condensates]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99 (2007), p. 106401.
, [*The road towards polaritonic devices*]{}, Nat. Mater., 15 (2016), pp. 1061–1073.
, [*[Persistent currents and quantized vortices in a polariton superfluid]{}*]{}, Nat. Phys., 6 (2010), pp. 527–533.
, [*All-optical control of the quantum flow of a polariton condensate*]{}, Nat. Photon., 5 (2011), pp. 610–614.
, [*Hydrodynamics of the [Physical]{} [Vacuum]{}: [I]{}. [Scalar]{} [Quantum]{} [Sector]{}*]{}, Found. Phys., 46 (2016), pp. 606–619.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*Hydrodynamics of the [Physical]{} [Vacuum]{}: [II]{}. [Vorticity]{} [Dynamics]{}*]{}, Found. Phys., 46 (2016), pp. 1238–1252.
, [*[Digital Holography]{}*]{}, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005.
, [*Collisional [Dynamics]{} of [Half]{}-[Quantum]{} [Vortices]{} in a [Spinor]{} [Bose]{}-[Einstein]{} [Condensate]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116 (2016), p. 185301.
, [*Vortex reconnections and rebounds in trapped atomic [Bose-Einstein]{} condensates*]{}, Phys. Rev. X, 7 (2017), p. 021031.
, [*Information processing with topologically protected vortex memories in exciton-polariton condensates*]{}, Phys. Rev. B, 90 (2014), p. 014504.
, [*Observation of quantum [Hawking]{} radiation and its entanglement in an analogue black hole*]{}, Nat. Phys., 12 (2015), pp. 959–965.
, [*Dynamics of vortex dipoles in confined [Bose]{}-[Einstein]{} condensates*]{}, Phys. Lett. A, 375 (2011), pp. 3044–3050.
, [*Quantum hydrodynamics*]{}, Phys. Rep., 522 (2013), pp. 191–238.
, [ *Confinement and precession of vortex pairs in coherently coupled [Bose]{}-[Einstein]{} condensates*]{}, Phys. Rev. A, 93 (2016), p. 043623.
, [*Generation of electron beams carrying orbital angular momentum*]{}, Nature, 464 (2010), pp. 737–739.
, [*Excitons in cores of exciton-polariton vortices*]{}, Phys. Rev. B, 86 (2012), p. 195305.
, [*A [Different]{} [Angle]{} on [Light]{} [Communications]{}*]{}, Science, 337 (2012), pp. 655–656.
, [*Excitations in a nonequilibrium [Bose-Einstein]{} condensate of exciton polaritons*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99 (2007), p. 140402.
, [*Pattern formation in vortex matter with pinning and frustrated intervortex interactions*]{}, Phys. Rev. B, 95 (2017), p. 104519.
, [*[Cosmological experiments in superfluid helium?]{}*]{}, Nature, 317 (1985), pp. 505–508.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The BG-simulation is a powerful reduction algorithm designed for asynchronous read/write crash-prone systems. It allows a set of $(t+1)$ asynchronous sequential processes to wait-free simulate (i.e., despite the crash of up to $t$ of them) an arbitrary number $n$ of processes under the assumption that at most $t$ of them may crash. The BG simulation shows that, in read/write systems, the crucial parameter is not the number $n$ of processes, but the upper bound $t$ on the number of process crashes.
The paper extends the concept of BG simulation to asynchronous message-passing systems prone to Byzantine failures. Byzantine failures are the most general type of failure: a faulty process can exhibit any arbitrary behavior. Because of this, they are also the most difficult to analyze and to handle algorithmically. The main contribution of the paper is a signature-free reduction of Byzantine failures to crash failures. Assuming $t<\min(n',n/3)$, the paper presents an algorithm that simulates a system of $n'$ processes where up to $t$ may crash, on top of a basic system of $n$ processes where up to $t$ may be Byzantine. While topological techniques have been used to relate the computability of Byzantine failure-prone systems to that of crash failure-prone ones, this simulation is the first, to our knowledge, that establishes this relation directly, in an algorithmic way.
In addition to extending the basic BG simulation to message-passing systems and failures more severe than process crashes, being modular and direct, this simulation provides us with a deeper insight in the nature and understanding of crash and Byzantine failures in the context of asynchronous message-passing systems. Moreover, it also allows crash-tolerant algorithms, designed for asynchronous read/write systems, to be executed on top of asynchronous message-passing systems prone to Byzantine failures.\
[**Keywords:**]{} Asynchronous processes, BG simulation, Byzantine process, Distributed computability, Fault-tolerance, Message-passing system, Process crash, Read/write shared memory system, Reduction algorithm, $t$-Resilience, System model, Wait-freedom.
author:
- |
Damien Imbs$^{\dag}$, Michel Raynal$^{\star,\ddag}$, Julien Stainer$^{\bullet}$\
\
$^{\star}$ Institut Universitaire de France\
$^{\dag}$ Department of Mathematics, University of Bremen, Germany\
$^{\ddag}$ IRISA, Université de Rennes, 35042 Rennes, France\
$^{\bullet}$ École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland\
title: |
**From Byzantine Failures to Crash Failures in\
Message-Passing Systems: a BG Simulation-based approach**
---
Introduction
============
#### What is the Borowsky-Gafni (BG) simulation and why is it important?
Considering an asynchronous system where processes can crash, the $(n,k)$-set agreement problem is a basic distributed decision task defined as follows [@C93]. Each of the $n$ processes proposes a value, and every process that does not crash has to decide a value (termination), such that a decided value is a proposed value (validity) and at most $k$ different values are decided (agreement). The consensus problem corresponds to the particular case $k=1$.
The $(n,k)$-set agreement is fundamental because it captures the essence of fault-tolerant distributed computability issues. A central question related to asynchronous distributed computability is the following: [*“Can we use a solution to the $(n,k)$-set agreement problem as a subroutine to solve the $(n',k')$-set agreement problem, when at most $t<\min(n,n')$ processes may crash?”*]{} (“Is $(n',k')$-set agreement reducible to $(n,k)$-set agreement?”.) The BG simulation (initially sketched in [@BG93] and then formalized in a journal version [@BGLR01], where, in addition, a formal definition of “reducibility” is given) answers this fundamental question. It states that the answer is “yes” if $k' \geq k$ and “no” if $k' \leq t <k$. As we can see, the answer “yes” does not depend on the number of processes.
To this end, the algorithm described in [@BGLR01] allows $(t+1)$ processes to simulate a large number $n'$ of asynchronous processes that communicate through read/write registers, and collectively solve a decision task, in the presence of at most $t$ crashes. Each of the $(t+1)$ simulator processes simulates all the $n'$ processes. These $(t+1)$ simulator processes cooperate through underlying objects that allow them to agree on a single output for each of the non-deterministic statements issued by every simulated process. (These underlying objects, called safe agreement objects, can be built of top of read/write atomic registers.)
Let BG(RW,C) denote the basic BG simulation algorithm [@BGLR01] (RW stands for “read/write communication”, and C stands for “crash failures”). BG(RW,C) is “symmetric” in the sense that each of the $n'$ processes is simulated by every simulator, and the $(t+1)$ simulators are “equal” with respect to each simulated process, namely, (1) every simulator fairly simulates all the processes, and (2) the crash of a simulator entails the crash of at most one simulated process. This symmetry allows BG(RW,C) to be suited to colorless tasks (i.e., distributed computing problems where the value decided by a process can be decided by any process [@HR97]). BG(RW,C) has then been extended to colored tasks (i.e., tasks such as renaming [@ABDPR90], where a process cannot systematically borrow its output from another process). Extended BG simulation is addressed in [@G09; @IR09]. Algorithmic pedagogical presentations of the BG simulation can be found in [@HRR13; @IR09]. A topological view on distributed computability issues in Byzantine asynchronous message-passing systems has been recently presented in [@HKR14; @MTH14]. A pedagogical topology-based presentation of the BG-simulation is given in chapter 7 of [@HKR14].
#### What is learned from the BG simulation
The important lesson learned from the BG simulation is that, in a failure-prone context, what is important is not the number of processes but the maximal number of possible failures and the actual number of values that are proposed to a decision task. An interesting consequence of the BG simulation (among several of its applications [@BGLR01]) is the proof that there is no $t$-resilient $(n,k)$-set agreement algorithm for $t \geq k$. This is obtained as follows. As (1) the BG simulation allows reducing the $(k+1,k)$-set agreement problem to the $(n,k)$-set agreement problem in a system with up to $k$ failures, and (2) the $(k+1,k)$-set agreement problem is known to be impossible in presence of $k$ failures [@BG93; @HS99; @SZ00], it follows that there is no $k$-resilient $(n,k)$-set agreement algorithm.
#### Content of the paper: on the BG-simulation side
As already indicated, the BG simulation has been explored in asynchronous systems where processes (1) communicate through atomic read/write registers [@L86], and (2) may commit only crash failures. This paper extends it in two directions. The first is the communication model, namely, it considers that processes cooperate by sending and receiving messages via asynchronous reliable channels. The second dimension is related to the type of failures; more precisely, it considers two types of failures: process crash failures, and the more severe process Byzantine failures. The paper presents the following contributions.
A first is an algorithm, denoted BG(MP,C), which simulates the execution of a colorless task running in an asynchronous message-passing system of $n'$ processes, where up to $t$ may crash, on top of an asynchronous message-passing system of $n$ processes where up to $t$ may crash. This simulation requires $t<n/2$ (which is a necessary and sufficient condition to simulate read/write registers in asynchronous message-passing systems of $n$ processes [@ABD95]). While the number of simulated processes $n'$ can be any integer, for the simulation to be non-trivial we consider that $t<n'$.
A second contribution is an algorithm, denoted BG(MP,B), which simulates the execution of a colorless task running in an asynchronous message-passing system of $n'$ processes, where up to $t$ may crash, on top of an asynchronous message-passing system of $n$ processes where up to $t$ may be Byzantine [@LSP82]. This simulation requires $t<n/3$ (according to the task which is simulated, additional constraint on $t$ may be needed, see [@HKR14]; see also Section \[sec:conclusion\]). As in the case of BG(MP,C), and for the same reason, we consider that $t<n'$. This algorithm has two noteworthy features: it is the first BG simulation algorithm that considers Byzantine failures, and it allows to run a crash-tolerant algorithm solving a colorless task on top of an asynchronous system prone to Byzantine failures. Both the algorithms BG(MP,C) and BG(MP,B) are [*genuine*]{} in the sense they do not rely on the simulation of an underlying shared memory.
While the full-information algorithm presented in [@MTH14] can be used to decide when there is a simulation between two models, the present paper is the first (to our knowledge) that allows the direct execution in the presence of Byzantine failures of any crash-tolerant algorithm that solves a colorless task. BG(MP,B) provides an algorithmic approach which complements the topology-based simulation framework of [@MTH14], and may also be of practical interest. It has the interesting property that the simulation of a message only requires a polynomial number of messages in the base system, and the increase in size of these messages, when compared to the size of the simulated message, is also polynomial. Additionally, differently from early works on Byzantine failures like [@GMW87], it does not use any cryptography-based mechanism.
#### Content of the paper: on the safe agreement objects side
The core of the previous algorithms lies in new underlying safe agreement objects, which allow the $n$ simulators to agree on the next operation executed by each of the $n'$ simulated processes. Such a safe agreement object ensures that all the simulators produce the very same simulation. At the operational level, a safe agreement object provides processes with two operations, denoted ${\sf propose}()$ and ${\sf decide}()$, which are invoked in this order by each correct process. The termination property associated with a safe agreement object ${\mathit{SA}}$ is the following: if no simulator commits a failure while executing ${\mathit{SA}}.{\sf propose}()$, then any invocation of ${\mathit{SA}}.{\sf decide}()$ by a non-faulty simulator terminates. Moreover, no two correct processes decide differently.
On the algorithmic side, a novelty of the paper lies in the algorithms implementing these new safe agreement objects. Differently from their read/write memory counterparts, they are not based on underlying snapshot objects [@AADGMS93]. They instead rely heavily on message communication patterns inspired from the reliable broadcast algorithms introduced in [@B87].
A last and noteworthy contribution of the paper lies in the second algorithm (which implements safe agreement in a Byzantine message-passing system). This object is the core of a simulation when one wants to execute asynchronous read/write crash-tolerant algorithms on top of asynchronous message-passing systems prone to Byzantine failures.
#### Existing simulations considering Byzantine failures
Simulations of crash failures in a Byzantine system have been addressed in the context of synchronous systems [@BN91; @NT90; @ST87]. The only articles we are aware of concerning such a simulation in asynchronous systems are [@C88; @HKR14; @HDR07]. As noticed in [@AW04], [@C88] considers a restricted class of round-based deterministic algorithms. The simulation presented in [@HKR14] executes a full-information asynchronous crash-tolerant algorithm in an asynchronous Byzantine failure-prone system. The article [@HDR07] considers an agent/host model and focuses mainly on reliable broadcast.
#### Roadmap
The paper is composed of \[sec:conclusion\] sections. Section \[sec:model\] presents both the crash-prone and the Byzantine asynchronous message-passing models, and the notion of a task. Section \[sec:simu-structure\] presents the structure of the simulation algorithms. Section \[sec:BG-crash-model\] presents the simulation algorithm BG(MP,C), while Section \[sec:BG-byzantine-model\] presents the simulation algorithm BG(MP,B). Finally, Section \[sec:conclusion\] addresses the computability implications of the Byzantine-tolerant simulation and its underlying safe agreement object.
Computation Models and Tasks {#sec:model}
============================
Computation models
------------------
#### Computing entities
The system is made up of a set $\Pi$ of $n$ sequential processes, denoted $p_1$, $p_2$, ..., $p_n$. These processes are asynchronous in the sense that each process progresses at its own speed, which can be arbitrary and remains always unknown to the other processes.
During an execution, processes may deviate from their specification. In that case, the corresponding processes are said to be [*faulty*]{}. A process that does not deviate from its specification is [*correct*]{} (or [*non-faulty*]{}). The model parameter $t$ denotes the maximal number of processes that can be faulty in a given execution. Two failure types are considered below.
#### Communication model
The processes cooperate by sending and receiving messages through bi-directional channels. The communication network is a complete network, which means that each process $p_i$ can directly send a message to any process $p_j$ (including itself). Each channel is reliable (no loss, corruption, or creation of messages), not necessarily first-in/first-out, and asynchronous (while the transit time of each message is finite, there is no upper bound on message transit times).
The macro-operation “${\sf broadcast}$ [type]{}$(m)$”, where [type]{} is a message type and $m$ is its content, is a shortcut for the following statement: “${\sf send}$ [type]{}$(m)$ to each process (including itself)”.
#### The process crash failure model
In the crash failure model, a process may prematurely stop its execution. A process executes correctly its algorithm until it possibly crashes. Once crashed, a process remains crashed forever. It is assumed that at most $t$ processes may crash. If there is no specific constraint on $t$, the corresponding model is denoted ${{\cal CAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n]$. When it is assumed that at most $t<n/2$ processes may crash, the corresponding model is denoted ${{\cal CAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/2]$.
#### The Byzantine failure model
A Byzantine process is a process that behaves arbitrarily: it may crash, fail to send or receive messages, send arbitrary messages, start in an arbitrary state, perform arbitrary state transitions, etc. Hence, a Byzantine process, which is assumed to send the same message $m$ to all the processes, can send a message $m_1$ to some processes, a different message $m_2$ to another subset of processes, and no message at all to the other processes. Moreover, Byzantine processes can collude to “pollute” the computation.
It is assumed that Byzantine processes cannot control the network, hence, when a process receives a message, it can unambiguously identify its sender. As previously, $t$ denotes the upper bound on the number of processes that may commit Byzantine failures. If there is no constraint on $t$, the corresponding model is denoted ${{\cal BAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n]$. When it is assumed that at most $t<n/3$ processes may be faulty, the corresponding model is denoted ${{\cal BAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/3]$.
Decision tasks and algorithms solving a task
--------------------------------------------
#### Decision tasks
The problems we are interested in are called [*decision tasks*]{} (the reader interested in a more formal presentation of decision tasks can consult the literature, e.g., [@BGLR01; @HS99]). In every run, each process proposes a value and the proposed values define an input vector $I$, where $I[j]$ is the value proposed by process $p_j$. Let ${\cal I}$ denote the set of allowed input vectors. Each process has to decide a value. The decided values define an output vector $O$, such that $O[j]$ is the value decided by $p_j$. Let ${\cal O}$ be the set of the output vectors.
A decision task is a binary relation $\Delta$ from ${\cal I}$ into ${\cal O}$. A task is [*colorless*]{} if, when a value $v$ is proposed by a process $p_j$ (i.e., $I[j]=v$), then $v$ can be proposed by any number of processes and, when a value $v'$ is decided by a process $p_j$ (i.e., $O[j]=v'$), then $v'$ can be decided by any number of processes. Consensus, and more generally $k$-set agreement, are colorless tasks. Otherwise the task is [*colored*]{}. Symmetry breaking and renaming are colored tasks [@ABDPR90; @CRR11; @IRR11].
#### Algorithm solving a task
An algorithm solves a task in a $t$-resilient environment if, given any $I\in {\cal I}$, (1) each correct process $p_j$ decides a value $o_j$, and (2) there is an output vector $O$ such that $(I,O)\in \Delta$ where $O$ is defined as follows. If $p_j$ decides $o_j$, then ${\cal O}[j]=o_j$. If $p_j$ does not decide, $O[j]$ is set to any value $v'$ that preserves the relation $(I,O)\in \Delta$.
Considering a system of $n$ processes, a task is $t$-resiliently solvable if there is an algorithm that solves it in the presence of at most $t$ faulty processes. As an example, consensus is not $1$-resiliently solvable in asynchronous crash-prone systems, be the communication medium a set of read/write registers [@LA87], or a message-passing system [@FLP85]. Differently, renaming with $2n-1$ new names is $(n-1)$-resiliently solvable in asynchronous read/write crash-prone systems [@CR12; @HS99], and is $t$-resiliently solvable in asynchronous crash-prone message-passing systems for $t<n/2$ [@ABDPR90].
Structure of the Simulation Algorithms {#sec:simu-structure}
======================================
#### Aim
Let $A'$ be an algorithm that solves a colorless decision task among $n'$ processes in the system model ${{\cal CAMP}_{n',t}}[t<n']$. The aim is to design an algorithm that simulates $A'$ in the system model ${{\cal CAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/2]$ (resp., ${{\cal BAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/3]$). As already indicated, the corresponding simulation algorithm is denoted BG(MP,C) in the first case, and BG(MP,B) in the second case.
#### Notation
A simulated process is denoted $p_j$, where $1 \leq j \leq n'$. Similarly, a simulator process (“simulator” in short’) is denoted $q_i$, where $1 \leq i \leq n$. The set $\Pi$ denote the set of the simulator indexes, i.e., $\Pi =\{1,...,n\}$.
The safe agreement objects, build in the simulation and used by the simulators, are identified with upper case letters, e.g., ${\mathit{SA}}$. The variables local to simulator $q_j$ is identified with lower case letters, and the resulting identifiers are subscripted with $j$.
#### Behavior of a simulator $q_i$
Each simulator is given the code of all the simulated processes $p_1$, ..., $p_{n'}$. It manages $n'$ threads, one associated with each simulated process, and executes them in a fair way.
The code of a simulated process $p_j$ contains local statements, send statements, and receive statements. It is assumed that the behavior of a simulated process $p_j$ is deterministic in the sense it is entirely defined from its local input (as defined by the task instance), and the order in which $p_j$ receives messages.
The simulation has to ensure that (1) all simulators simulate the same behavior of the set of simulated processes, and (2) a faulty simulator entails the failure of at most one simulated process. The way this is realized depends, of course, on the failure model that is considered.
BG(MP,C): BG in the Crash-prone Asynchronous Message-Passing Model {#sec:BG-crash-model}
==================================================================
This section presents the algorithm BG(MP,C). As previously indicated, this algorithm simulates, in the model ${{\cal CAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/2]$, an algorithm $A'$ solving a task in ${{\cal CAMP}_{n',t}}[t<n']$. It is made up of two parts: an algorithm implementing a safe agreement object, and the simulation itself, which uses several of these objects to allow the simulators to cooperate.
Safe agreement object in ${{\cal CAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/2]$: definition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This object type (or variants of it), briefly sketched in the Introduction, is at the core of both the BG simulation [@BG93; @BGLR01; @G09; @IR09], and the liveness guarantees of concurrent objects [@IR11; @IR11-a]. It is a one-shot object that solves consensus in failure-free scenarios, and allows processes to agree with a weak termination guarantee in the presence of failures.
A safe agreement object provides each simulator $q_i$, $1\leq i\leq n$, with two operations denoted ${\sf propose}()$ and ${\sf decide}()$, that $q_i$ can invoke at most once, and in this order; ${\sf propose}()$ allows $q_i$ to propose a value, while ${\sf decide}()$ allows it to decide a value. Considering the crash failure model, the properties associated with this object are the following ones.
- Validity. A decided value is a proposed value.
- Agreement. No two simulators decide distinct values.
- Propose-Termination. An invocation of ${\sf propose}()$ by a correct simulator terminates.
- Decide-Termination. If no simulator crashes while executing ${\sf propose}()$, then any invocation of ${\sf decide}()$ by a correct simulator terminates.
It is easy to see that a safe agreement object is a consensus object whose termination condition is failure-dependent. Algorithms implementing safe agreement objects (or variants of it) can be found in [@BG93; @BGLR01; @IR11-a].
Safe agreement object in ${{\cal CAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/2]$: algorithm
----------------------------------------------------------------
An algorithm implementing a safe agreement object in ${{\cal CAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/2]$ is described in Figure \[algo-SA-msg-passing-crash\].
#### Local data structures
Each simulator $q_i$, $1 \leq i \leq n$, manages three local data structures, namely, the arrays $values_i[1..n]$, $my\_view_i[1..n]$, $all\_views_i[1..n]$, all initialized to $[\bot,...,\bot]$, where $\bot$ denotes a default value that cannot be proposed to the safe agreement object by the simulators.
- The aim of $values_i[x]$ is to contain, as currently known by $q_i$, the value proposed to the safe agreement object by the simulator $q_x$.
- The aim of $my\_view_i[x]$ is to contain, as known by $q_i$, the value proposed to the safe agreement object by the simulator $q_x$, as witnessed by strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ distinct simulators (i.e., at least a correct process).
- The aim of $all\_views_i[x]$ is to contain what to $q_i$’s knows about the view seen by $q_x$.
#### Algorithm: the operation ${\sf propose}()$
The algorithm implementing the operation ${\sf propose}()$ invoked by a simulator $q_i$ is described at lines C\[SA-C-01\]-C\[SA-C-14\] (client side) and lines C\[SA-C-20\]-C\[SA-C-22\] (server side). This algorithm is made up of three parts.\
First part. A simulator $q_i$ first broadcasts the message [value]{} $(i,v_i)$, where $v_i$ is the value it proposes to the safe agreement object (line C\[SA-C-01\]). Then, it waits until it knows that strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ simulators know its value (line C\[SA-C-02\]). On its “server” side, when $q_i$ receives for the first time the message [value]{} $(x,v)$, it first saves $v$ in $values_i[x]$; then it forwards the received message to cope with the (possible) crash of $q_x$ (this witnesses the fact that $q_i$ knows the value proposed by $p_x$, line C\[SA-C-20\])[^1]).
[**operation**]{} $\mathsf{propose}$ ($v_i$) [**is**]{}\
[\[SA-C-01\]]{} = $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [value]{} $(i,v_i)$;\
[\[SA-C-02\]]{} ([value]{} $(i,v_i)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ different simulators);\
[\[SA-C-03\]]{} $x\in [1..n]$ [**do**]{} $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [read]{} $(i,x)$ [**end for**]{};\
[\[SA-C-04\]]{} $x\in [1..n]$ [**do**]{}\
[\[SA-C-05\]]{} (read’answer $(i,x,\bot)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ different simulators\
[\[SA-C-06\]]{} $~$ $\vee$ $~$ $\exists~w:$ [value]{} $(x,w)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ different simulators);\
[\[SA-C-07\]]{} (predicate of line C\[SA-C-06\] satisfied)\
[\[SA-C-08\]]{} = $my\_view_i[x] \gets w$\
[\[SA-C-09\]]{} $my\_view_i[x] \gets \bot$\
[\[SA-C-10\]]{}\
[\[SA-C-11\]]{} ;\
[\[SA-C-12\]]{} $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [view]{} $(i,my\_view_i)$;\
[\[SA-C-13\]]{} ([view]{} $(i,my\_view_i)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ different simulators);\
[\[SA-C-14\]]{} ${\sf return}()$.\
\
[**operation**]{} $\mathsf{decide}$ () [**is**]{}\
[\[SA-C-15\]]{} ($\exists$ a non-empty set $\sigma \subseteq \Pi$:\
[\[SA-C-16\]]{} $\forall~y\in \sigma:~
\big[ (all\_views_i[y]\neq\bot) ~\wedge~
\big(\forall~z\in \Pi:~(all\_views_i[y][z]\neq\bot)
\Rightarrow(z\in \sigma)\big)\big]$;\
[\[SA-C-17\]]{} $min\_\sigma_i$ [**be**]{} the set $\sigma$ of smallest size;\
[\[SA-C-18\]]{} $res$ [**be**]{} $\min(\{values_i[y] ~:~ y\in min\_\sigma_i\})$;\
[\[SA-C-19\]]{} ${\sf return}(res)$.\
\
%—————————————————————————————————————- \
[**when the message**]{} [value]{} $(x,v)$ [**is**]{} $\mathsf{received}$ [**for the first time**]{}:\
% “for the first time” is with respect to each pair of values $(x,v)$ %\
[\[SA-C-20\]]{} $values_i[x] \leftarrow v;$ $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [value]{} $(x,v)$.\
\
[**when the message**]{} [read]{} $(j,x)$ [**is**]{} $\mathsf{received}$ [**for the first time**]{}:\
[\[SA-C-21\]]{} $\mathsf{send}$ [read’answer]{} $(j,x,values_i[x])$ $\mathsf{to}~q_j$.\
\
[**when the message**]{} [view]{} $(x,view)$ [**is**]{} $\mathsf{received}$ [**for the first time**]{}:\
[\[SA-C-22\]]{} $all\_views_i[x] \leftarrow view$; $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [view]{} $(x,view)$.
Second part. In this part, $q_i$ builds a local view of the values proposed by the $n$ simulators. To this end, it first broadcasts messages [read]{} $(i,x)$, $1 \leq x\leq n$, to learn the value proposed by each simulator $q_x$ (line C\[SA-C-03\]). On its server side, when $q_i$ receives such a message, it broadcasts by return its current knowledge of the value proposed by $q_x$ (line C\[SA-C-21\]).
Then, the simulator $q_i$ builds its local view of the values that have been proposed. For each simulator $q_x$, $q_i$ waits until it has received from strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ distinct simulators the very same message, namely, either the message [read’answer]{} $(i,x,\bot)$, or the message [value]{} $(x,w)$ (lines C\[SA-C-05\]-C\[SA-C-06\]). In the first case, $q_i$ considers that $q_x$ has not yet proposed a value, while in the second case it considers that $q_x$ proposed the value $w$ (let us observe that, while $q_i$ can receive both [read’answer]{} $(i,x,\bot)$ and messages [value]{} $(x,w)$, it stops waiting as soon as it received strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ of one of them) (lines C\[SA-C-07\]-C\[SA-C-10\]).
Third part. Finally, the simulator $q_i$ informs the other simulators on its local view $my\_view_i[1..n]$. To this end, it broadcasts the message [view]{} $(i,my\_view_i)$. When it has received the corresponding “acknowledgments”, $q_i$ returns from its invocation of the operation ${\sf propose}()$ (line C\[SA-C-12\]-C\[SA-C-14\]). (The behavior of $q_i$ when it receives a message [view]{} $(x,view)$ is similar to the one when it receives a message [value]{} $(x,v)$. The only difference is that $values_i[x]$ is now replaced by $all \_views_i[x]$, line C\[SA-C-22\].)
#### Algorithm: the operation ${\sf decide}()$
The algorithm implementing the operation ${\sf decide}()$ is described at lines C\[SA-C-15\]-C\[SA-C-19\]. It consists in a “closure” computation. A simulator $q_i$ waits until it knows a non-empty set of simulators $\sigma$ such that (a) it knows their views, and (b) this set is closed under the relation “has in its published view the value of” which means that the processes whose values appear in a view of a process of $\sigma$ are also in $\sigma$ (lines C\[SA-C-15\]-C\[SA-C-16\]).
Let us observe that it is possible that, locally, several sets satisfy this property. If it is the case, $q_i$ selects the smallest of them. Let $min\_\sigma_i$ be this set of simulators (lines C\[SA-C-17\]). The value that is returned by $q_i$ is then the smallest value among the the values proposed by the simulators in $min\_\sigma_i$ (lines C\[SA-C-18\]-C\[SA-C-19\]).
Safe agreement object in ${{\cal CAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/2]$: proof
------------------------------------------------------------
This section proves that the algorithm presented in Figure \[algo-SA-msg-passing-crash\] implements a safe agreement object, i.e., any of its runs in ${{\cal CAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/2]$ satisfies the validity, agreement, and termination properties, which define it.
\[lemma:safe-agr-term-propose\] An invocation of ${\sf propose}()$ by a simulator that does not crash during this invocation, terminates.
Let us consider a simulator $q_i$ that does not crash during its invocation of ${\sf propose}()$. Hence, $q_i$ broadcast the message [value]{} $(i,v_i)$ at line C\[SA-C-01\]. This message is received by strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ correct simulators, and each of them broadcasts this message when it receives it. It follows that $q_i$ cannot block forever at line C\[SA-C-02\].
Let us now consider the wait statement at lines C\[SA-C-05\]-C\[SA-C-06\]. There are two cases. Let [read]{} $(i,x)$ be a message broadcast by the simulator $q_i$ at line C\[SA-C-03\].
- Case 1: No correct simulator ever receives a message [value]{} $(x,-)$. In this case, each correct simulator $q_y$ is such that $values_y[x]$ remains always equal to $\bot$. It follows that, when $q_y$ receives the message [read]{} $(i,x)$, it sends back to $q_i$ the message [read’answer]{} $(i,x,\bot)$ (line C\[SA-C-21\]). As there are strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ correct simulators, $q_i$ eventually receives the message [read’answer]{} $(i,x,\bot)$ from strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ different simulators, and the predicate of line C\[SA-C-05\] is then satisfied.
- Case 2: At least one correct simulator $q_y$ receives a message [value]{} $(x,v)$. In this case, $q_y$ broadcasts the message [value]{} $(x,v)$ when it receives it (line C\[SA-C-20\]). It follows from the broadcasts issued at this line that $q_i$ eventually receives [value]{} $(x,v)$ from strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ different simulators. When this occurs, the predicate of line C\[SA-C-06\] is satisfied, and $q_i$ exits the wait statement.
As this is true for any message [read]{} $(i,x)$ broadcast by the simulator $q_i$ at line C\[SA-C-03\], it follows that $q_i$ cannot remain block forever at lines C\[SA-C-05\]-C\[SA-C-06\].
Let us finally consider the lines C\[SA-C-12\]-C\[SA-C-13\]. As the message [view]{} $(i,my\_view_i)$ broadcast by $q_i$ at line C\[SA-C-12\] is received by at least all the correct processes, and each of them broadcast it when it receives it for the first time, it follows that $q_i$ receives the message [view]{} $(i,my\_view_i)$ from strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ distinct processes, and stops waiting at line C\[SA-C-13\], which concludes the proof of the lemma.
\[lemma:safe-agr-validity\] The value returned by an invocation of ${\sf propose}()$ is a value that was proposed by a simulator.
Let us observe that (due to its definition) the set $min\_\sigma$ is non-empty, and (due the first predicate of line C\[SA-C-06\]) the simulator indexes $y$ it contains are such that $values_i[y]\neq\bot$. As, for any of those $y$, $values_i[y]$ is set to a non-$\bot$ value (only once) at line C\[SA-C-20\], it follows that $q_i$ received a message [value]{} $(y,v_y)$. Hence, the values in the variables $values_i[y]$ are values proposed by the corresponding simulators $q_y$. It follows that the value computed at line C\[SA-C-18\] is a value that was proposed by a simulator, which concludes the proof of the lemma.
\[lemma:safe-agr-agreement\] No two invocations of ${\sf decide}()$ return different values.
Let us first observe that, due to the reliable broadcast of the messages [value]{} () (lines C\[SA-C-01\] and C\[SA-C-20\]) and [view]{} () (lines C\[SA-C-12\] and C\[SA-C-22\]), and the fact that a simulator broadcast a single message [value]{} $()$, we have:
- $(values_i[x]\neq \bot) ~\wedge~(values_j[x]\neq \bot)
~\Rightarrow~(values_i[x]=values_j[x])$.
- $(all\_views_i[x]\neq \bot) ~\wedge~(all\_view_j[x]\neq \bot)
~\Rightarrow~(all\_views_i[x]=all\_view_j[x])$.
Let us assume, by contradiction, that two simulators $q_i$ and $q_j$ decide different values. This means that the sets $min\_\sigma_i$ $min\_\sigma_j$ computed at line C\[SA-C-17\] by $q_i$ and $q_j$, respectively, are different.
Since $min\_\sigma_i$ and $min\_\sigma_j$ are different, let us consider $z\in min\_\sigma_i\setminus min\_\sigma_j$ (if $min\_\sigma_i \subsetneq min\_\sigma_j$, swap $i$ and $j$). According to the closure predicate used at line C\[SA-C-16\], as $z\notin min\_\sigma_j$, we have $\forall y\in min\_\sigma_j~:~all\_views_j[y][z]=\bot$. It follows that any simulator $q_y$ such that $y\in min\_\sigma_j$ does not fulfill the condition of line C\[SA-C-07\] for $x=z$. Consequently, $q_y$ received at line C\[SA-C-05\] a message [read’answer]{}($y,z,\bot$) from a set of simulators $Q_{y,r(z)}$ of size strictly greater than $\frac{n}{2}$. Consequently when $q_y$ executed line C\[SA-C-03\] for $x=z$, all the simulators $q_k$ of $Q_{y,r(z)}$ verified $values_k[z]=\bot$.
When the simulator $q_z$ stops waiting at line C\[SA-C-02\], it received messages [value]{}($z$,$v_z$) (where $v_z$ is the value sent by $q_z$ at line C\[SA-C-01\]) from a set $Q_{z,w}$ of strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ simulators. It follows that $Q_{y,r(z)}\cap Q_{z,w}\neq\emptyset$, consequently there is a simulator $q_k$ that sent a message [read’answer]{}($y,z,\bot$) to $q_y$ and a message [value]{}($z$,$v_z$) to $q_z$. Since $value_k[z]$ is never reset to $\bot$ after being assigned, the simulator $q_y$ necessarily executed line C\[SA-C-03\] for $x=z$ strictly before $q_z$ stops waiting at line C\[SA-C-02\]. Consequently $q_y$ stopped waiting at line C\[SA-C-02\] before $q_z$ executes line C\[SA-C-03\] for $x=y$. It does so after receiving messages [value]{}($y$,$v_y$) (where $v_y$ is the value sent by $q_y$ at line C\[SA-C-01\]) from a set $Q_{y,w}$ of strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ simulators $q_k$, and each of these simulators then verifies $values_k=v_y$. These simulators do not send [read’answer]{}($z,y,\bot$) messages when they receive the [read]{}($z,y$) message sent by $q_z$. Thus, it is impossible that $q_z$ receives these messages from strictly more than $\frac{n}{2}$ processes, it consequently cannot verify the predicate of line C\[SA-C-05\]. It follows that $q_z$ executes line C\[SA-C-12\] with $my\_view_z[y]=v_y\neq\bot$ and this entails that $\forall k\in\Pi~:~all\_views_k[z]\neq\bot \Rightarrow
all\_views_k[z][y]\neq\bot$.
Since $z\in min\_\sigma_i$, $all\_views_i[z]\neq\bot$, $all\_views_i[z][y]\neq\bot$. According to the predicate of line C\[SA-C-16\], this entails that $y\in min\_\sigma_i$, and since the previous reasoning holds for any $y\in min\_\sigma_j$, it shows that $min\_\sigma_j\subseteq min\_\sigma_i$. It follows that, when $q_i$ executes line C\[SA-C-17\], $\forall y\in
min\_\sigma_j~:~all\_views_i[y]\neq\bot$ and, consequently, $\forall y\in
min\_\sigma_j~:~all\_views_i[y]=all\_views_j[y]$. It entails that if $|min\_\sigma_j|<|min\_\sigma_i|$, then $min\_\sigma_j$ would have been chosen by $q_i$ at line C\[SA-C-17\], which proves that $min\_\sigma_i=min\_\sigma_j$ and contradicts the fact that $q_i$ and $q_j$ decide differently.
\[lemma:safe-agr-term-decide\] If no simulator crashes while executing ${\sf propose}()$, then any invocation of ${\sf decide}()$ by a correct simulator terminates.
If no simulator crashes while executing ${\sf propose}()$, it follows from Lemma \[lemma:safe-agr-term-propose\] that every simulator $q_i$ that invokes ${\sf propose}()$ broadcasts a message [value]{} $(i,v_i)$ at line C\[SA-C-01\] and a message [view]{} $(i,my\_views_i)$ at line C\[SA-C-12\].
Assuming no simulator crashes while executing ${\sf propose}()$, let $P$ be the set of simulators that invoke ${\sf propose}()$, and suppose that one of them, $q_i$, invoke ${\sf decide}()$ and never terminates. This can only happen if $q_i$ waits forever for the condition of lines C\[SA-C-15\]-C\[SA-C-16\] to be fulfilled. Since eventually the messages broadcast by the simulators of $P$ are all delivered to $q_i$, after some finite time $\forall y\in P~:~all\_views_i[y]\neq\bot$. Moreover, since the views broadcast by the simulators of $P$ are built at line C\[SA-C-08\] from the messages [value]{} ($-$,$-$) they receive, it follows that these views can contain non-$\bot$ values only for the entries corresponding to the simulators of $P$ (the simulators that are not in $P$ do not sent messages [value]{}($-$,$-$)). Consequently, $p_i$ eventually verifies $\forall y\in
P~:~(all\_views_i[y]\neq\bot)
\land (\{z\in\Pi~:~all\_views_i[y][z]\neq\bot\}\subseteq P)$. It follows that the property of lines C\[SA-C-15\]-C\[SA-C-16\] is eventually true for $\sigma=P$, which contradicts the fact that $q_i$ never terminates its ${\sf decide}()$ operation.
\[theorem-safe-agreement\] The algorithm in Figure [*\[algo-SA-msg-passing-crash\]*]{} implements a safe agreement object in ${{\cal CAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/2]$.
The proof follows from Lemma \[lemma:safe-agr-term-propose\] (Propose-Termination), Lemma \[lemma:safe-agr-validity\] (Validity), Lemma \[lemma:safe-agr-agreement\] (Agreement), and Lemma \[lemma:safe-agr-term-decide\] (Decide-Termination).
Simulation algorithm
--------------------
The simulation algorithm takes as input a distributed algorithm $A$ solving a (colorless) task in the system model ${{\cal CAMP}_{n',t}}[t<n']$, and simulates it in ${{\cal CAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/2]$. Each simulator $q_i$, $1\leq i\leq n$, is given a copy of the $n'$ processes of $A$, and a private input vector $input_i[1..n']$, with one input per simulated processes $p_j$.
The simulation consists in a fair simulation by each of the $n$ simulators $q_i$ of the $n'$ simulated processes $p_j$. To that end, each simulator manages $n'$ threads (each simulating a process $p_j$), and the $n$ threads associated with the simulation of a process $p_j$ cooperate through safe agreement objects.
#### Objects shared by the simulators
To produce a consistent simulation, for each simulated process $p_j$, the $n$ simulators have to agree on the same sequence of the messages received by $p_j$. To that end, they use an array of safe agreement objects, denoted ${\mathit{SA}}[1..n',-]$, such that ${\mathit{SA}}[j,sn]$ allows them to agree on the $sn$-th message received by the $n'$ threads simulating $p_j$ at each simulator $q_i$.
#### Objects managed by each simulator $q_i$
Each simulator manages the following data structures, with respect to each simulated process $p_j$.
- $input_i[j]$ contains the input of the simulated process $p_j$, proposed by the simulator $q_i$. (Simulators are allowed to propose different input vectors for the simulated processes).
- $sn_i[j]$ is the sequence number (from the simulation point of view) of the next message received by the simulated process $p_j$.
- $sent_i[j]$ is a sequence containing messages sent by the simulated processes to the simulated process $p_j$. It is assumed that the $n'$ threads of $q_i$ access $sent_i[j]$ in mutual exclusion (when they add messages to or withdraw messages from this sequence). The symbol $\oplus$ is used to add messages at the end of a sequence. Sometimes $sent_i[j]$ is used as a set.
- $received_i[j]$ is a set containing the messages received by the simulated process $p_j$ (init. $\emptyset$).
- $state_i[j]$ contains the current local state of the simulated process $p_j$. $input_i[j]$ is a part of $state_i[j]$.
It is assumed that the behavior of each simulated process $p_j$ is described by a deterministic transition function $\delta_j()$, such that $\delta_j(state_i[j],msg)$ (a) simulates $p_j$ until its next message reception, and (b) returns a pair. This pair is made up of the new local state of $p_j$ plus an array $msgs[1..n']$ where $msgs[x]$ contains messages sent by $p_j$ to the simulated process $p_x$.
In addition to the previous local data, each simulator $q_i$ uses a starvation-free mutual exclusion lock, whose operations are denoted ${\sf mutex\_in}_i()$ and ${\sf mutex\_out}_i()$. This lock is used to ensure that, at any time, at most one of the $n'$ threads of $q_i$ access a safe agreement object. This is to guarantee that the crash of a simulator $q_i$ entails the crash of [*at most one*]{} simulated process $p_j$ (line \[Simu-C-09\]). More precisely, if $q_i$ crashes while executing ${\mathit{SA}}[j,sn].{\sf propose}.()$, it can block forever only the invocations of ${\mathit{SA}}[j,sn].{\sf decide}.()$, issued by the other simulators, thereby preventing the simulation of $p_j$ from terminating.
[\[Simu-C-01\]]{} ${\sf mutex\_in}_i();{\mathit{SA}}[j,0].{\sf propose}.(input_i[j]);
{\sf mutex\_out}_i();$\
[\[Simu-C-02\]]{} $input_i[j] \leftarrow {\mathit{SA}}[j,0].{\sf decide}()$;\
[\[Simu-C-03\]]{} $\langle state_i[j], msgs[1..n']\rangle \leftarrow
\delta_j(state_i[j], \emptyset)$;\
[\[Simu-C-04\]]{} $x\in \{1,...,n'\}$ [**do**]{} $sent_i[x] \leftarrow sent_i[x] ~\oplus~ msgs[x]$ [**end for**]{};\
[\[Simu-C-05\]]{} $sn_i[j] \leftarrow 0$;\
[\[Simu-C-06\]]{}\
[\[Simu-C-07\]]{} $sn_i[j] \leftarrow sn_i[j] +1$;\
[\[Simu-C-08\]]{} $\big((sent_i[j]\setminus received_i[j])\neq \emptyset\big)$;\
[\[Simu-C-09\]]{} $msg \leftarrow \mbox{ oldest message in }
sent_i[j]\setminus received_i[j] $;\
[\[Simu-C-10\]]{} ${\sf mutex\_in}_i()$; ${\mathit{SA}}[j,sn_i[j]].{\sf propose}.(msg);$ ${\sf mutex\_out}_i()$;\
[\[Simu-C-11\]]{} $rec\_msg \leftarrow {\mathit{SA}}[j,sn_i[j]].{\sf decide}();$\
[\[Simu-C-12\]]{} $received_i[j] \leftarrow received_i[j] \cup \{rec\_msg\}$;\
[\[Simu-C-13\]]{} $\langle state_i[j], msgs[1..n']\rangle \leftarrow
\delta_j(state_i[j], rec\_msg)$;\
[\[Simu-C-14\]]{} $x\in \{1,...,n'\}$ [**do**]{} $sent_i[x] \leftarrow sent_i[x] ~\oplus~ msgs[x]$ [**end for**]{};\
[\[Simu-C-15\]]{} (no value yet decided by $p_j$ $\wedge$ $ state_i[j]$ allows $p_j$ to decide a value $v$)\
[\[Simu-C-16\]]{} the simulated process $p_j$ decides $v$\
[\[Simu-C-17\]]{}\
[\[Simu-C-18\]]{} .
#### The simulation algorithm
The algorithm describing the simulation of a process $p_j$ by the associated thread of the simulator $q_i$ is presented in Figure \[algo:simulation-crash\].
The simulators have first to agree on the same input for process $p_j$. To this end, they use the safe agreement object ${\mathit{SA}}[j,0]$ (lines \[Simu-C-01\]-\[Simu-C-02\]). Moreover, when considering all the simulated processes, it follows from the mutual exclusion lock that, whatever the number of simulated processes, a simulator $q_i$ is engaged in at most one invocation of ${\sf propose}()$ at a time. Then, according to the decided input of $p_j$, $q_i$ locally simulate $p_j$ until it invokes a message reception (lines \[Simu-C-03\]-\[Simu-C-04\]).
After this initialization, each simulator $q_i$ enters a loop whose aim is to locally simulate $p_j$. To this end, $q_i$ first determines the message that $p_j$ will receive; this message is saved in $rec\_msg$ and added to $received_i[j]$ (lines \[Simu-C-07\]-\[Simu-C-12\]). When this message has been determined, $q_i$ simulates the behavior of $p_j$ until its next message reception (lines \[Simu-C-13\]-\[Simu-C-14\]). Finally, if $state_i[j]$ allows $p_j$ to decide a value with respect to the simulated decision task, this value is decided (lines \[Simu-C-15\]-\[Simu-C-17\]).
Proof of the simulation
-----------------------
The reader interested in a formal definition of the term [*simulation*]{} –as used here– will consult [@BGLR01].
\[lemma:at-most-one-crash\] The crash of a simulator $q_i$ entails the crash of at most one simulated process $p_j$.
The only places where a simulator $q_i$ can block is during the invocation of the safe agreement operation ${\sf decide}()$. Such invocations appear at line \[Simu-C-02\], and line \[Simu-C-11\]. It follows from the termination property of the safe agreement objects that such an invocation can block forever the invoking process only if a simulator crashes during the invocation of the operation ${\sf propose}()$ on the same object. But, due to the mutual exclusion lock used at line \[Simu-C-01\] and line \[Simu-C-10\], a simulator can be engaged in at most one invocation of propose at a time. It follows that the crash of a simulation $q_i$ can entail the definitive halting (crash) of at most one simulated process $p_j$.
\[lemma:same-seq-of-messages\] The simulation of the reception of the $k$-th message received by a simulated process $p_j$, returns the same message at all simulators.
The simulation of the message receptions for a simulated process $p_j$, are executed at each simulator $q_i$ at lines \[Simu-C-08\]-\[Simu-C-11\], and all the simulators use the same sequence of sequence numbers (line \[Simu-C-07\]). It then follows from the agreement property of the safe agreement object ${\mathit{SA}}[j,sn]$, that no two simulators obtain different messages when they invoke ${\mathit{SA}}[j,sn].{\sf decide}()$, and the lemma follows.
\[lemma:one-dec-value\] For every simulated processes $p_j$, no two simulators return different values.
The only non-deterministic elements of the simulation are the input vectors $input_i[1..n']$ at each simulator $q_i$, and the reception of the simulated messages.
The lines \[Simu-C-01\]-\[Simu-C-02\] of the simulation force the simulators to agree on the same input value for each simulated process $p_j$, $1\leq j \leq n'$. Similarly, as shown by Lemma \[lemma:same-seq-of-messages\], for each simulated process $p_j$, the lines \[Simu-C-07\]-\[Simu-C-11\] direct the simulators to agree on the very same sequence of messages received by $p_j$. It follows from the fact that the function $\delta_j()$ is deterministic, that any two simulators $q_i$ and $q_k$, that execute lines \[Simu-C-15\]-\[Simu-C-16\] during the same “round number” $sn_i[j]=sn_k[j]$, are such that $state_i[j]=state_k[j]$, from which the lemma follows.
\[lemma:correct-simulation\] The sequences of message receptions simulated by each simulator $q_i$ on behalf of each simulated process $p_j$, define a correct execution of the simulated algorithm.
To prove the correctness of the simulation, we have to show that
1. \[item1\] Every message that was sent by a simulated process to another simulated process (whose simulation is not blocked either), is received, and
2. \[item2\] The simulated messages respect a simulated physical order (i.e., no message is “received” before being “sent”).
Item \[item1\] is satisfied because the messages sent by the simulated process $p_j$ to the simulated process $p_k$ are received (lines \[Simu-C-09\]-\[Simu-C-11\]) in their sending order (as defined at line \[Simu-C-04\] and line \[Simu-C-14\]). Hence, if $p_k$ is not blocked (due to the crash of a simulator) it obtains the messages from $p_j$ in their sending order.
For Item \[item2\], let us define a (simulated) physical order as follows. For each simulated message $m$, let us consider the first time at which the reception of $m$ was simulated (i.e., this occurs when –for the first time– a simulator terminates the invocation of ${\mathit{SA}}[-,-].{\sf decide}()$ that returns $m$). A message that is decided has been proposed by a simulator to a safe agreement object before being decided (validity property).The sending time of a simulated message is defined as the first time at which ${\mathit{SA}}[-,-].{\sf propose}(m)$ is invoked by a simulator. It follows that any simulated message is sent before being received, which concludes the lemma.
\[lemma:nb-simulated-proc\] Each correct simulator $q_i$ computes the decision value of at least $(n'-t)$ simulated processes.
Due to Lemma \[lemma:at-most-one-crash\], and the fact that at most $t$ simulators may crash, it follows that at most $t$ simulated processes may be prevented from progressing. As (a) by assumption the simulated algorithm $A'$ is $t$-resilient, and (b) due to Lemma \[lemma:correct-simulation\] the simulation produces a correct simulation of $A'$, it follows that at least $(n'-t)$ simulated processes decide a value.
\[theorem:main-simulation\] Let $A$ be an algorithm solving a decision task in ${{\cal CAMP}_{n',t}}[t<n']$. The algorithm described in Figure \[algo:simulation-crash\] is a correct simulation of $A$ in ${{\cal CAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/2]$.
The theorem follows from Lemma \[lemma:correct-simulation\] and Lemma \[lemma:nb-simulated-proc\].
BG(MP,B): BG in the Byzantine Asynchronous Message-Passing Model {#sec:BG-byzantine-model}
================================================================
This section presents an algorithm, denoted BG(MP,B), which implements the BG simulation in the Byzantine asynchronous message-passing model ${{\cal BAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/3]$. To this end, an appropriate safe agreement object is first built, and then used by the simulation algorithm.
From crash failures to Byzantine behaviors
------------------------------------------
The idea is to extend the algorithm of Figure \[algo-SA-msg-passing-crash\] to obtain an algorithm that copes with Byzantine simulators. The main issues that have to be solved are the following.
- The simulators need a mechanism to control the validity of the inputs to the safe agreement objects. (See below for the notion of a valid value.)
- The simulators must be able to check if a given simulator $q_i$ is participating in more than one operation ${\sf propose}()$ at the same time (on the same or several safe agreement objects). If it is the case, $q_i$ is faulty and its definitive stop can block forever several simulated processes. Hence, such a faulty simulator has to be ignored.
To solve these issues, each safe agreement object may no longer be considered as a separate abstraction: each new instance depends on the previous ones. This is captured in the following specification customized to the Byzantine model, and, at the operational level, in the predicate ${\sf valid}()$ used in the algorithm implementing the operation ${\sf propose}()$.
Safe agreement in ${{\cal BAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/3]$: definition {#sec:spec-Byzantine-SA}
----------------------------------------------------------
To cope with the previous observations, the fact that a faulty process may decide an arbitrary value, and the fact that the safe agreement objects are used to solve specific problems (a simulation in our case), the specification of the safe agreement object is reshaped as follows.
A value proposed by a process to a safe agreement object must be [*valid*]{}. At each correct simulator $q_i$, the validity of a value is captured by a predicate denoted ${\sf valid}_i(j,v)$ where $v$ is the value and $q_j$ the simulator that proposed it. This predicate is made up of two parts (defined in Section \[sec:is-valid\] and Section \[sec:simulation-byzantine\], respectively). If $q_j$ is correct, the predicate ${\sf valid}_i(j,v)$ eventually returns $\mathit{true}$ at $p_i$. If $q_j$ is faulty, ${\sf valid}_i(j,v)$ returns $\mathit{true}$ at $p_i$ only if (a) the value $v$ could have been proposed by a correct simulator and (b) to $q_i$’s knowledge, $q_j$ does not participate concurrently in several invocations of ${\sf propose}()$.
- Validity. If a correct simulator $q_i$ decides the value $v$, there is a correct simulator $q_j$ such that ${\sf valid}_j(-,v)$. ($v$ was validated by a correct simulator.)
- Agreement. No two correct simulators decide distinct values.
- Propose-Termination. Any invocation of ${\sf propose}()$ by a correct simulator terminates.
- Decide-Termination. The invocations by all the correct simulators of ${\sf decide}()$ on all the safe agreement objects terminate, except for at most $t$ safe agreement objects.
Safe agreement in ${{\cal BAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/3]$: algorithm {#sec:is-valid}
---------------------------------------------------------
The local variables $values_i[1..n]$, $my\_view_i[1..n]$, $all\_views_i[1..n]$, and the algorithm implementing the operation ${\sf decide}()$ are the same as in Figure \[algo-SA-msg-passing-crash\] (lines C\[SA-C-15\]-C\[SA-C-19\]). The new algorithm implementing the operation ${\sf propose}()$, and the processing of the associated messages, are described in Figure \[algo-SA-msg-passing-byzantine-propose\] and Figure \[algo-SA-msg-passing-byzantine-answers\].
This implementation uses an additional local array $answers_i[1..n][1..n][1..n]$, all entries of which are initialized to “?”. The meaning of “$answers_i[k][j][x]=v$” (where $v$ is a proposed value or $\bot$) is the following: to the knowledge of $q_i$, the simulator $q_k$ answered value $v$ when it received the message [read]{}$(j,x)$ sent by $q_j$. (A simulator $q_j$ broadcasts such a message when it needs to know the value proposed by the simulator $q_x$; $\bot$ means that $q_k$ does not know this value yet.) This means that, from $q_i$’s point of view, the value proposed by $q_x$, as known by $q_k$ when it received the request by $q_j$, is $v$.
\[lemma:quorum-intersection\] Any two sets of simulators $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ of more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ elements have at least one correct simulator in their intersection.
As we consider integers, “strictly more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$” is equivalent to “at least $\lfloor\frac{n+t}{2}\rfloor+1$”.
- $Q_1\cup Q_2\subseteq \{p_1,\ldots, p_n\}$. Hence, $|Q_1 \cup Q_2|\leq n$.
- $|Q_1\cap Q_2|=|Q_1|+|Q_2|-|Q_1\cup Q_2|\ge |Q_1|+|Q_2|-n \ge
2(\lfloor\frac{n+t}{2}\rfloor+1)-n>2(\frac{n+t}{2})-n=t$. Hence, $|Q_1\cap Q_2|\ge t+1$. It follows that $Q_1\cap Q_2$ contains at least one correct simulator.
The fact that, despite Byzantine processes, the intersection of any two simulator sets of size greater than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ have at least one correct simulator in common, is used in many places in the algorithm. This property will be used in the proof to show that the local views of the correct processes are mutually consistent.
#### The operation ${\sf propose}()$
The client side of the algorithm implementing the operation ${\sf propose}()$ is described in Figure \[algo-SA-msg-passing-byzantine-propose\]; its server side is described in Figure \[algo-SA-msg-passing-byzantine-answers\]. The client side algorithm is very close to the one of the crash failure case (Figure \[algo-SA-msg-passing-crash\]). They differ in two points.
- The message tags [value]{} and [view]{} (used at lines C\[SA-B-02\], C\[SA-B-06\], and C\[SA-B-13\] in Figure \[algo-SA-msg-passing-crash\]) are replaced in Figure \[algo-SA-msg-passing-byzantine-propose\] by the tags [value’ack]{} and [view’ack]{}, respectively. The role of these message tags is explained below.
- The predicate of line B\[SA-B-05\] is replaced by the predicate $|\{k~:~answers_i[k][i][x]=\bot\}|>\frac{n+t}{2}$. This predicate states that more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ simulators answered $\bot$ to the request message [read]{}$(i,x)$ broadcast by $q_i$, (i.e., they did not know the value proposed by $q_x$ when they received the read request).
[**operation**]{} $\mathsf{propose}$ ($v_i$) [**is**]{}\
[\[SA-B-01\]]{} = $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [value]{} $(i,v_i)$;\
[\[SA-B-02\]]{} ([value’ack]{} $(i,v_i)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from $> \frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators);\
[\[SA-B-03\]]{} $x\in [1..n]$ [**do**]{} $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [read]{} $(i,x)$ [**end for**]{};\
[\[SA-B-04\]]{} $x\in [1..n]$ [**do**]{}\
[\[SA-B-05\]]{} (($|\{k~:~answers_i[k][i][x]=\bot\}|>\frac{n+t}{2}$) $\lor$\
[\[SA-B-06\]]{} ($~\exists~w:$ [value’ack]{} $(x,w)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from $> \frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators));\
[\[SA-B-07\]]{} (predicate of line B\[SA-B-06\] satisfied)\
[\[SA-B-08\]]{} = $my\_view_i[x] \gets w$\
[\[SA-B-09\]]{} $my\_view_i[x] \gets \bot$\
[\[SA-B-10\]]{}\
[\[SA-B-11\]]{} ;\
[\[SA-B-12\]]{} $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [view]{} $(i,my\_view_i)$;\
[\[SA-B-13\]]{} ([view’ack]{} $(i,my\_view_i)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from $> \frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators);\
[\[SA-B-14\]]{} ${\sf return}()$.\
\
[**operation**]{} $\mathsf{decide}$ () [**is**]{}\
(C\[SA-C-15\]) ($\exists$ a non-empty set $\sigma \subseteq \Pi$:\
(C\[SA-C-16\]) $\forall~y\in \sigma:~
\big[ (all\_views_i[y]\neq\bot) ~\wedge~
\big(\forall~z\in \Pi:~(all\_views_i[y][z]\neq\bot)
\Rightarrow(z\in \sigma)\big)\big]$;\
(C\[SA-C-17\]) $min\_\sigma_i$ [**be**]{} the set $\sigma$ of smallest size;\
(C\[SA-C-18\]) $res$ [**be**]{} $\min(\{values_i[y] ~:~ y\in min\_\sigma_i\})$;\
(C\[SA-C-19\]) ${\sf return}(res)$.
[**when the message**]{} [value]{} $(j,v)$ [**is**]{} $\mathsf{received ~from}~q_j$ [**for the first time**]{}:\
[\[SA-B-15\]]{} **wait** ($\mathsf{valid}_i$ ($j,v$)); $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [value’valid]{} $(j,v)$.\
\
[**when the message**]{} [value’valid]{} $(j,v)$ [**is**]{} $\mathsf{received}$:\
[\[SA-B-16\]]{} =(([value’valid]{} $(j,v)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from $> \frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators) $\land$ ([value’witness]{} $(j,-)$ never broadcast))\
[\[SA-B-17\]]{} $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [value’witness]{} $(j,v)$ [**end if**]{}.\
\
[**when the message**]{} [value’witness]{} $(j,v)$ [**is**]{} $\mathsf{received}$:\
[\[SA-B-18\]]{} =(([value’witness]{} $(j,v)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from $t+1$ different simulators) $\land$ ([value’witness]{} $(j,v)$ never broadcast))\
[\[SA-B-19\]]{} $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [value’witness]{} $(j,v)$\
[\[SA-B-20\]]{} ;\
[\[SA-B-21\]]{} ([value’witness]{} $(j,v)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from $> \frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators)\
[\[SA-B-22\]]{} =$values_i[j]\gets v$; $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [value’ack]{} $(j,v)$\
[\[SA-B-23\]]{} .\
\
————————————————————————————————————————————————–\
[**when the message**]{} [read]{} $(j,x)$ [**is**]{} $\mathsf{received
~from}~q_j$ [**for the first time**]{}:\
[\[SA-B-24\]]{} ([value’ack]{} $(j,v)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from $> \frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators);\
[\[SA-B-25\]]{} $values_i[j]\gets v$; $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [value’ack]{} $(j,v)$;\
[\[SA-B-26\]]{} $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [read’answer]{} $(j,x,values_i[x])$.\
\
[**when the message**]{} [read’answer]{} $(j,x,v)$ [**is**]{} $\mathsf{received ~from}~q_k$ [**for the first time**]{}:\
[\[SA-B-27\]]{} ([read’answer’witness]{} $(k,j,x,-)$ never broadcast) [**then**]{} $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [read’answer’witness]{} $(k,j,x,v)$ [**end if**]{}.\
\
[**when the message**]{} [read’answer’witness]{} $(k,j,x,v)$ [**is**]{} $\mathsf{received}$:\
[\[SA-B-28\]]{} =(([read’answer’witness]{} $(k,j,x,v)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from $t+1$ different simulators)\
[\[SA-B-29\]]{} $~\land$ ([read’answer’witness]{} $(k,j,x,v)$ never broadcast))\
[\[SA-B-30\]]{} $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [read’answer’witness]{} $(k,j,x,v)$\
[\[SA-B-31\]]{} ;\
[\[SA-B-32\]]{} ([read’answer’witness]{} $(k,j,x,v)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from $> \frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators)\
[\[SA-B-33\]]{} $answers_i[k][j][x]\gets v$\
[\[SA-B-34\]]{} .\
\
————————————————————————————————————————————————–\
[**when the message**]{} [view]{} $(j,view)$ [**is**]{} $\mathsf{received~from}~q_j$ [**for the first time**]{}:\
[\[SA-B-35\]]{} =(([view’witness]{} $(j, -)$ never broadcast) $\land$ ($view[j]\neq\bot$))\
[\[SA-B-36\]]{} **for** =$x\in[1..n]$ [**do**]{}\
[\[SA-B-37\]]{} ($view[x]\neq\bot$)\
[\[SA-B-38\]]{} **wait** ([value’ack]{} $(x,view[x])$ $\mathsf{received}$ from $> \frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators)\
[\[SA-B-39\]]{} ($|\{k~:~answers_i[k][j][x]=\bot\}|>\frac{n+t}{2}$)\
[\[SA-B-40\]]{}\
[\[SA-B-41\]]{} ;\
[\[SA-B-42\]]{} $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [view’witness]{} $(j, view)$\
[\[SA-B-43\]]{} .\
\
[**when the message**]{} [view’witness]{} $(j, view)$ [**is**]{} $\mathsf{received}$:\
[\[SA-B-44\]]{} =(([view’witness]{} $(j, view)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from $t+1$ different simulators) $~\land$ ([view’witness]{} $(j, view)$ never broadcast))\
[\[SA-B-45\]]{} $\mathsf{broadcast}$ [view’witness]{} $(j, view)$\
[\[SA-B-46\]]{} ;\
[\[SA-B-47\]]{} ([view’witness]{} $(j, view)$ $\mathsf{received}$ from $> \frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators)\
[\[SA-B-48\]]{} =$all\_views_i[j]\gets view$; $\mathsf{send}$ [view’ack]{} $(j,view)$ $\mathsf{to}~q_j$\
[\[SA-B-49\]]{} .
#### Messages [value]{}$()$, [value’valid]{}$()$, [value’witness]{}$()$ and [value’ack]{}$()$
When a simulator $q_i$ invokes the operation ${\sf propose}(v_i)$, it first broadcasts the message [value]{} $(i,v_i)$, and waits for $\frac{n+t}{2}$ acknowledgments (messages [value’ack]{}$(i,v_i)$, lines B\[SA-B-01\]-B\[SA-B-02\]). Then, as in the crash failure case (Figure \[algo-SA-msg-passing-crash\]), it builds its local view of the values proposed to the safe agreement object (lines B\[SA-B-03\]-B\[SA-B-11\]). Finally, it sends its local view to all other simulators (lines B\[SA-B-12\]-B\[SA-B-13\]).
On its server side, when a simulator $q_i$ receives a message [value]{} $(j,v)$, it first checks if this message is valid (line B\[SA-B-15\]). If the message is valid, $q_i$ broadcasts (echoes) the message [value’valid]{} $(j,v)$ to inform the other simulators that it agrees to take into account the pair $(j,v)$ (line B\[SA-B-15\]).
When the simulator $p_i$ has received the message [value’valid]{} $(j,v)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ simulators, it broadcasts the message [value’witness]{} $(j,v)$ to inform the other processes that at least $\frac{n+t}{2}-t= \frac{n-t}{2}\geq t+1$ correct simulators, have validated the pair $(j,v)$.
When $q_i$ has received the message [value’witness]{} $(j,v)$ from $(t+1)$ simulators (i.e., from at least one correct simulator) it broadcasts this message, if not yet done (lines B\[SA-B-18\]-B\[SA-B-20\]). This is to prevent invocations of ${\sf propose}()$ from blocking forever (while waiting [value’ack]{} $(j,v)$ messages at line B\[SA-B-02\], B\[SA-B-06\], B\[SA-B-24\] or B\[SA-B-38\]), because not enough [value’witness]{} $(j,v)$ messages have been broadcast[^2]. Then, if $q_i$ has received the message [value’witness]{} $(j,v)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ simulators, it takes $v$ into account (writes it into $values_i[j]$) and sends an acknowledgment to $q_j$ (lines B\[SA-B-21\]-B\[SA-B-23\]). The corresponding message [value’ack]{} $(j,v)$ broadcast by $q_i$ will also inform the other simulators that $q_i$ took into account the value $v$ proposed by $q_j$. Hence, this message will help $q_j$ progress at line B\[SA-B-02\], and all correct simulators progress at line B\[SA-B-06\].
#### First part of the predicate $\mathsf{valid}_i(j,v)$ {#sec:def-is-valid}
As already indicated, the aim of this predicate is to help a simulator $q_i$ detect if the value $v$ proposed by the simulator $q_j$ is valid. It is always satisfied when $q_j$ is correct, and it can return ${\mathit true}$ or ${\mathit false}$ when $q_j$ is faulty. It is made up of two sub-predicates $P1$ and $P2$.
- The first sub-predicate $P1$ checks if, for the messages [value]{} $(j,-)$ (from $q_j$) and [value’valid]{} $(j,-)$ (from more than $t+1$ different simulators) that $q_i$ has received for other safe agreement objects, $q_i$ has also received the associated messages [view’witness]{} $(j,-)$ from at least $(n-t)$ different simulators. This allows $q_i$ to check if the simulator $q_j$ is not simultaneously participating in other invocations of $\mathsf{propose}()$ on other safe agreement objects.
- The aim of the second sub-predicate $P2$ (defined in Section \[sec:simulation-byzantine\] and used in the simulation) is to allow the simulators to check that the simulation is consistent. As the present section considers safe agreement objects independently from its use in the simulation, we consider, for now, that $P2$ is always satisfied.
If the full predicate $\mathsf{valid}_i(j,v)$ is never satisfied, $q_i$ will, collectively with the other correct simulators, prevent the faulty simulator $q_j$ from progressing with respect to the corresponding safe agreement object.
#### Messages [read]{}$()$, [read’answer]{}$()$ and [read’answer’witness]{}$()$
After the value $v_i$ it proposes to the safe agreement object has been taken into account by $\frac{n+t}{2 }$ simulators, $q_i$ builds a local view of all the values proposed (array $\mathit{my\_view_i}[1..n]$). To this end, as in the crash failure model, $q_i$ sends to each simulator $q_x$ the customized message [read]{} $(i,x)$ (line B\[SA-B-03\]). Its behavior is then similar to the one of the crash failure model (line B\[SA-B-04\]-B\[SA-B-11\]), where the new predicate $|\{k~:~answers_i[k][i][x]=\bot\}|>\frac{n+t}{2}$ is now used at line B\[SA-B-05\].
When $q_i$ receives the message [read]{} $(j,x)$ from the simulator $q_j$, it first waits until it knows that the value proposed by $q_j$ is known by more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ simulators (line B\[SA-B-24\]). This is to check that $q_j$ broadcast its proposed value before reading the other simulator values used to build its own view. When this occurs, $q_i$ answers the message [read]{} $(j,x)$ by broadcasting the message [read’answser]{} $(j,x,values_i[x])$ to inform all the simulators on what it currently knows on the value proposed by $q_x$ (line B\[SA-B-26\]). (Let us remind that, in the crash failure model, $q_i$ was sending this message only to $q_j$.)
When it receives the message [read’answer]{} $(j,x,v)$ from a simulator $q_k$, if not yet done, $q_i$ broadcasts the message [read’answser’witness]{} $(k,j,x,v)$. The lines B\[SA-B-27\]-B\[SA-B-31\] implement a reliable broadcast [@B87], i.e., the message [read’answser’witness]{} $(k,j,x,v)$ is received by all correct processes or none of them, and is always received if the sender is correct. The reliable reception of this message entails the assignment of $answer_i[k,j,x]$ to $v$ (line B\[SA-B-33\]).
#### Messages [view]{}$()$, [view’witness]{}$()$ and [view’ack]{}$()$
Finally, as in Figure \[algo-SA-msg-passing-crash\], the simulator $q_i$ broadcasts its local view of proposed values to all simulators, waits until more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ of them sent back an acknowledgment, and returns from the invocation of ${\sf propose}()$ (lines B\[SA-B-12\]-B\[SA-B-14\]).
When $q_i$ receives for the first time the message [view]{} $(j,view)$, it realizes an enriched reliable broadcast whose aim is to assign $view$ to $all\_view_i[j]$. Let us first observe that if $view[j]=\bot$, then $q_j$ is Byzantine. If it has not yet broadcast [view’witness]{} $(j,view)$ and if $view[j]\neq\bot$ (line B\[SA-B-35\]), $q_i$ first checks if all the values in $view[1..n]$ are consistent. From its point of view, this means that, for each simulator $q_x$, (a) if $view[x]=v$, it must receive messages [value’ack]{} $(x,v)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ simulators, and (b) if $view[x]=\bot$, the same predicate as in line B\[SA-B-05\] must become satisfied. This consistency check is realized by the lines B\[SA-B-36\]-B\[SA-B-41\].
Finally, when $q_i$ receives a message [view’witness]{} $(j,view)$, it does the following. First, if it has received this message from at least one correct simulator, and has not yet broadcast it, $q_i$ does it (lines B\[SA-B-44\]-B\[SA-B-46\]). This part of the reliable broadcast is to prevent the correct simulators from blocking forever. Then, if it has received [view’witness]{} $(j,view)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ simulators and has not yet assigned a value to $all\_view_i[j]$, $q_i$ does it and sends to $q_j$ the acknowledgment message [view’ack]{} $(j,view)$ to inform $q_j$ that it knows its view (lines B\[SA-B-47\]-B\[SA-B-49\]).
A communication pattern
-----------------------
When considering the algorithm of Figure \[algo-SA-msg-passing-byzantine-answers\], it appears that the processing of the messages [value’witness]{} $()$ (lines B\[SA-B-18\]-B\[SA-B-23\]), [read’answer’witness]{} $()$ (lines B\[SA-B-28\]-B\[SA-B-34\]), and [view’witness]{} $()$ (lines B\[SA-B-44\]-B\[SA-B-49\]), follow the same generic pattern. This pattern, inspired from [@B87] and where [witness]{} is used as message tag, is described in Figure \[algo:generic-pattern\].
\[theo-generic-pattern\] [*(i)*]{} If a correct simulator executes action $A$, all correct simulators do it.\
[*(ii)*]{} If $(t+1)$ correct simulators execute ${\sf broadcast}$ [witness]{}$(m)$, all correct simulators execute action $A$.
Proof of (i). Let $p_i$ be a correct process that executes $A$. It follows from line GP\[GP-05\] that it has received the message [witness]{} $(m)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators. As $n>3t$, $\lfloor \frac{n+t}{2}\rfloor +1 \geq 2t+1$, $p_i$ received the message [witness]{} $(m)$ from at least $(t+1)$ correct simulators. It then follows from lines GP\[GP-01\]-GP\[GP-02\] that all correct simulators broadcast [witness]{} $(m)$ and, consequently, each correct simulator receives [witness]{} $(m)$ from at least $(n-t)$ simulators. The proof follows from $n-t > \frac{n+t}{2}$.
Proof of (ii). If $(t+1)$ correct simulators broadcast [witness]{} $(m)$, the predicate of line GP\[GP-01\] is eventually satisfied at every correct simulator. As As $n-t> \frac{n+t}{2}$, it follows that the predicate of line GP\[GP-05\] will also be satisfied at each correct simulator, which concludes the proof.
Safe agreement object in ${{\cal BAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/3]$: proof
------------------------------------------------------------
This section proves that the algorithm presented in Figures \[algo-SA-msg-passing-byzantine-propose\] and \[algo-SA-msg-passing-byzantine-answers\] implements a safe agreement object in the presence of Byzantine simulators, i.e., any of its runs in ${{\cal BAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/3]$ satisfies the validity, agreement, and termination properties that define this object.
#### Propose-termination
\[lemma-termination-if-valid\] Let $q_i$ be a correct simulator. If the predicate ${\sf valid}_j(i,v_i)$ eventually becomes satisfied at the correct simulators $q_j$, then the invocation of ${\sf propose}(v_i)$ by $q_i$ terminates.
A correct simulator $q_i$ can be blocked forever in a ${\sf wait}$ statement (1) at line B\[SA-B-02\], (2) at lines B\[SA-B-05\]-B\[SA-B-06\], or (3) at line B\[SA-B-13\]. We show that, if the predicate ${\sf valid}_j(i,v_i)$ is eventually satisfied at the correct simulators $q_j$, $p_i$ cannot block forever in the invocation of ${\sf propose}(v_i)$.
- ${\sf wait}$ instruction at line B\[SA-B-02\].\
Simulator $q_i$ first broadcasts the message [value]{}$(i,v_i)$ (line B\[SA-B-01\]), then waits for [value’ack]{} messages from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators. When a correct simulator $q_j$ receives [value]{}$(i,v_i)$ for the first time, it waits until ${\sf valid}_j(i,v_i)$ becomes satisfied. By assumption, this happens. Simulator $q_j$ then broadcasts [value’valid]{}$(i,v_i)$. It follows that each of the at least $(n-t)$ correct simulators broadcasts the message [value’valid]{}$(i,v_i)$.
As $n-t>\frac{n+t}{2}$, it follows that each correct simulator $q_j$ receives the message [value’valid]{}$(i,v_i)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ simulators and broadcasts the message [value’witness]{}$(i,v_i)$.
According to Theorem \[theo-generic-pattern\], $q_j$ updates $values_j[i]$ with $v_i$, and broadcasts [value’ack]{}$(i,v_i)$ (lines B\[SA-B-21\]-B\[SA-B-23\]). The correct simulator $q_i$ will then receive the message [value’ack]{}$(i,v_i)$ from at least $n-t > \frac{n+t}{2}$ simulators. Hence, it cannot block forever at line B\[SA-B-02\].
- ${\sf wait}$ instruction at lines B\[SA-B-05\]-B\[SA-B-06\].\
In this waiting statement, $q_i$ waits until either $|\{k~:~answers_i[k][i][j]=\bot\}|>\frac{n+t}{2}$ becomes true, or until it receives [value’ack]{}$(j,w)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators.
- If $q_j$ is a correct simulator that invoked ${\sf propose}(j,w)$, the reasoning is the same as above. Consequently, $q_i$ will receive [value’ack]{}$(j,w)$ from at least $n-t>\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators.
- If $q_j$ is faulty or never invokes ${\sf propose}(j,w)$, $q_i$ may never receive [value’ack]{}$(j,w)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators. We will show that, in this case, the wait predicate $|\{k~:~answers_i[k][i][j]=\bot\}|>\frac{n+t}{2}$ eventually becomes true.
We first show that, if a correct simulator receives [value’ack]{}$(j,w)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators, then all correct simulators do receive [value’ack]{}$(j,w)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators. If a correct simulator receives [value’ack]{}$(j,w)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators, at least $(t+1)$ correct simulators broadcast it. Every correct simulator will then receive the message [value’ack]{}$(j,w)$ from at least $(t+1)$ different simulators and, if not already done, broadcasts it (lines B\[SA-B-24\]-B\[SA-B-25\]). All correct simulators will then receive the message [value’ack]{}$(j,w)$ from at least $n-t>\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators.\
According to the previous observation, let us consider the case in which no correct simulator ever receives the message [value’ack]{}$(j,w)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$different simulators. A correct simulator $q_k$ assigns a non-$\bot$ value to $values_k[j]$ only if it receives [value’witness]{}$(j,w)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators (line B\[SA-B-22\]), or if it receives [value’ack]{}$(j,w)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators (line B\[SA-B-25\]). If a correct simulator receives [value’witness]{}$(j,w)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators, according to Theorem \[theo-generic-pattern\], all correct simulators receive [value’witness]{}$(j,w)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators, and broadcast the message [value’ack]{}$(j,w)$. Because no correct simulator ever receives [value’ack]{}$(j,v_j)$ messages from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators, no correct simulator $q_k$ will ever assign a non-$\bot$ value to $values_k[j]$ (line B\[SA-B-22\]).
When a correct simulator receives a [read]{}$(i,j)$ message from $q_i$, it waits until it has received [value’ack]{}$(i,v_i)$ messages from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators (line B\[SA-B-24\]). The reasoning above (first item) shows that this will eventually become true.
Every correct simulator $q_k$ will then broadcast [read’answer]{}$(i,j,\bot)$. This will cause all correct simulators to broadcast mess sages [read’answer’witness]{}$(k,i,j,\bot)$, which will be received by the simulator $q_i$. This will then assign $\bot$ to $answers_i[k][i][j]$ for at least $n-t > \frac{n+t}{2}$ different values of $k$. Consequently, it will not remain blocked at lines B\[SA-B-05\]-B\[SA-B-06\].
- ${\sf wait}$ instruction at line B\[SA-B-13\].\
As simulator $q_i$ broadcasts its view with a message [view]{}$(i,view)$ (line B\[SA-B-12\]), every correct simulator checks if this view is consistent when it receives it (lines B\[SA-B-36\]-B\[SA-B-41\]). Let us first consider the entries $view[j]$ such that $view[j]=w\neq\bot$. This means that $q_i$ has received [value’ack]{}$(j,w)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators. All the correct simulators then receive the same message from a sufficient number of different simulators and do not remain blocked at line B\[SA-B-38\] (Theorem \[theo-generic-pattern\]).
Let us now consider the entries $view[j]$ such that $view[j]=\bot$. Simulator $q_i$ assigned $\bot$ to $view[j]$ because it received [read’answer’witness]{}$(k,i,j,\bot)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators (lines B\[SA-B-32\]-\[SA-B-33\]). According to Theorem \[theo-generic-pattern\], all the correct simulators $q_x$ will also receive [read’answer’witness]{}$(k,i,j,\bot)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators, and will assign $\bot$ to $answers_x[k][i][j]$. They will thus not remain blocked at line B\[SA-B-39\].
All the correct simulators will then broadcast the message [view’witness]{}$(i,view)$ (line B\[SA-B-42\]). By Theorem \[theo-generic-pattern\], they will all send [view’ack]{}$(i,view)$ to $q_i$. This will allow $q_i$ to terminate its invocation of ${\sf propose}(i,v_i)$, which concludes the proof of the lemma.
\[lemma-valid-if-correct\] Let $v_1,\ldots,v_x,\ldots$ be the values proposed by a correct simulator $q_i$ to a sequence of safe agreement objects. If $q_i$ does not invoke ${\sf propose}()$ operations concurrently and ${\sf valid}_j(i,v_x)$ is eventually satisfied at every correct simulator $q_j$, then ${\sf valid}_j(i,v_{x+1})$ is also eventually satisfied at $q_j$.
We consider here that the sub-predicate $P2$ is always satisfied, and thus consider only the sub-predicate $P1$. Let us recall that $P1$ states that, for every message [value]{}$(i,-)$ that $q_j$ received from $q_i$, and for every message [value’valid]{}$(i,-)$ that $q_j$ received from at least $t+1$ different simulators, it has also received the corresponding messages [view’witness]{}$(i,-)$.
By hypothesis, ${\sf valid}_j(i,v_x)$ is eventually satisfied at the correct simulator $q_j$. Once $q_i$ broadcasts the message [value]{}$(i,v_x)$, $q_j$ only needs to receive the corresponding [view’witness]{}$(i,view)$ for $P1$ to be satisfied. By Lemma \[lemma-termination-if-valid\], $q_i$ terminates its invocation of ${\sf propose}(i,v_x)$, from which we conclude that it received [view’ack]{}$(i,view)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators (line B\[SA-B-13\]). A correct simulator sends such a message only if it has received [view’witness]{}$(i,view)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators (lines B\[SA-B-47\]-B\[SA-B-48\]). According to Theorem \[theo-generic-pattern\], all the correct simulators also broadcast it (lines B\[SA-B-44\]-B\[SA-B-45\]). The correct simulator $q_j$ then receives them from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators. The predicate ${\sf valid}_j(i,v_{x+1})$ is then eventually satisfied at $q_j$.
#### Decide-termination
\[lemma:one-decides-all-decide\] If a correct simulator terminates its invocation of ${\sf decide}()$, then all correct simulators terminate their invocation of ${\sf decide}()$.
Suppose, by way of contradiction, that the invocation of ${\sf decide}()$ by a correct simulator $q_i$ terminates, and that the invocation of ${\sf decide}()$ by another correct simulator $q_j$ does not.
The invocation of ${\sf decide}()$ by $q_i$ can terminate only if the predicate at lines C\[SA-C-15\]-C\[SA-C-16\] is satisfied. Let $q_k$ be any simulator in the set $\sigma$ defined at line C\[SA-C-15\]. We show that $all\_views_i[k] = view$ implies that we eventually have $all\_views_j[k] = view$, and thus that $q_j$ must decide.
Simulator $q_i$ assigns $view$ to $all\_views_i[k]$ at line B\[SA-B-48\]. This can happen only because $q_i$ received [view’witness]{}$(k,view)$ messages from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators. According to Theorem \[theo-generic-pattern\], $q_j$ eventually receives enough [view’witness]{}$(k,view)$ messages and also assigns $view$ to $all\_views_j[k]$. Simulator $q_j$ will then also have to decide.
\[lemma:at-most-one-blocked-byz\] The invocations of ${\sf decide}()$ by all the correct simulators on all the safe agreement objects terminate, except for at most $t$ safe agreement objects.
Suppose, by way of contradiction, that there are $t+1$ safe agreement objects such that at least one correct simulator never terminates its invocation of ${\sf decide}()$. By Lemma \[lemma:one-decides-all-decide\], there must be $(t+1)$ different safe agreement objects in which no correct simulator terminates its invocations of ${\sf decide}()$.
The invocation of the ${\sf decide}()$ operation by a correct simulator $q_i$ on a safe agreement object can only be blocked at lines C\[SA-C-15\]-C\[SA-C-16\], if the corresponding predicate is never satisfied. This can happen if (1) there is no simulator $q_j$ such that $all\_views_i[j] \neq \bot$ or, (2) for every non-empty set of simulators $\sigma$, there are two simulators $q_y\in\sigma$ and $q_z$ such that $all\_views_i[y][z] \neq \bot \wedge all\_views_i[z] = \bot$. Because a correct simulator $q_i$ invokes ${\sf propose}()$ before invoking ${\sf decide}()$, case (1) cannot happen; we always have $all\_views_i[i] \neq \bot$. We then consider case (2).
Case (2) can happen if $q_z$ starts an invocation of ${\sf propose}()$ and communicates its proposed value to other processes, but does not terminate its invocation by communicating its view. Because there are at most $t$ faulty simulators, by the pigeonhole principle, there must be a faulty simulator $q_z$ that prevents $q_i$ from deciding on two different safe agreement objects.
A correct simulator $q_k$ broadcasts a [value’valid]{}$(z,-)$ after receiving a [value]{}$(z,-)$ message only if the predicate ${\sf valid}_k(z,-)$ is satisfied (line B\[SA-B-15\]). Due to the predicate $valid_k(z,-)$, this is true only if $q_k$ received [view’witness]{}$(z,-)$ messages from at least $(n-t)$ different simulators, each of these messages corresponding to the all the [value]{}$(z,-)$ and [value’valid]{}$(z,-)$ messages that it has previously received (see the definition of the predicate $P1$ of ${\sf valid}_k(z,-)$).
Let ${\sf propose}(v_1)$ be the invocation of ${\sf propose}()$ by $q_z$ on the first safe agreement object on which $q_i$ is blocked, and ${\sf propose}(v_2)$ the one on the second safe agreement object on which $q_i$ is blocked. Because there is a simulator $q_y\in\sigma$ such that $all\_views_i[y] \neq \bot$ in the two invocations of ${\sf decide}()$ by $q_i$, in both cases, more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators have broadcast a [view’witness]{}$(y,-)$ message (line B\[SA-B-48\]). Both sets include correct simulators. They must then have received [value’ack]{}$(z,v_1)$ and [value’ack]{}$(z,v_2)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators (line B\[SA-B-38\]). Again, both sets include correct simulators that must have received [value’witness]{}$(z,v_1)$ and [value’witness]{}$(z,v_2)$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators (line B\[SA-B-21\]).
In order to broadcast a [value’witness]{}$(z,-)$ message, a correct simulator must either (a) receive [value’witness]{}$(z,-)$ messages from at least $t+1$ different simulators (line B\[SA-B-18\]), or (b) receive [value’valid]{}$(z,-)$ messages from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators (line B\[SA-B-16\]). The first correct simulator that broadcasts a [value’witness]{}$(z,-)$ message must then have received [value’valid]{}$(z,-)$ messages from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators.
According to Lemma \[lemma:quorum-intersection\], there is a least one correct simulator $q_\ell$ that broadcasts both [value’valid]{}$(z,-)$ messages (line B\[SA-B-15\]). In order to do so, the predicate ${\sf valid}_\ell(z,v_2)$ must have been verified at the time that $q_\ell$ broadcast the [value’valid]{}$(z,v_2)$ message. It must then have received the [view’witness]{}$(z,view)$ messages that correspond to $v_1$ from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators. According to Theorem \[theo-generic-pattern\], $q_i$ must then also have received these messages from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators and assigned $view$ to $all\_views_i[z]$ (line B\[SA-B-48\]) in the instance that corresponds to the invocation of ${\sf propose}(v_1)$ by $q_z$, a contradiction that concludes the proof of the lemma.
#### Agreement
For any simulator $q_x$ and any correct simulator $q_i$, if $q_i$ assigns a non-$\bot$ value $v$ to $values_i[x]$, then $(1)$ no value $v'\neq v$ is ever assigned to $values_j[x]$ by a correct simulator $q_j$ and $(2)$ each such correct simulator $q_j$ eventually assigns $v$ to $values_j[x]$. \[lemma-byz-uniform\]
Let $q_k$ be the first simulator that assigns $v$ to $values_k[x]$. Since $q_k$ executes line B\[SA-B-22\], it received strictly more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ [value’witness]{} $(x,v)$ messages from different simulators. At least $t+1$ correct simulators consequently sent this message to all processes at line B\[SA-B-17\] or at line B\[SA-B-19\]. By Theorem \[theo-generic-pattern\], every correct simulator $q_j$ consequently eventually receives such a message from each correct simulator and assigns $v$ to $values_j[x]$.
Suppose that there exists a value $v'\neq v$ such that there is a correct simulator $q_\ell$ that assigns $v'$ to $values_\ell[x]$. Suppose that $q_\ell$ is the first process to do so. It follows that $q_\ell$ received [value’witness]{} $(x,v')$ messages from strictly more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different processes (line B\[SA-B-21\] or line B\[SA-B-24\]).
Consider the first correct simulator that broadcasts a [value’witness]{} $(x,v')$ message. In order to do so, it must have received [value’valid]{} $(x,v')$ messages from strictly more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different processes (lines B\[SA-B-16\]-B\[SA-B-17\]). However, the first correct simulator that broadcasts a [value’witness]{} $(x,v)$ message must also have received [value’valid]{} $(x,v)$ messages from strictly more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different processes. There must then be a correct simulator that sent both [value’valid]{} $(x,-)$ messages. The only place a correct simulator can send a [value’valid]{} $(x,-)$ message is at Line \[SA-B-15\] and it does so only once for each simulator $q_x$, a contradiction which concludes the proof of the lemma.
For any simulators $q_k, q_\ell, q_x$ and any correct simulator $q_i$, if $q_i$ assigns a non-$\bot$ value $v$ to $answers_i[\ell][k][x]$, then $(1)$ no value $v'\neq v$ is ever assigned to $answers_j[\ell][k][x]$ by a correct simulator $q_j$ and $(2)$ each such correct simulator $q_j$ eventually assigns $v$ to $answers_j[\ell][k][x]$. \[lemma-byz-uniform-reads\]
The proof is the same as for Lemma \[lemma-byz-uniform\].
For any simulator $q_x$ and any correct simulator $q_i$, if $q_i$ assigns a non-$\bot$ value $view$ to $all\_views_i[x]$, then (1) no value $view'\neq view$ is ever assigned to $all\_views_j[x]$ by a correct simulator $q_j$ and (2) each such correct simulator $q_j$ eventually assigns $view$ to $all\_views_j[x]$. \[lemma-byz-uniform-view\]
The proof is the same as for Lemma \[lemma-byz-uniform\].
\[lemma:safe-byz-agreement\] No two invocations of ${\sf decide}()$ return different values.
Let us recall that the algorithm implementing the operation $\mathsf{decide}()$ is described at lines C\[SA-C-15\]-C\[SA-C-19\]. Let $q_i$ and $q_j$ be two correct simulators. According to Lemmas \[lemma-byz-uniform\]-\[lemma-byz-uniform-view\], we have:
- $(values_i[x]\neq \bot) ~\wedge~(values_j[x]\neq \bot)
~\Rightarrow~(values_i[x]=values_j[x])$.
- $(answers_i[\ell][k][x]\neq?\land answers_j[\ell][k][x]\neq?)
\Rightarrow(answers_i[\ell][k][x]=answers_j[\ell][k][x])$.
- $(all\_views_i[x]\neq \bot ~\wedge~ all\_view_j[x]\neq \bot)
~\Rightarrow~(all\_views_i[x]=all\_view_j[x])$.
Let us assume, by contradiction, that $q_i$ and $q_j$ decide different values. This means that the sets $min\_\sigma_i$ and $min\_\sigma_j$ computed at line C\[SA-C-17\] by $q_i$ and $q_j$, respectively, are different.
Since $min\_\sigma_i$ and $min\_\sigma_j$ are different, let us consider $z\in min\_\sigma_i\setminus min\_\sigma_j$ (if $min\_\sigma_i \subsetneq min\_\sigma_j$, swap $i$ and $j$). According to the closure predicate used at line C\[SA-C-16\], as $z\notin min\_\sigma_j$, we have $\forall y\in min\_\sigma_j~:~all\_views_j[y][z]=\bot$.
It follows that $q_j$ received [view’witness]{} ($y,all\_view_j[y]$) messages (with $all\_view_j[y][z]=\bot$) from a set of simulators $Q_{j,vw}$ of size strictly larger than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ (the subscript $vw$ stands for “view witness”). The correct simulators of $Q_{j,vw}$ sent these messages after checking at line B\[SA-B-39\] that a set $Q_{j,vw,r}$ of strictly more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ reliably broadcast (thanks to the mechanism of lines B\[SA-B-26\] to B\[SA-B-33\]) a [read’answer]{} ($y,z,\bot$) message. The correct simulators of $Q_{j,vw,r}$ sent these messages at line B\[SA-B-26\] after they received [value’ack]{} ($y,v_y$) messages from a set $Q_{y,w}$ of strictly more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ simulators (the subscript $w$ stands for “witness”). Each correct simulator $q_k$ of $Q_{y,w}$ had $values_k[y]=v_y$ when it sent this message and it happens strictly before the first correct simulator sends a [read’answer]{} ($y,z,\bot$) message.
Since $z\in min\_\sigma_i$, the correct simulator $q_i$ received [view’witness]{} ($z,all\_view_i[z]$) messages from a set $Q_{i,vw}$ of strictly more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ simulators. The correct simulators of $Q_{i,vw}$ sent these messages after the check of the values at lines B\[SA-B-38\]-B\[SA-B-39\].
Suppose that some of them verified the predicate of line B\[SA-B-39\] for $x=y$. It entails that a set $Q_{i,vw,r}$ of strictly more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ simulators reliably broadcast a [read’answer]{} ($z,y,\bot$). The correct simulators of $Q_{i,vw,r}$ sent this message after receiving at line B\[SA-B-24\] [value’ack]{} ($z,v_z$) messages from a set $Q_{z,w}$ of strictly more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ simulators. This happens strictly before the first [read’answer]{} ($z,y,\bot$) message is sent by a correct simulator. Since $|Q_{i,vw,r}|,|Q_{j,vw,r}|>\frac{n+t}{2}$, $Q_{i,vw,r}\cap
Q_{j,vw,r}$ contains at least a correct simulator $p_k$.
Simulator $p_k$ thus broadcast a [read’answer]{} ($y,z,\bot$) message and a [read’answer]{} ($z,y,\bot$) message (line B\[SA-B-26\]). It then had $views_k[z] = \bot$ before broadcasting the [read’answer]{} ($y,z,\bot$) message and $views_k[y] = \bot$ before broadcasting the [read’answer]{} ($z,y,\bot$). Because of the first instruction of line B\[SA-B-25\] this is impossible, and thus each correct process that sends a [view’witness]{} ($z,all\_views_i[z]$) message ended the wait instruction of lines B\[SA-B-38\]-B\[SA-B-39\] by verifying the predicate of line B\[SA-B-38\]. This entails that $\forall x\in\Pi~:~all\_views_x[z]\neq\bot \Rightarrow
all\_views_x[z][y]\neq\bot$. Consequently, $all\_views_i[z][y]\neq\bot$.
Since $z\in min\_\sigma_i$, $all\_views_i[z]\neq\bot$ and thus $all\_views_i[z][y]\neq\bot$. According to the predicate of line C\[SA-C-16\], this entails that $y\in min\_\sigma_i$, and since the previous reasoning holds for any $y\in min\_\sigma_j$, it shows that $min\_\sigma_j\subseteq min\_\sigma_i$. It follows that, when $q_i$ executes line C\[SA-C-17\], $\forall y\in
min\_\sigma_j~:~all\_views_i[y]\neq\bot$ and, consequently, $\forall y\in
min\_\sigma_j~:~all\_views_i[y]=all\_views_j[y]$. It entails that if $|min\_\sigma_j|<|min\_\sigma_i|$, then $min\_\sigma_j$ would have been chosen by $q_i$ at line C\[SA-C-17\], which proves that $min\_\sigma_i=min\_\sigma_j$ and contradicts the fact that $q_i$ and $q_j$ decide differently.
#### Correct values are valid
\[lemma-correct-is-valid\] If a correct simulator $q_i$ decides the value $v$, there is a correct simulator $q_j$ such that ${\sf valid}_j(-,v)$.
Let $v$ be the value decided by a correct simulator $q_i$. Value $v$ has then be proposed by a simulator $q_j$ such that $all\_views_i[j]\neq \bot$ (definition of $\sigma$ at lines \[SA-C-15\]-C\[SA-C-16\] and choice of value at line C\[SA-C-18\]). In order to assign a non-$\bot$ value to $all\_views_i[j]$, $q_i$ must have received [view’witness]{}$(j,-)$ messages from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators (lines B\[SA-B-47\]-B\[SA-B-48\]), and consequently from at least one correct simulator. Consider the first correct simulator $q_x$ that has broadcast a [view’witness]{}$(j,-)$ message. Before sending it, it must have assigned a non-$\bot$ value to $values_x[j]$ (lines B\[SA-B-35\]-B\[SA-B-42\]). It then has received either (a) [value’witness]{}$(j,-)$ messages from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators or (b) [value’ack]{}$(j,-)$ messages from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators.
In case (a), consider the first correct simulator $q_k$ that has broadcast a [value’witness]{}$(j,-)$ message. In order to do so, it must have received [value’valid]{}$(j,-)$ messages from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators (lines B\[SA-B-16\]-\[SA-B-17\]). The predicate ${\sf valid}_k(j,v)$ must have been satisfied at the simulators that broadcast these messages(line B\[SA-B-15\]). In case (b), the first correct simulator that has broadcast a [value’ack]{}$(j,-)$ message must first have received [value’witness]{}$(j,-)$ messages from more than $\frac{n+t}{2}$ different simulators (lines B\[SA-B-21\]-B\[SA-B-23\]). The situation is then similar to Case (a).
\[theorem-SA-object-is-correct\] The algorithms described in Figure [*\[algo-SA-msg-passing-byzantine-propose\]*]{} and Figure [*\[algo-SA-msg-passing-byzantine-answers\]*]{} implement a safe-agreement object in ${{\cal BAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/3]$.
The proof follows from the previous lemmas.
Simulation algorithm and its proof in ${{\cal BAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/3]$ {#sec:simulation-byzantine}
------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Simulation algorithm
When we consider the simulation algorithm described in Figure \[algo:simulation-crash\], we observe that the $n$ simulators communicate only through safe agreement objects. It follows that the same algorithm works in ${{\cal BAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/3]$, when the crash-tolerant safe agreement objects are replaced by Byzantine-tolerant safe agreement objects previously described. Two things remain to be done: define the specific sub-predicate $P2$ of the predicate ${\sf valid}()$, and do a specific proof of this algorithm (i.e., a proof based on the specification of the Byzantine-tolerant safe agreement objects defined in Section \[sec:spec-Byzantine-SA\]).
#### Sub-predicate $P2$
As far as $P2$ is concerned we have the following. Let us consider the simulator $q_i$ that invokes ${\sf valid}_i(j,v)$, with respect to the simulation of a process $p_x$. In the simulation algorithm, the parameter $v$ is the message $msg$ that $q_j$ proposes to a safe agreement object from which will be decided the next message to be received by the simulated process $p_x$ (lines \[Simu-C-08\]-\[Simu-C-09\] of Figure \[algo:simulation-crash\]). $P2$ checks, from $q_i$’s local point of view, that, if the message $v$ has been sent in the simulation, then it has not yet been consumed, i.e., $(v\in sent_i[x])~\Rightarrow~(v \notin received_i[x])$.
#### Proof of the simulation algorithm in ${{\cal BAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/3]$
\[lemma:at-most-one-crash-byz\] The simulation of at most $t$ simulated processes can be blocked.
The only places where a correct simulator $q_i$ can block is during the invocation of the safe agreement operation ${\sf decide}()$. Such invocations appear at line \[Simu-C-02\], and line \[Simu-C-11\].
Because the invocations by all the correct simulators of ${\sf decide}()$ on all the safe agreement objects terminate, except for at most $t$ safe agreement objects (Lemma \[lemma:at-most-one-blocked-byz\]), the simulation of at most $t$ simulated processes can be blocked.
\[lemma:same-seq-of-messages-byz\] The simulation of the reception of the $k$-th message received by a simulated process $p_j$, returns the same message at all correct simulators.
The simulation of the message receptions for a simulated process $p_j$, are executed at each correct simulator $q_i$ at lines \[Simu-C-08\]-\[Simu-C-11\], and all the correct simulators use the same sequence of sequence numbers (line \[Simu-C-07\]). It then follows from the agreement property of the safe agreement object ${\mathit{SA}}[j,sn]$, that no two correct simulators obtain different messages when they invoke ${\mathit{SA}}[j,sn].{\sf decide}()$, and the lemma follows.
\[lemma:one-dec-value-byz\] For every simulated processes $p_j$, no two correct simulators return different values.
The only non-deterministic elements of the simulation are the input vectors $input_i[1..n']$ at each simulator $q_i$, and the reception of the simulated messages.
The lines \[Simu-C-01\]-\[Simu-C-02\] of the simulation force the correct simulators to agree on the same input value for each simulated process $p_j$, $1\leq j \leq n'$. Similarly, as shown by Lemma \[lemma:same-seq-of-messages-byz\], for each simulated process $p_j$, the lines \[Simu-C-07\]-\[Simu-C-11\] direct the simulators to agree on the very same sequence of messages received by $p_j$. It follows from the fact that the function $\delta_j()$ is deterministic, that any two correct simulators $q_i$ and $q_k$, that execute lines \[Simu-C-15\]-\[Simu-C-16\] during the same “round number” $sn_i[j]=sn_k[j]$, are such that $state_i[j]=state_k[j]$, from which the lemma follows.
\[lemma:correct-simulation-byz\] The sequences of message receptions simulated by each simulator $q_i$ on behalf of each simulated process $p_j$, define a correct execution of the simulated algorithm.
To prove the correctness of the simulation, we have to show that
1. \[item0-byz\] Every message that was received by a simulated process was sent by another simulated process,
2. \[item1-byz\] Every message that was sent by a simulated process to another simulated process (whose simulation is not blocked either), is received, and
3. \[item2-byz\] The simulated messages respect a simulated physical order (i.e., no message is “received” before being “sent”).
Item \[item0-byz\] follows from Lemma \[lemma-correct-is-valid\] and from the definition of $P2$. Item \[item1-byz\] is satisfied because the messages sent by the simulated process $p_j$ to the simulated process $p_k$ are received (lines \[Simu-C-09\]-\[Simu-C-11\]) in their sending order (as defined at line \[Simu-C-04\] and line \[Simu-C-14\]). Hence, if $p_k$ is not blocked (due to a faulty simulator) it obtains the messages from $p_j$ in their sending order.
For Item \[item2-byz\], let us define a (simulated) physical order as follows. For each simulated message $m$, let us consider the first time at which the reception of $m$ was simulated (i.e., this occurs when –for the first time– a simulator terminates the invocation of ${\mathit{SA}}[-,-].{\sf decide}()$ that returns $m$). A message that is decided has been proposed by a simulator to a safe agreement object before being decided (validity property).The sending time of a simulated message is then the first time at which ${\mathit{SA}}[-,-].{\sf propose}(m)$ is invoked by a simulator. It follows that any simulated message is sent before being received, which concludes the lemma.
\[lemma:nb-simulated-proc-byz\] Each correct simulator $q_i$ computes the decision value of at least $(n'-t)$ simulated processes.
Due to Lemma \[lemma:at-most-one-crash-byz\], and the fact that at most $t$ simulators may be byzantine, it follows that at most $t$ simulated processes may be prevented from progressing. As (a) by assumption the simulated algorithm $A'$ is $t$-resilient, and (b) due to Lemma \[lemma:correct-simulation-byz\] the simulation produces a correct simulation of $A'$, it follows that at least $(n'-t)$ simulated processes decide a value.
\[theorem:main-simulation-byz\] Let $A$ be an algorithm solving a decision task in ${{\cal CAMP}_{n',t}}[t<n']$. The algorithm described in Figure \[algo:simulation-crash\], in which Byzantine-tolerant safe agreement objects are used, is a correct simulation of $A$ in ${{\cal BAMP}_{n,t}}[t<n/3]$.
The theorem follows from Lemma \[lemma:correct-simulation-byz\] and Lemma \[lemma:nb-simulated-proc-byz\].
Additionally, the reader can easily check that the simulation of a message only requires a polynomial number of messages in the base system, and the increase in size of these messages, when compared to the size of the simulated message, is also polynomial.
Implications of the Simulation {#sec:conclusion}
==============================
#### BG-simulation in Byzantine message-passing systems
A main result of this paper is a signature-free distributed algorithm that solves BG-simulation in Byzantine asynchronous message-passing systems. In addition to being the first algorithm that solves BG-simulation in such a severe failure context, the proposed simulation algorithm has noteworthy applications as shown below.
#### From Byzantine-failures to crash failures in message-passing systems
The simulation presented here allows the execution of a $t$-resilient crash-tolerant algorithm in an asynchronous message-passing system where up to $t$ processes may be Byzantine. A feature that is sometimes required from a Byzantine-tolerant algorithm solving a task (not usually considered in the crash failure case) is that the value decided by any correct process should be based only on inputs of correct processes. This prevents Byzantine processes from “polluting” the computation with their inputs. A way to guarantee that an input has been proposed by a correct process is to check that it has been proposed by at least $(t+1)$ different processes. Assuming that in any execution at most $m$ values are proposed, this constraint translates as $n-t>mt$ [@HKR14; @MTH14].
In the case of the simulation presented in Section \[sec:BG-byzantine-model\], this requirement can easily be satisfied by adding a first step of computation before the start of the simulation. Simulators first broadcast their input. They then echo every value that they receive from more than $t+1$ different simulators, and consider these values (and only these values) as valid inputs. An input considered valid by a correct simulator is then eventually considered valid by all correct simulators, and the only inputs allowed in the simulation are inputs of correct simulators. Because we consider colorless tasks, the choice of output is done in the same way as in the original BG-simulation: a simulator can adopt the output of any simulated process that has decided a value.
The possible Byzantine behaviors are restrained by the underlying Byzantine-tolerant safe agreement objects used in the simulation. Surprisingly, this shows that, from the point of view of the computability of colorless tasks and assuming $n>(m+1)t$ (this requirement always implies $n>3t$ when at least two different values can be proposed), Byzantine failures are equivalent to crash-failures. This provides us with a new understanding of Byzantine failures and shows that their impact can be restricted to the much simpler crash-failure case.
#### From wait-free shared memory to message-passing
The proposed simulation can be combined with previous works to further extend the scope of the result. Consider an algorithm $A_0$ that solves a colorless task, where $m>1$, in a wait-free read/write memory system of $t+1$ processes, denoted ${\cal CARW}_{t+1,t}[\emptyset]$. Using the basic BG-simulation [@BG93], this algorithm can be transformed into an algorithm $A_1$ that works in the $t$-resilient read/write memory system of $(m+1)t+1$ processes, in which at most $t$ can crash. This model is denoted ${\cal CARW}_{(m+1)t+1,t}[\emptyset]$. Using an implementation of a read/write memory in a crash-prone message-passing system in which a majority of processes are correct [@ABD95], we obtain an algorithm $A_2$ which work in ${\cal CAMP}_{(m+1)t+1,t}[\emptyset]$ (message-passing system system of $(m+1)t+1$ processes, in which at most $t$ can crash; notice that $m > 0 \Rightarrow (m+1)t+1>2t)$). Finally, using the simulation presented in this paper, we obtain Byzantine-tolerant algorithm $A_3$ which works in ${\cal BAMP}_{(m+1)t+1,t}[\emptyset]$ (message-passing system of $(m+1)t+1$ processes, of which at most $t$ can be Byzantine; notice that $m>1 \Rightarrow (m+1)t+1>3t$).
These transformations show that, as far as the computability of colorless tasks that admit up to $m>1$ different input values is concerned, an $n$-process Byzantine-prone message-passing system, in which up to $t < n/(m+1)$ processes can be Byzantine, is equivalent to a wait-free shared memory system of $t+1$ processes, which at most commit crash failures. When considering colorless tasks with $m>1$, a figure relating these transformations is depicted in Figure \[figure-stacking\]. Differently from the full-information algorithm presented in [@MTH14], the simulation presented in the present paper (along with [@BG93] and [@ABD95]) allows a [*direct*]{} transformation of any wait-free shared-memory algorithm that solves a colorless task into a message-passing Byzantine-tolerant algorithm.
\[figure-stacking\]
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work has been partially supported by the Franco-German DFG-ANR Project 40300781. This project (named DISCMAT) is devoted to mathematical methods in distributed computing. The authors would like to thank Sergio Rajsbaum for discussions on the BG simulation.
[99]{}
[^1]: Let us observe that the lines C\[SA-C-01\] and C\[SA-C-20\] implement a reliable broadcast of the message [value]{} $(i,v_i)$. Similarly, the lines C\[SA-C-12\] and C\[SA-C-22\] implement a reliable broadcast of the message [view]{} $(i,my\_view_i)$. It is easy to see that the cost of such a reliable broadcast is $O(n^2)$ messages.
[^2]: A similar mechanism is used in [@B87] to ensure that the proposed reliable broadcast abstraction guarantees that a message is received by all or none of the correct processes.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
-1truein 0truein = 10000 10.5pt 10.5pt
‘=11 addtoreset[equation]{}[section]{}
startsection[section]{}[1]{}[@]{}[3.5ex plus 1ex minus .2ex]{} [2.3ex plus .2ex]{}[****]{}
==========================================================================================
startsection[subsection]{}[2]{}[@]{}[2.3ex plus .2ex]{} [2.3ex plus .2ex]{}[****]{}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\#1[[**[\#1]{}**]{}]{} /\#1[\#1-6pt/]{} \#1[\#1]{} ł
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[ [[\#1]{} [\#2]{} [\#4]{}]{} ]{}]{} \#1\#2[[ ]{}]{} \#1\#2[[ C]{}]{} \#1\#2[[ ’]{}]{} \#1\#2[[ ”]{}]{}
=cmss10 =cmss10 at 7pt
\#1\#2\#3[[*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**A\#1**]{} (\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[*Nuovo Cimento*]{} [**\#1A**]{} (\#2) \#3]{}
Introduction
============
The proton longevity is one of the most important guides in attempts to understand the fundamental origin of the observed gauge and matter particle spectrum. While the Standard Model does not allow for the existence of renormalizable operators which can mediate proton decay, this is not the case in most of its theoretical extensions. Moreover, even if we assume that the Standard Model remains unmodified up to the cutoff scale set by quantum gravity, baryon and lepton number violating operators will in general be induced at that scale. In fact, recently it was argued, on general grounds, that proton lifetime limits impose that the cutoff scale must be above $10^{16}{\rm GeV}$ [@kane].
The proton longevity problem becomes especially acute in supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model [@nilles], which allow dimension four and five baryon and lepton number violating operators [@WSY]. In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model one imposes the existence of a global symmetry, $R-$parity, which forbids the dangerous dimension four operators, while the difficulty with the dimension five operators can only be circumvented if one further assumes that the relevant Yukawa couplings are sufficiently suppressed. However, in general, global symmetries are not preserved in quantum gravity [@Hawking; @EHNT]. To satisfy proton lifetime constraints one must therefore assume the existence of a local discrete symmetry [@lds] or an explicit gauge symmetry. An example of such a symmetry is the gauged $B-L$ symmetry which forbids the dimension four proton decay mediating operators of the MSSM.
Realistic superstring models provide a concrete framework to study in detail the issue of proton stability in the context of quantum gravity. Indeed the issue has been examined in the past by a number of authors [@psinsm; @ps94; @pati]. The avenues explored range from the existence of matter parity at special points in the moduli space of specific models, to the emergence of non–Abelian custodial symmetries in specific compactifications.
The most realistic string models constructed to date are the models constructed in the free fermionic formulation [@fff]. This has given rise to a large set of semi–realistic models [@fsu5; @fny; @pssm; @eu; @nahe; @cus; @cfn; @cfs], which differ in their detailed phenomenological characteristics, and share an underlying $Z_2\times Z_2$ orbifold structure [@foc]. The important achievements include: the natural emergence of three generations, which is correlated with the structure of the underlying $Z_2\times Z_2$ orbifold; The $SO(10)$ embedding of the Standard Model spectrum, yielding the canonical $SO(10)$ normalization for the weak hypercharge. Recently, it was further demonstrated that free fermionic construction also gives rise to models in which the low energy states, which carry Standard Model charges, consist solely of the spectrum of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model [@cfn]. The realistic free fermionic models therefore provide a concrete and viable framework to study the proton lifetime problem. In this context past investigations have examined several possibilities that may explain the proton longevity. For example, ref. [@lepzp] stipulated the possibility that the $U(1)_{Z^\prime}$ which is embedded in $SO(10)$ remains unbroken down to the TeV scale, and consequently the problematic dimension 4 operators are adequately suppressed. In ref. [@psinsm] the existence of superstring symmetries which naturally suppress the proton decay mediating operators was studied, while in ref. [@cus] it was shown that the free fermionic string models occasionally give rise to non–Abelian custodial symmetries, which forbid proton decay mediating operators to all orders of non–renormalizable terms. These proposals, however, fall short of providing a satisfactory solution. The reason being that these proposals are, in general, exclusive to the generation of light neutrino masses through a see–saw mechanism. for example, the absence of the $SO(10)$ 126 representation in string models necessitates that the $SO(10)$ $U(1)_{Z^\prime}$ be broken at a high scale, rather than at a low scale. Similarly, to date, the existence of the custodial non–Abelian symmetries seems to be exclusive to the generation of a see–saw mass matrix. I also remark that the presence of additional gauge bosons in non–realistic string models as been noted in ref. [@cvetic], as well as a suggestion that the low energy data hints on the existence of an additional $Z^\prime$ with stringy characteristics [@langacker].
The above discussion highlights both the importance and difficulty of finding a robust and satisfactory solution to the proton stability problem. The solution which is advocated in this paper is that unification of gravity and the gauge interactions necessitates the existence of an additional $U(1)$ symmetry, beyond the Standard Model, which remain unbroken down to low or intermediate energy. Furthermore, the required $U(1)$ symmetry is not of the type that arises in $SO(10)$ or $E_6$ GUTs. Invariance under the extra $U(1)$ forbids the proton decay mediating operators, which can be generated only after $U(1)_{Z^\prime}$ breaking. The magnitude of the proton decay mediating operators is therefore proportional to the $U(1)_{Z^\prime}$ breaking scale, $\Lambda_{Z^\prime}$ which is in turn constrained by the proton lifetime limit. On the other hand, the type of $U(1)$ that we consider here do not forbid quark, lepton and seesaw mass terms.
By studying the spectrum and symmetries of the string model of ref. [@eu] Pati showed [@pati] that $U(1)$ symmetries with the required properties do indeed exist in the string models. In this paper I examine whether the $U(1)$ symmetries can remain unbroken down to low, or intermediate, energy scale. This is achieved by examining if there exist supersymmetric flat directions which preserve the specific $U(1)$ combinations, and hence allow them to remain unbroken down to low, or intermediate energies. In the model of ref. [@eu] I show that, in fact, such flat directions do not exist. I then study the same question in other models and show that in some examples the required symmetries cannot be preserved by the flat directions, whereas in some cases they can. Imposing the proton lifetime limits I estimate the scale of $U(1)_{Z^\prime}$ breaking, $\Lambda_{Z^\prime}$. I show that in the absence of large R-parity violation $\Lambda_{Z^\prime}$ is not constrained to be within the reach of forthcoming accelerator experiments, whereas if there exists substantial R-parity violation, the $Z^\prime$ gauge boson is likely to be seen in forthcoming collider experiments.
Gauge symmetries in free fermionic models {#stringmodels}
=========================================
In this section I discuss the general structure of the realistic free fermionic models, and of the additional $U(1)$ symmetries that arise in these models. It is important to emphasize that the free fermionic heterotic–string formulation yields a large number of three generation models, which possess an underlying $Z_2\times Z_2$ orbifold structure, and differ in their detailed phenomenological characteristics. It is therefore important, as elaborated below, to extract the features of the models that are common to this large class of realistic models.
The free fermionic models are constructed by specifying a set of boundary conditions basis vectors and the one–loop GSO projection coefficients [@fff]. The basis vectors, $b_k$, span a finite additive group $\Xi=\sum_k{{n_k}{b_k}}$ where $n_k=0,\cdots,{{N_{z_k}}-1}$, with $N_{z_k}$ the smallest positive integer such that $N_{z_k} b_k = \vec{0}$ (mod 2). The physical massless states in the Hilbert space of a given sector $\alpha\in{\Xi}$, are obtained by acting on the vacuum with bosonic and fermionic operators and by applying the generalized GSO projections. The $U(1)$ charges, $Q(f)$, with respect to the unbroken Cartan generators of the four dimensional gauge group, which are in one to one correspondence with the $U(1)$ currents ${f^*}f$ for each complex fermion f, are given by: , \[u1charges\] where $\alpha(f)$ is the boundary condition of the world–sheet fermion $f$ in the sector $\alpha$, and $F_\alpha(f)$ is a fermion number operator counting each mode of $f$ once (and if $f$ is complex, $f^*$ minus once). For periodic fermions, $\alpha(f)=1$, the vacuum is a spinor in order to represent the Clifford algebra of the corresponding zero modes. For each periodic complex fermion $f$ there are two degenerate vacua ${\vert +\rangle},{\vert -\rangle}$ , annihilated by the zero modes $f_0$ and ${{f_0}^*}$ and with fermion numbers $F(f)=0,-1$, respectively.
The four dimensional gauge group in the three generation free fermionic models arises as follows. The models can in general be regarded as constructed in two stages. The first stage consists of the NAHE set of boundary conditions basis vectors, which is a set of five boundary condition basis vectors, $\{{\bf1},S,b_1,b_2,b_3\}$ [@nahe]. The gauge group after imposing the GSO projections induced by the NAHE set basis vectors is $SO(10)\times SO(6)^3\times E_8$ with $N=1$ supersymmetry. The space–time vector bosons that generate the gauge group arise from the Neveu–Schwarz sector and from the sector ${\bf1}+b_1+b_2+b_3$. The Neveu–Schwarz sector produces the generators of $SO(10)\times SO(6)^3\times SO(16)$. The sector $\zeta\equiv{\bf1}+b_1+b_2+b_3$ produces the spinorial ${\bf128}$ of $SO(16)$ and completes the hidden gauge group to $E_8$. At the level of the NAHE set the sectors $b_1$, $b_2$ and $b_3$ produce 48 multiplets, 16 from each, in the $16$ representation of $SO(10)$. The states from the sectors $b_j$ are singlets of the hidden $E_8$ gauge group and transform under the horizontal $SO(6)_j$ $(j=1,2,3)$ symmetries. This structure is common to all the realistic free fermionic models. At this stage we anticipate that the $SO(10)$ group gives rise to the Standard Model group factors, whereas the $SO(6)^3$ groups may produce additional symmetries that can play a role in safeguarding the proton lifetime.
The second stage of the free fermionic basis construction consists of adding to the NAHE set three (or four) additional boundary condition basis vectors. These additional basis vectors reduce the number of generations to three chiral generations, one from each of the sectors $b_1$, $b_2$ and $b_3$, and simultaneously break the four dimensional gauge group. The $SO(10)$ is broken to one of its subgroups $SU(5)\times U(1)$, $SO(6)\times SO(4)$, $SU(3)\times SU(2)^2\times U(1)$ or $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)^2$. Similarly, the hidden $E_8$ symmetry is broken to one of its subgroups by the basis vectors which extend the NAHE set. This hidden $E_8$ subgroup may, or may not, contain $U(1)$ factors which are not enhanced to a non–Abelian symmetry. As the Standard Model states are not charged with respect to these $U(1)$ symmetries, they cannot play a role in suppressing the proton decay mediating operators, and are therefore not discussed further here. On the other hand, the flavor $SO(6)^3$ symmetries in the NAHE–based models are always broken to flavor $U(1)$ symmetries, as the breaking of these symmetries is correlated with the number of chiral generations. Three such $U(1)_j$ symmetries are always obtained in the NAHE based free fermionic models, from the subgroup of the observable $E_8$, which is orthogonal to $SO(10)$. These are produced by the world–sheet currents ${\bar\eta}{\bar\eta}^*$ ($j=1,2,3$), which are part of the Cartan sub–algebra of the observable $E_8$. Additional unbroken $U(1)$ symmetries, denoted typically by $U(1)_j$ ($j=4,5,...$), arise by pairing two real fermions from the sets $\{{\bar y}^{3,\cdots,6}\}$, $\{{\bar y}^{1,2},{\bar\omega}^{5,6}\}$ and $\{{\bar\omega}^{1,\cdots,4}\}$. The final observable gauge group depends on the number of such pairings.
Subsequent to constructing the basis vectors and extracting the massless spectrum the analysis of the free fermionic models proceeds by calculating the superpotential. The cubic and higher-order terms in the superpotential are obtained by evaluating the correlators A\_N\~V\_1\^fV\_2\^fV\_3\^bV\_N, \[supterms\] where $V_i^f$ $(V_i^b)$ are the fermionic (scalar) components of the vertex operators, using the rules given in [@kln]. Generically, correlators of the form (\[supterms\]) are of order ${\cal O} (g^{N-2})$, and hence of progressively higher orders in the weak-coupling limit. Typically, one of the $U(1)$ factors in the free-fermion models is anomalous, and generates a Fayet–Ilioupolos term which breaks supersymmetry at the Planck scale. The anomalous $U(1)$ is broken, and supersymmetry is restored, by a non–trivial VEV for some scalar field that is charged under the anomalous $U(1)$. Since this field is in general also charged with respect to the other anomaly-free $U(1)$ factors, some non-trivial set of other fields must also get non–vanishing VEVs $\cal V$, in order to ensure that the vacuum is supersymmetric. Some of these fields will appear in the nonrenormalizable terms (\[supterms\]), leading to effective operators of lower dimension. Their coefficients contain factors of order ${\cal V} / M{\sim 1/10}$. Typically the solution of the D– and F–flatness constraints break most or all of the horizontal $U(1)$ symmetries. The aim of this paper is to examine whether the $U(1)$, proton safeguarding, symmetries can remain unbroken in the supersymmetric vacuum.
Proton decay and superstring $Z^\prime$s
========================================
The proton decay mediating terms in a supersymmetric theory are the dimension four operators \_1QUD+\_2UDD \[d4op\] and the dimension five operators QQQL [and]{} UUDE where generation indices are suppressed, and where $Q$, $L$ are the quark and lepton $SU(2)_L$ doublets and $U$, $D$, are the two quark $SU(2)_L$ singlets, and $E$ is the charged lepton $SU(2)$ singlet.
In the realistic free fermionic models the dimension four operators are forbidden by the gauged $B-L$ symmetry. However, they are effectively induced after the spontaneous breaking of the $B-L$ symmetry, from the terms that include the neutral lepton $SU(2)$ singlet, $N$, which is the Standard Model singlet field in the 16 representation of $SO(10)$, QLDN + UDDN . The VEV of $N$ then induces the effective dimension four operators with effective Yukawa couplings $\eta\sim
\langle N\rangle/M_{\rm string}$. The important point is that in the string models, in the absence of the 126 representation of $SO(10)$, the $B-L$ symmetry is necessarily broken at a high scale in order to suppress the left–handed neutrino masses. This breaking is induced either by the VEV of the right handed neutrino $N$, or by a combination of fields that effectively carry the $B-L$ charge of the right handed neutrino. Thus, the dimension four operators are in general induced at some order of nonrenormalizable terms. While it is not impossible that the order will be sufficiently large so as to sufficiently suppress the proton decay, it will clearly be a property of a very specific point in the string moduli space and not a very robust explanation for the proton lifetime.
The problem with proton decay is rather generic in string derived models in which the Standard Model spectrum possess an underlying $SO(10)$ embedding due to the quartic 16 operator that exist in $SO(10)$. Thus, the same problem persists in flipped $SU(5)$ string models and in the Pati–Salam string models. In fact, in these cases the problem is worse because in these cases the right–handed neutrino is necessarily used to break the GUT $SU(5)$ or $SU(4)$ symmetry.
We expect therefore that in superstring models the gauged $B-L$ symmetry cannot provide adequate protection for the proton lifetime. The basic claim of this paper, therefore, is that, in addition to the Standard Model gauge group, there should exist an additional $U(1)_{Z^\prime}$ symmetry, which forbids the proton decay mediating operators, and remains unbroken to intermediate or low energies. These operators can therefore arise only from higher order nonrenormalizable terms in the superpotential that contain fields, which are charged under $U(1)_{Z^\prime}$. On the other hand, the $U(1)_{Z^\prime}$ must be broken above the electroweak scale, as its associated gauge boson has not been observed experimentally. Consequently, the magnitude of the proton decay mediating couplings are proportional to the $U(1)_{Z^\prime}$ breaking scale. The proton lifetime limits then impose an upper bound on the scale of $U(1)_{Z^\prime}$ breaking. In addition to the suppression induced by the $U(1)_{Z^\prime}$ breaking scale, the couplings may also be suppressed because of the order at which they appear in superpotential. That is the couplings may be forbidden by additional $U(1)$ symmetries that are broken near the Planck scale and induce suppression factors of order (1/10), as discussed in section \[stringmodels\]. The magnitude of the effective Yukawa couplings is affected by the order of the nonrenormalizable terms that induce the effective couplings. For example, in the string model of ref. [@eu], we find that the dimension four and five operators can arise from the order sixth terms[^1], $$\begin{aligned}
&(u_3d_3+Q_3L_3)d_2N_2\Phi_{45}{\bar\Phi}_2^{-}\nonumber\\
+&(u_3d_3+Q_3L_3)d_1N_1\Phi_{45}\Phi_1^{+}\nonumber\\
+&u_3d_2d_2N_3\Phi_{45}{\bar\Phi}_2^{-}+
u_3d_1d_1N_3\Phi_{45}\Phi_1^{+}\nonumber\\
+&Q_3L_1d_3N_1\Phi_{45}\Phi_3^+
+Q_3L_1d_1N_3\Phi_{45}\Phi_3^+\nonumber\\
+&Q_3L_2d_3N_2\Phi_{45}{\bar\Phi}_3^-
+Q_3L_2d_2N_3\Phi_{45}{\bar\Phi}_3^-.
\label{ordersix}\end{aligned}$$ and Q\_3Q\_2Q\_2L\_3[\_[45]{}]{}[|]{}\_2\^- [and]{} Q\_3Q\_1Q\_1L\_3[\_[45]{}]{}\_1\^+ \[n6terms\] respectively, and additional terms are expected to arise at higher orders. Similar terms are found in the other realistic free fermionic models. If we assume a GUT scale VEV for $N$, and 1/10 suppression factors induced by the other VEVs, we note that the effective dimension four and five operators are not sufficiently suppressed, even if we consider generational mixing.
The question is then whether there exist string symmetries, which are beyond the GUT symmetries and can provide an appealing explanation for the proton lifetime. In a beautifully insightful paper [@pati] Pati studied this question in the model of ref [@eu], for the specific choice of the $U(1)$ combinations that was given in [@eu], and showed that such symmetries indeed exist in the string models. The question that is studied here is whether the required symmetries can in fact remain unbroken below the string scale, and hence provide the needed suppression. The model of ref. [@eu] contains six anomalous $U(1)$ symmetries: ${\rm Tr} U_1= {\rm Tr} U_2={\rm Tr} U_3=24,{\rm Tr} U_4= {\rm Tr} U_5=
{\rm Tr} U_6=-12$. These can be expressed by one anomalous combination which is unique and five non–anomalous ones[^2]: U\_A=[1]{}(2 (U\_1+U\_2+U\_3) - (U\_4+U\_5+U\_6)) ; [Tr]{} Q\_A= [1]{}180 . \[u1a\] The choice for the five anomaly–free combinations in ref. [@eu] is given by \_[12]{}&=& [1]{}(U\_1-U\_2)[.5cm]{},[.5cm]{} [U]{}\_=[1]{}(U\_1+U\_2-2U\_3),\[u12upsi\]\
[U]{}\_[45]{}&=&[1]{}(U\_4-U\_5)[.5cm]{},[.5cm]{} [U]{}\_=[1]{}(U\_4+U\_5-2U\_6),\[u45uzeta\]\
[U]{}\_&=& [1]{}(U\_1+U\_2+U\_3+2U\_4+2U\_5+2U\_6). \[uchi\] The charges of the three generations, $G_\alpha=E_{\alpha}+U_{\alpha}+N_{\alpha}+D_{\alpha}+
Q_\alpha+L_\alpha$ $(\alpha=1,\cdots,3)$, under the six unrotated $U(1)^{1,\cdots,6}$ are given below &([E]{}+[U]{})\_[[12]{},0,0,[12]{},0,0]{} + ([D]{}+[N]{})\_[[12]{},0,0,[-[12]{}]{},0,0]{} + (L)\_[[12]{},0,0,[12]{},0,0]{} + (Q)\_[[12]{},0,0,-[12]{},0,0]{} ,\
&([E]{}+[U]{})\_[0,[12]{},0,0,[12]{},0]{} + ([N]{}+[D]{})\_[0,[12]{},0,0,-[12]{},0]{} + (L)\_[0,[12]{},0,0,[12]{},0]{} + (Q)\_[0,[12]{},0,0,-[12]{},0]{} ,\
&([E]{}+[U]{})\_[0,0,[12]{},0,0,[12]{}]{} + ([N]{}+[D]{})\_[0,0,[12]{},0,0,-[12]{}]{} + (L)\_[0,0,[12]{},0,0,[12]{}]{} + (Q)\_[0,0,[12]{},0,0,-[12]{}]{} . \[u1charges278\] where[^3] &&;[.6cm]{} [U]{};[.2cm]{} Q\
[N]{}&&;[.2cm]{} [D]{};[.6cm]{} L \[decomposition\] of $SU(3)_C\times U(1)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_L$.
$U(1)_\chi$ forbids the terms $UUDE$ and $LLEN$ but permits some $QLDN$, $UDDN$ and $QQQL$ terms. Therefore, if $U(1)_\chi$ remains unbroken down to low energies, it does not allow $R$-parity violation without inducing rapid proton decay. One must still insure that the dimension four and five operator, which are allowed by $U(1)_\chi$ are sufficiently suppressed.
$U(1)_\psi$ forbids all the proton decay mediating operators. Thus, provided that $U(1)_\psi$ remains unbroken down to low energies, the proton decay mediating operators may be sufficiently suppressed. The viability of $U(1)_\psi$ as a symmetry which sufficiently suppresses the proton decay mediating operators depends on the $U(1)_\psi$ symmetry breaking scale. The required scale of $U(1)_\psi$ breaking can be estimated by taking the relevant Yukawa couplings to be a function of the $U(1)_\psi$ breaking VEVs. On the other hand, $U(1)_\chi$ and $U(1)_\psi$ do not forbid the type of superpotential terms, $QU{\bar h}$, $QDh$, $LEh$, $LN{\bar h}$ and $N{\bar N}\phi$, that generate the fermion masses, but may impose some restriction on the textures of the of the fermion mass matrices.
Examining Other phenomenological aspects of $U(1)_\psi$, we note that $U(1)_\psi$ is family non–universal. General analysis of the fermion mass matrices suggests that the states from the sectors $b_1$ and $b_2$ compose the heavy generation whereas $b_3$ gives rise to the light generation [@nrt]. This means that the $U(1)_\psi$ combination produces non–universal charges for the two light families. The existence of a gauge boson with non–universal couplings for the two light generations is constrained by Flavor Changing Neutral Currents to be above 30 TeV. This problem, however, may be circumvented if we redefine $U(1)_\psi$ as $2U_1-U_2-U_3$. With this redefinition the superpotential terms leading to the dimension four operators are still forbidden. However, assuming that the sector $b_1$ produces the heavy generation and the sectors $b_2$ and $b_3$ produce the two light generations, gives rise to universal $U(1)_\psi$ charges for the two light generation, which are distinct from the heavy generation $U(1)_\psi$ charges. Thus, phenomenological constraints on the viability of $U(1)_\psi$ at energy scales accessible to future experiments depend on detailed analysis of the fermion mass spectrum in the string models.
Next I turn to examine whether the symmetries $U(1)_\chi$ or $U(1)_\psi$ in the model of ref. [@eu] can remain unbroken by the choices of F– and D–flat directions. To examine this question we extract the set of Standard Model singlets that are also neutral under $U(1)_\chi$ and $U(1)_\psi$. The set of fields which are neutral under $U(1)_\chi$ contains $\{\Phi_{12},{\bar\Phi}_{12},
\Phi_{23},{\bar\Phi}_{23},\Phi_{13},{\bar\Phi}_{13}\}$, and $T_i$, ${\bar T}_i$, which transform as $5$ and $\bar5$ of the hidden $SU(5)$ gauge group. Examining the set of charges of these fields, it is seen that all these fields are either neutral or carry positive charge under the anomalous $U(1)_A$ symmetry. This means that at least one field which is charged under $U(1)_\chi$ and carries negative charge under $U(1)_A$ must acquire a non–vanishing VEV in the cancellation of the anomalous $U(1)_A$ D–term equation. Consequently, in the model of ref. [@eu], $U(1)_\chi$ is necessarily broken by the supersymmetric flat directions, and cannot play a useful role in suppressing the proton decay mediating operators. Similarly, the set of Standard Model singlet fields which are neutral under $U(1)_\psi$ consist of $\{\Phi_{12},{\bar\Phi}_{12}\}$ and $\{\Phi_{1,2,3}^\pm, {\bar\Phi}_{1,2,3}^\pm\}$. Again there is no solution to the D–term equations. This results because the $\{\Phi_{1,2,3}^\pm, {\bar\Phi}_{1,2,3}^\pm\}$ states, which carry $Q_A=\pm1$ charges, also carry $Q_{2^\prime}=\mp2$ charges, whereas the $\{\Phi_{12},{\bar\Phi}_{12}\}$ states are neutral under both. Therefore, there cannot be a simultaneous solution for both $\langle D_A\rangle=0$ and $\langle D_{2^\prime}\rangle=0$. Therefore, the two symmetries $U(1)_\psi$ and $U(1)_\chi$, in the model of ref. [@eu], cannot remain unbroken down to low energies and cannot play a role in safeguarding the proton lifetime. The possible reason for this result is that all the flat directions that have been found in these model utilize the $SO(10)$ singlet field $\Phi_{45}$, which seems to be necessary for D-flatness, and is charged under $U(1)_\psi$ and $U(1)_\chi$.
One may contemplate the possibility in this model [@eu] that a different choice of the anomaly free $U(1)$’s may produce a $U(1)$ that forbids proton decay and can remain unbroken after implementing the F– and D–flatness constraints. Another choice of the anomaly free combinations is with \_[\^]{} &=& [1]{}(3(U\_1+U\_2)-12 U\_3 -4(U\_4+U\_5+U\_6))\
[U]{}\_[\^]{} &=& [1]{}(2(U\_1+U\_2)-U\_3+2(U\_4+U\_5+U\_6)). \[uchi2\] and the other combinations remain the same. The $U(1)_{\chi^\prime}$ symmetry now forbids all the proton decay mediating operators. However, in this case the only Standard Model singlets that are neutral under $U(1)_{\chi^\prime}$ are $\{N_{1,2}^c,\Phi_{12},
{\bar\Phi}_{12}\}$, which are either neutral, or carry positive charge under the the anomalous $U(1)_A$ symmetry. So again a solution for the D–flatness constraints cannot exist with an unbroken $U(1)_{\chi^\prime}$ and it cannot serve as the proton lifetime safeguarding symmetry.
The above discussion illustrates that despite the existence in the string models of $U(1)$ symmetries that do forbid the proton decay mediating operators, it is not at all apparent that the needed symmetry can remain unbroken below the string scale. This is in fact a welcomed situation because it is seen that the string framework is highly constrained. To exemplify this further we examine the $U(1)$ symmetries in the FNY model of ref. [@fny]. In this model[^4], prior to rotating the anomaly into a single $U(1)_A$, six of the FNY model’s twelve $U(1)$ symmetries are anomalous: Tr${\, U_1=-24}$, Tr${\, U_2=-30}$, Tr${\, U_3=18}$, Tr${\, U_5=6}$, Tr${\, U_6=6}$ and Tr${\, U_8=12}$. Thus, the total anomaly can be rotated into a single $U(1)_{\rm A}$ defined by U\_A-4U\_1-5U\_2+3U\_3+U\_5+U\_6+2U\_8. \[anomau1infny\] The five orthogonal linear combinations, U\^[’]{}\_1 &=& to 3.0truecm[$2 U_1 - U_2 + U_3$ ;]{} U\^[’]{}\_2= -U\_1 + 5 U\_2 + 7 U\_3 ;\
U\^[’]{}\_3 &=& to 3.0truecm[$U_5 - U_6$ ;]{} U\^[’]{}\_4= U\_5 + U\_6 - U\_8 \[nonau1\]\
U\^[’]{}\_5 &=& 12 U\_1 + 15 U\_2 - 9 U\_3 + 25 U\_5 + 50 U\_8 . are all traceless Note that in this case the anomalous $U(1)$ is not family universal. This arises because of the contribution to the anomaly of the “Wilsonian” sectors beyond the NAHE set. Therefore, it is not a priori apparent that symmetries like the $U(1)_\chi$ and $U(1)_\psi$ can exist in this model. Nevertheless, it is seen that in this model, for example, $U^{'}_1$ forbids all the operators that can induce the dimension four and five proton decay mediating operators. Furthermore, if we assume that the states from the sector $b_1$ form the heavy generation, while those from $b_2$ and $b_3$ give rise to the two light generations, the charges of the two light generations are universal. Therefore, the $Z^\prime$ gauge boson associated with this symmetry is not strongly constrained by FCNC and could exist at energy scales accessible to future colliders. Similarly, we find that the $U^{'}_2$ and $U^{'}_5$ symmetries in this model forbid all the operators that can lead to proton decay, whereas $U^{'}_3$ and $U^{'}_4$ and the unrotated $U_4$ do not. The two symmetries $U^{'}_2$ and $U^{'}_5$ are family non–universal and therefore the associated $Z^\prime$s are constrained to be heavier that $\sim30{\rm TeV}$. A priori, unlike the case of the previous model, it is not apparent that $U^{'}_2$ or $U^{'}_5$ cannot survive the D–flatness constraints. However, a general classification of the F– and D–flat directions in the FNY model, did not produce a vacuum in which either of those is preserved [@cfn]. However, the vacua analyzed in ref. [@cfn] included stringent flat directions, which imposes that they are flat to all orders of non–renormalizable terms in the superpotential. Allowing F–flatness breaking at a finite order may yield less restrictive constraints.
It is instructive to examine the same problem in the model of ref. [@cus]. This model gives rise to custodial symmetries [@symmetries] which forbid the proton decay mediating operators to all orders of nonrenormalizable terms. However, as discussed above, the custodial symmetries, of the type that arise in the model of ref. [@cus] may be too restrictive and prevent application of the seesaw mechanism. The question that we want to explore is whether this model can allow a symmetry like $U(1)_\psi$ to remain unbroken by the supersymmetric flat directions. The structure of this model is similar to that of ref. [@eu]. The model contains three anomalous $U(1)$ symmetries: Tr${U_1}=24$, Tr${U_2}=24$, Tr${U_3}=24$. One combination remains anomalous and is given by: U\_A=U\_1+U\_2+U\_3,TrQ\_A=72. \[u1a274\] And the two orthogonal combinations can be taken as: \_1\^=U\_1-U\_2[.5cm]{},[.5cm]{} [U]{}\_2\^=U\_1+U\_2-2U\_3. \[afu1274\] As in the model of ref. [@eu], ${U}_2^\prime$ forbids the terms that can induce the proton decay mediating operators, whereas ${U}_1^\prime$ does not. However, it is again found that the model does not admit flat directions that can leave ${U}_2^\prime$ unbroken at low energies. The reason being that in this model $\Phi_{45}$, which is charged under ${U}_2^\prime$ must acquire a non–vanishing VEV in the cancellation of the anomalous $U(1)_A$ D–term equation.
The above discussion demonstrates that despite the fact that symmetries which forbid the proton decay mediating operators are abundant in the string models, it is not at all apparent that they can remain unbroken down to low energies, and hence fulfill the task of safeguarding the proton lifetime.
Similar results may be expected in the flipped $SU(5)$ [@fsu5] and Pati–Salam type [@pssm] string models. These models share the underlying $SO(10)$ structure, which is also possessed by the string standard–like models studied above. The dimension four and five, proton decay mediating operators arise from the quartic 16 operator in $SO(10)$ and are therefore common in all these models. In the flipped $SU(5)$ the field assignment, in terms of $SU(5)\times U(1)$ representations, is $F=(10,1/2)\in\{Q,D,E\};~{\bar f}=
({\bar5},-3/2)\in\{U,L\};~{\rm and}~\ell^c=(1,5/2)\in\{E\}$. The dimension four and five, baryon and lepton number violating operators, then arise from $\{QQQL,QLDN,UDDN\}\rightarrow FFF{\bar f}$ and $\{UUDE,LLEN\}\rightarrow {\bar f}{\bar f}\ell^cF$. In the Pati–Salam type string models the field assignment, in terms of the $SU(4)\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ representations is: $F_L=(4,2,1)\in\{Q,L\};~
{\rm and} F_R=({\bar 4},1,2)\in\{U,D,E,N\}$. The proton decay mediating operators then arise from $\{QQQL\}\rightarrow {F_LF_LF_LF_L}$, $\{UDDN,UUDE\}
\rightarrow {F_RF_RF_RF_R}$, and $\{QLDN,LLEN\}\rightarrow
{F_LF_LF_RF_R}$. Furthermore, the existence of an anomalous $U(1)_A$, which primarily arises from the breaking pattern of $E_6\times
SO(10)\times U(1)_A$, is also common to these models. Thus, it may be expected, although not proven, that the symmetries like $U(1)_\psi$ above, are in general broken near the string scale in this class of models.
To show that indeed the required symmetries can in fact survive down to low energies I turn to the left–right symmetric models of ref. [@cfs]. The unique feature of these models, in contrast to the standard–like, the flipped $SU(5)$ and the Pati–Salam type string models, is that the anomalous $U(1)_A$ does not arise from the symmetry breaking pattern $E_6\times
SO(10)\times U(1)_A$ [@cfs]. First, I recap the field theory content of these models. The observable sector gauge symmetry is $SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$. Such models are reminiscent of the Pati–Salam type string models, but differ from them by the fact that the $SU(4)$ gauge group is broken to $SU(3)\times U(1)_{B-L}$ already at the string level. Similar to the Pati–Salam models [@ps], the left–right symmetric models possess the $SO(10)$ embedding. The quarks and leptons are accommodated in the following representations: Q\_L\^[i]{} &=& (3,2,1)\_[16]{} = [ud]{}\^i\
Q\_R\^[i]{} &=& ([|3]{},1,2)\_[-[16]{}]{} = [d\^[c]{}u\^[c]{}]{}\^i\
L\_L\^[i]{} &=& (1,2,1)\_[-[12]{}]{} = [e]{}\^i\
L\_R\^[i]{} &=& (1,1,2)\_[12]{} = [e\^c\^c]{}\^i\
h &=& (1,2,2)\_0 = [()]{} \[LRsymreps\] where $h^d$ and $h^u$ are the two low energy supersymmetric superfields associated with the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. The breaking of $SU(2)_R$ could be achieved with the VEV of $h$. However, this will result with too light $W_R^\pm$ gauge boson masses. Additional fields that can be used to break $SU(2)_R$ must therefore be postulated. The simplest set would consist of two fields $H+\overline{H}$ transforming as $(1,1,2)_{-{1\over2}}+(1,1,{\bar 2})_{1\over2}$. When $H$ and $\overline{H}$ acquire VEVs along their neutral components $SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$ is broken to the Standard Model weak–hypercharge, $U(1)_Y$. The VEV of the Higgs multiplets $H+\overline{H}$ breaks the $B-L$ symmetry spontaneously and, in general, induces the dimension four proton decay mediating operators, whereas the dimension five operators pose a danger irrespective of this VEV. Thus, the need for additional symmetries which suppress these terms is again noted. In terms of the $SU(3)\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times
U(1)_{B-L}$ representations, the baryon and lepton number violating operators arise from $\{QQQL\}\rightarrow {Q_LQ_LQ_LL_L}$, $\{UDDN,UUDE\}
\rightarrow {Q_RQ_RQ_RQ_R}$, $\{QLDN\}\rightarrow
{Q_LQ_RL_LL_R}$, and $\{LLEN\}\rightarrow L_LL_LL_RL_R$. We can now examine, in the left–right symmetric string models of ref. [@cfs], whether the dangerous operators are still forbidden by symmetries like $U(1)_\psi$. The key feature of the left–right symmetric string models which differs from the previous string models discussed above, is the $U(1)$ charge assignments of the three generation under $U(1)_{1,2,3}$. In the flipped $SU(5)$, the Pati–Salam, and the standard–like, string models, the charges of a generation from a sector $b_j$ $j=1,2,3$, under the corresponding symmetry $U(1)_j$ are either $+1/2$ or $-1/2$, for all the states from that sector. In contrast, in the left–right symmetric string models the corresponding charges, up to a sign are, Q\_j(Q\_L;L\_L)=+1/2 ;Q\_j(Q\_R;L\_R)=-1/2, \[u1chargesinlrsmodel\] the charges of the $SU(2)_L$ doublets have the opposite sign from those of the $SU(2)_R$ doublets. This is in fact the reason that in the left–right symmetric models it was found that, in contrast to the case of the FSU5, PS and standard–like, string models, the $U(1)_j$ symmetries are not part of the anomalous $U(1)$ symmetry [@cfs]. We then note, for example, that the $$U(1)_\zeta=U_1+U_2+U_3$$ combination forbids the dimension five operator $Q_LQ_LQ_LL_L$ and the operator $Q_RQ_RQ_RL_R$, which induces the effective dimension four operator $UDD\langle N\rangle/M_{\rm string}$, while it allows the operator $Q_LQ_RL_LL_R$, which induces the dimension four operator $QLD\langle N\rangle/M_{\rm string}$. Similarly, the $U(1)_\psi=U_1+U_2-2U_3$, which was examined in the case of the standard–like models above, forbid the $Q_LQ_LQ_LL_L$ and $Q_RQ_RQ_RL_R$ terms, while it allows the $Q_LQ_RL_LL_R$ operator. Thus, in these models $U(1)_\zeta$, or $U(1)_\psi$, can indeed suppress the proton decay amplitude, while it allows for R–parity violation. On the other hand, because $U(1)_j$ $(j=1,2,3)$ are anomaly free the $U(1)_\zeta$, or $U(1)_\psi$, combinations can remain unbroken down to low energies. Furthermore, it is noted that the $U(1)$ combinations which protects the proton longevity are not of a GUT origin, but of an intrinsic string origin. Thus, we have the exciting possibility that, for example, R–parity violation may be accompanied with an additional $Z^\prime$ gauge boson of intrinsic stringy origin. This demonstrates that the additional stringy $U(1)$ symmetries, that play the role of safeguarding the proton lifetime, can indeed remain unbroken down to low energies.
Estimate of the $Z^\prime$ mass
===============================
The natural question that arises is at what scale can the $U(1)$ symmetry, which protects the proton lifetime, be broken, while still providing adequate suppression of the dangerous operators. This question, however, is rather model dependent and depends on the order at which the nonrenormalizable terms, which can induce the proton decay mediating operators, appear, and on possible additional suppression due to generational mixing. Therefore, here I only attempt a rough estimate of the required scale, in the case with and without R–parity violation. The dimension four operators that give rise to rapid proton decay, $\eta_1UDD+\eta_2QLD$, are induced from the non–renormalizable terms of the form \_1(UDDN)+\_2(QLDN)\^where, $\Phi$ and $\Phi^\prime$ are combinations of fields that fix the string selection rules. The field $N$ can be the Standard Model singlet in the 16 representation of $SO(10)$, or it can be a product of two fields, which effectively reproduces the $SO(10)$ charges of $N$ [@ps94]. I take the VEV of $N$, which breaks the $B-L$ symmetry, to be of the order of the GUT scale, [*i.e.*]{} $\langle N\rangle\sim10^{16}{\rm GeV}$. This is required because the VEV of $N$ induces the seesaw mechanism, which suppresses the left–handed neutrino masses. The VEVs of $\Phi$ and $\Phi^\prime$ then fixes the magnitude of the effective proton decay mediating operators, with \_1\^\~ ([\^n]{}) ; \_2\^\~ ([\^n]{}). I take $M$ to be the heterotic string unification scale, which is of order $10^{18}{\rm GeV}$. Similarly, the dimension five proton decay mediating operator $QQQL$ can effectively be induced from the nonrenormalizable terms \_1 QQQL(\^) The VEV of $\phi^{\prime\prime}$ then fixes the magnitude of the effective dimension five operator to be \_1\^\~\_1( [[\^\^n]{}]{} The experimental limits impose that the product $(\eta^\prime_1\eta_2^\prime)\le10^{-24}$ and $(\lambda_1^\prime/M)\le 10^{-25}$. Hence, for $M\sim M_{\rm string}\sim 10^{18}{\rm GeV}$ we must have $\lambda_1^\prime\le10^{-7}$, to guarantee that the proton lifetime is within the experimental bounds. Assuming that the dimension four operators are induced at the quintic order, [*i.e.*]{} with one additional field, that breaks the proton protecting $U(1)_{Z^\prime}$ at intermediate energy scale $\Lambda_{Z^\prime}$, we have ([\^\_1\^\_2]{})\~([[N]{}]{})\^2 ([[\_[Z\^]{}]{}]{})\^2 Taking $\langle N\rangle\sim 10^{16}{\rm GeV}$ and $M\sim 10^{18}{\rm GeV}$, we obtain the estimate $\Lambda_{Z^\prime}\le 10^8{\rm GeV}$. similarly, from the dimension five operator we obtain the weaker constraint $\Lambda_{Z^\prime}\le 10^{11}{\rm GeV}$. Thus, even in the best case scenario $\Lambda_{Z^\prime}$ is not constrained to be within the reach of forthcoming collider experiments. On the other hand, if there exist sizable R–parity violation, which necessitates one of the dimension four effective couplings, say $\eta_1^\prime$, to be of order $O(10^{-5}-1)$, it imposes that the other effective dimension four operator, say $\eta_2^\prime$, is of the order $\eta_2^\prime\sim O(10^{-19}-10^{-24})$. Taking the smaller value for $\eta_1^\prime$, and again taking $\langle N\rangle\sim10^{16}{\rm GeV}$, this allows for the $Z^\prime$ breaking scale to be as low as $10^{-17}M$, which is clearly too low. However, other suppression factors can arise from generation mixing, and other VEVs which are of the order of the Fayet–Iliopoulos D–term, and produce suppression of the order $\langle\phi\rangle/M\sim1/10$. These additional suppression factors will result in elevating the $Z^\prime$ breaking scale by two–four orders of magnitude. All in all, existence of R–parity violating operator may well be accompanied by an additional gauge boson of an intrinsic stringy origin. The exciting prospect is to correlate between R-parity violation and an additional $Z^\prime$ gauge boson, whose properties depend on the particular string vacuum.
Conclusions
===========
The structure of the Standard Model spectrum indicates the realization of grand unification structures in nature. On the other hand the proton longevity severely constrains the possible extensions of the Standard Model and serves as a useful guide in attempts to understand the origin of the Standard Model gauge and matter spectrum. The realistic free fermionic heterotic–string models reproduce the grand unification structures that are suggested by the Standard Model and represent the most realistic string models constructed to date. As such the realistic free fermionic models serve as a useful probe to the fundamental characteristics of the possibly true string vacuum, as well as to various properties that the string vacuum should possess in order to satisfy various phenomenological constraints. In this paper, I proposed that proton stability necessitates the existence of an additional $U(1)$ symmetry, which remains unbroken down to intermediate or low energies. Furthermore, the required symmetry is not of the type that arises in Grand Unified Theories, but is of intrinsic string origin. The realistic free fermionic models do indeed give rise to $U(1)$ symmetries, which are external to the GUT symmetries, and forbid the proton decay mediating operators. By studying the supersymmetric flat direction I showed that in some cases the required symmetries cannot remain unbroken in the supersymmetric vacuum, whereas in others they can. Estimate of the $Z^\prime$ mass reveals that if R-parity violating operators with couplings in the range $O(10^{-5}-1)$ exist, then the associated $Z^\prime$ is likely to be seen in forthcoming collider experiments, whereas if the R–parity violating operators are much suppressed, the $Z^\prime$ is not constrained to be in the accessible energy range. The phenomenology associated with the additional gauge bosons in the string models will be reported in forthcoming publications.
It is a pleasure to thank Sacha Davidson for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by a PPARC advanced fellowship.
[99]{}
F.C. Adams, G.L. Kane, M. Mbonye and M.J. Perry, hep-ph/0009154.
For a review see [*e.g.*]{}: H.P. Nilles, .
S. Weinberg, ;\
N. Sakai and T. Yanagida, .
S. Hawking, ; .
J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos and K.A. Tamvakis, . L.M. Krauss and F. Wilczek, ;\
L. Ibanez and G.G. Ross, .
R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, ;\
A. Font, L.E. Ibanez and F. Quevedo, ;\
J. Ellis, J.L. Lopez and D.V. Nanopoulos,;\
J. Ellis, A.E. Faraggi and D.V. Nanopoulos, .
A.E. Faraggi, .
J.C. Pati, .
I. Antoniadis, J. Ellis, J. Hagelin and D.V. Nanopoulos ;\
I. Antoniadis, J. Ellis, S. Kelley and D.V. Nanopoulos, ;\
J.L. Lopez, D.V. Nanopoulos and K. Yuan, . A.E. Faraggi, D.V. Nanopoulos and K. Yuan, . I. Antoniadis. G.K. Leontaris and J. Rizos, ;\
G.K. Leontaris, ;\
G.K. Leontaris and J. Rizos, . A.E. Faraggi, ; A.E. Faraggi and D.V. Nanopoulos, ;\
A.E. Faraggi, ; hep-ph/9708112. A.E. Faraggi, .
G.B. Cleaver , ; hep-ph/9904301; hep-ph/9910230; hep-ph/0002060; hep-ph/0002292.
G.B. Cleaver, A.E. Faraggi and C. Savage, hep-ph/0006331, to appear in Phys. Rev. [**D**]{}.
A.E. Faraggi, .
A.E. Faraggi and D.V. Nanopoulos, .
M. Cvetic , ; ; .
J. Erler and P. Langacker, .
J.C. Pati and A. Salam, .
A.E. Faraggi, . A.E. Faraggi, ; ; ; A.E. Faraggi and E. Halyo, . S. Kalara, J.L. Lopez and D.V. Nanopoulos, ; .
[^1]: for the notation and charges see ref. [@eu]
[^2]: The normalization of the different $U(1)$ combinations is fixed by the requirement that the conformal dimension of the massless states still gives ${\bar h}=1$ in the new basis.
[^3]: $U(1)_C=3/2U(1)_{B-L}$; $U(1)_L=2U(1)_{T_{3_R}}$
[^4]: The states and charges of the FNY model are given in ref. [@fny; @cfn].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
It was recently found that there are very close connections between the existence of *additive spanners* (subgraphs where all distances are preserved up to an additive stretch), *distance preservers* (subgraphs in which demand pairs have their distance preserved exactly), and *pairwise spanners* (subgraphs in which demand pairs have their distance preserved up to a multiplicative or additive stretch) \[Abboud-Godwin SODA ’16, Godwin-Williams SODA ’16\]. We study these problems from an optimization point of view, where rather than studying the existence of extremal instances we are given an instance and are asked to find the sparsest possible spanner/preserver. We give an $O(n^{3/5 + {\varepsilon}})$-approximation for distance preservers and pairwise spanners (for arbitrary constant ${\varepsilon}> 0$). This is the first nontrivial upper bound for either problem, both of which are known to be as hard to approximate as Label Cover. We also prove Label Cover hardness for approximating additive spanners, even for the cases of additive $1$ stretch (where one might expect a polylogarithmic approximation, since the related multiplicative $2$-spanner problem admits an $O(\log n)$-approximation) and additive polylogarithmic stretch (where the related multiplicative spanner problem has an $O(1)$-approximation)
Interestingly, the techniques we use in our approximation algorithm extend beyond distance-based problem to pure connectivity network design problems. In particular, our techniques allow us to give an $O(n^{3/5 + {\varepsilon}})$-approximation for the Directed Steiner Forest problem (for arbitrary constant ${\varepsilon}> 0$) when all edges have uniform costs, improving the previous best $O(n^{2/3 + {\varepsilon}})$-approximation due to Berman et al. \[ICALP ’11\] (which holds for general edge costs).
author:
- |
Eden Chlamtáč[^1]\
Ben Gurion University
- |
Michael Dinitz[^2]\
Johns Hopkins University
- |
Guy Kortsarz[^3]\
Rutgers University-Camden
- |
Bundit Laekhanukit\
Weizmann Institute of Science
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Approximating Spanners and Directed Steiner Forest: Upper and Lower Bounds'
---
[^1]: Partially supported by ISF grant 1002/14.
[^2]: Supported in part by NSF awards CCF-1464239 and CCF-1535887.
[^3]: Supported in part by NSF grants 1218620 and 1540547
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Over the past two decades, the research of (Ga,Mn)As has led to a deeper understanding of relativistic spin-dependent phenomena in magnetic systems. It has also led to discoveries of new effects and demonstrations of unprecedented functionalities of experimental spintronic devices with general applicability to a wide range of materials. This is a review of the basic material properties that make (Ga,Mn)As a favorable test-bed system for spintronics research and a discussion of contributions of (Ga,Mn)As studies in the general context of the spin-dependent phenomena and device concepts. Special focus is on the spin-orbit coupling induced effects and the reviewed topics include the interaction of spin with electrical current, light, and heat.'
author:
- |
T. Jungwirth\
[Institute of Physics ASCR, Cukrovarnická 10,]{}\
[162 53 Praha 6, Czech Republic]{}\
[School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham,]{}\
[Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK]{}\
- 'T. Jungwirth'
- 'J. Wunderlich'
- 'V. Novák'
- 'K. Olejník'
- 'B. L. Gallagher'
- 'R. P. Campion'
- 'K. W. Edmonds'
- 'A. W. Rushforth'
- 'A. J. Ferguson'
- 'P. Němec'
title: 'Spin-dependent phenomena and device concepts explored in (Ga,Mn)As'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Under equilibrium growth conditions the incorporation of magnetic Mn ions into III-As semiconductor crystals is limited to approximately 0.1%. To circumvent the solubility problem a non-equilibrium, low-temperature molecular-beam-epitaxy (LT-MBE) technique was employed which led to first successful growths of (In,Mn)As and (Ga,Mn)As ternary alloys with more than 1% Mn and to the discovery of ferromagnetism in these materials [@Ohno:1992_a; @Munekata:1993_a; @Ohno:1996_a; @Shen:1997_a; @Hayashi:1997_a; @VanEsch:1997_a; @Ohno:1998_a; @Shimizu:1999_a; @Hayashi:2001_a].
The compounds qualify as ferromagnetic semiconductors to the extent that their magnetic properties can be altered by the usual semiconductor electronics engineering variables, such as doping, electric fields, or light. The achievement of ferromagnetism in an ordinary III-V semiconductor with Mn concentrations exceeding 1% demonstrates on its own the sensitivity of magnetic properties to doping. Several experiments have verified that changes in the carrier density and distribution in thin (III,Mn)As films due to an applied gate voltage can induce reversible changes of the Curie temperature $T_c$ and other magnetic and magneto-transport properties [@Ohno:2000_a; @Chiba:2003_a; @Chiba:2006_b; @Wunderlich:2007_a; @Chiba:2008_a; @Olejnik:2008_a; @Owen:2008_a; @Stolichnov:2008_a; @Riester:2009_a; @Sawicki:2009_a; @Mikheev:2012_a; @Niazi:2013_a; @Chiba:2013_a]. Experiments in which ferromagnetism in a (III,Mn)As system is turned on and off optically or in which recombination of spin-polarized carriers injected from the ferromagnetic semiconductor yields emission of circularly polarized light clearly demonstrated the interaction of spin and light in these materials [@Munekata:1997_a; @Koshihara:1997_a; @Ohno:1999_b].
(Ga,Mn)As has become a test-bed material for the research of phenomena in which charge carriers respond to spin and [*vice versa*]{}. By exploiting the large spin polarization of carriers in (Ga,Mn)As and building on the well established heterostructure growth and microfabrication techniques in semiconductors, high quality magnetic tunnel junctions have been demonstrated showing large tunneling magnetoresistances (TMRs) [@Tanaka:2001_a; @Chiba:2004_a; @Saito:2005_a; @Mattana:2005_a]. In the studies of the inverse magneto-transport effects, namely spin-transfer torques (STTs) in tunnel junctions [@Chiba:2004_b] and domain walls, [@Yamanouchi:2004_a; @Yamanouchi:2006_a; @Wunderlich:2007_c; @Adam:2009_a; @Wang:2010_a; @Curiale:2012_a; @Ranieri:2012_a] the dilute-moment p-type (Ga,Mn)As is unique for its low saturation magnetization and strongly spin-orbit coupled valence band [@Sinova:2004_b; @Garate:2008_d; @Hals:2008_a]. Compared to common transition-metal ferromagnets this implies a more significant role of the field-like (non-adiabatic) STT complementing the antidamping-like (adiabatic) STT and lower currents required to excite magnetization dynamics. Moreover, the leading role of magnetocrystalline anisotropies over the dipolar shape anisotropy fields allows for the control of the direct and inverse magneto-transport phenomena by tuning the lattice strains [*ex situ*]{} by microfabrication [@Wunderlich:2007_c; @Wenisch:2007_a] or [*in situ*]{} by piezo-electric transducers [@Rushforth:2008_a; @Overby:2008_a; @Goennenwein:2008_a; @Ranieri:2012_a].
In general, TMR [@Julliere:1975_a; @Moodera:1995_a; @Myiazaki:1995_a] and STT [@Slonczewski:1996_a; @Berger:1996_a; @Zhang:2004_c] are examples of spin-dependent phenomena which can be understood within the basically non-relativistic two-channel model of conduction in ferromagnets [@Mott:1964_a], and in which spins are transported between at least two non-collinear parts of a non-uniform magnetic structure with the magnetization in one part serving as a reference to the other one. Besides these more commonly considered spintronic effects, (Ga,Mn)As studies have extensively focused on relativistic phenomena which in principle can be observed in uniform magnetic structures and where the spin-dependence of the transport stems from the internal spin-orbit coupling in carrier bands. An archetypical example among these effects is the anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) discovered by Kelvin more than 150 years ago in wires of Ni and Fe [@Thomson:1857_a]. Research in (Ga,Mn)As led to the observation of a tunneling anisotropic magnetoresistance (TAMR) [@Brey:2004_b; @Gould:2004_a]. Unlike the TMR which corresponds to the different resistances of the parallel and antiparallel magnetizations in two magnetic electrodes separated by the tunnel barrier, the TAMR relies on the rotation of the magnetization in a single magnetic electrode while the other electrode can be non-magnetic. Huge and electrically tuneable relativistic anisotropic magneto-transport phenomena were observed in the Coulomb blockade (CB) devices in which (Ga,Mn)As formed the island or the gate electrode of a single electron transistor (SET) [@Wunderlich:2006_a; @Schlapps:2009_a; @Ciccarelli:2012_a]. The TAMR and CB-AMR were subsequently reported in other systems including common transition-metal ferromagnets and antiferromagnets [@Moser:2006_a; @Gao:2007_a; @Park:2008_a; @Bernand-Mantel:2009_a; @Park:2010_a].
For the inverse magneto-transport effects, the relativistic counterpart of the STT is the current induced spin-orbit torque (SOT) [@Bernevig:2005_c; @Manchon:2008_b]. Similar to the TAMR/CB-AMR, the SOT can be observed in uniform magnets, the seminal experiment was performed in (Ga,Mn)As [@Chernyshov:2009_a], and subsequently the phenomenon was reported in other systems including transition metal ferromagnets [@Miron:2010_a]. For the SOT, the above mentioned favorable characteristics of (Ga,Mn)As, namely the strong spin-orbit coupling in the carrier bands and exchange coupling of carrier spins with the dilute local moments, combines with the broken space-inversion symmetry in the host zinc-blende lattice. The broken space-inversion symmetry is a necessary condition for observing the relativistic SOT [@Bernevig:2005_c; @Manchon:2008_b].
Theoretical studies of the intrinsic nature of the anomalous Hall effect (AHE) [@Luttinger:1958_a; @Onoda:2002_a; @Jungwirth:2002_a] and experiments in (Ga,Mn)As interpreted by this theory [@Jungwirth:2002_a; @Nagaosa:2010_a] have inspired a renewed interest in the AHE in a broad class of ferromagnets [@Nagaosa:2010_a]. Simultaneously they led to predictions of a directly related intrinsic spin Hall effect (SHE) [@Murakami:2003_a; @Sinova:2004_a] in which the spin-dependent transverse deflection of electrons originating from the relativistic band structure occurs in a non-magnetic conductor. The intrinsic SHE proposal triggered an intense theoretical debate and prompted the experimental discovery of the phenomenon [@Kato:2004_d; @Wunderlich:2004_a]. The SHE has become a common tool to electrically detect or generate spin currents [@Jungwirth:2012_a] and the intrinsic SHE combined with the STT can allow for an in-plane current induced switching of the free magnetic electrode in a TMR magnetic tunnel junction [@Liu:2012_a]. An intense discussion has ensued on the alternative, SHE-STT based or SOT based interpretations of these in-plane current induced spin reorientation effects [@Miron:2011_b; @Liu:2012_a; @Garello:2013_a]. Research in (Ga,Mn)As continues to contribute to this research area in a distinct way; experimental and theoretical studies in (Ga,Mn)As have uncovered that the intrinsic SHE and SOT can be linked by a common microscopic origin [@Kurebayashi:2013_a], the same one that was originally proposed for interpreting the AHE data in (Ga,Mn)As [@Jungwirth:2002_a].
The SHE, STT, and SOT phenomena are at the forefront of the research field of electrically controlled spin manipulation and play an important role in the development of a new generation of magnetic random access memories (MRAMs), tunable oscillators, and other spintronic devices [@Ralph:2007_a; @Chappert:2007_a]. Optical excitations of magnetic systems by laser pulses have traditionally represented a complementary research field whose aim is to explore magnetization dynamics at short time scales and enable ultrafast spintronic devices [@Kirilyuk:2010_a]. The optical counterparts of the STT and SOT, in which current carriers are replaced by photo-carriers and which have been identified in laser induced spin dynamics studies in (Ga,Mn)As [@Rossier:2003_a; @Nunez:2004_b; @Nemec:2012_a; @Tesarova:2012_b], build a bridge between these two important fields of spintronics research. The direct-gap GaAs host allowing for the generation of a high density of photo-carriers, optical selection rules linking light and carrier-spin polarizations, and the carrier spins interacting with magnetic moments on Mn via exchange coupling make (Ga,Mn)As a unique ferromagnetic system for exploring the interplay of photonics and spintronics.
Thermopower, also known as the Seebeck effect, is the ability of conductors to generate electric voltages from thermal gradients. A subfield of spintronics, termed spin-caloritronics, explores the possibility of controlling charge and spin by heat and [*vice versa*]{} [@Bauer:2012_a]. In (Ga,Mn)As, experiments on the anomalous Nernst effect (ANE) [@Pu:2008_a], which is the spin-caloritronics counterpart to the AHE, confirmed the validity of the Mott relation between the off-diagonal electrical and thermal transport coefficients in a ferromagnet [@Wang:2001_b]. The experiments also firmly established the intrinsic nature of both the AHE and ANE in metallic (Ga,Mn)As. The anisotropic magneto-thermopower (AMT) [@Ky:1966_a] is a phenomenon in which the Seebeck coefficient of a uniform magnetic conductor depends on the angle between the applied temperature gradient and magnetization. Measurements of this counterpart to the AMR electrical-transport effect in (Ga,Mn)As [@Pu:2006_a] initiated a renewed interest in the phenomenon in a broad class of magnetic materials [@Wisniewski:2007_a; @Tang:2011_a; @Mitdank:2012_a; @Anwar:2012_a]. The spin-caloritronic counterpart of the TMR effect in magnetic tunnel junctions is observed when the voltage gradient across the junction is replaced with a temperature gradient. The resulting tunneling magneto-thermopower (TMT) represents the difference between the Seebeck coefficients for the parallel and antiparallel magnetizations of the tunnel junction electrodes [@Walter:2011_a; @Liebing:2011_a]. The relativistic analogue in a tunnel junction with only one magnetic electrode is the tunneling anisotropic magneto-thermopower (TAMT) whose observation was reported in (Ga,Mn)As [@Naydenova:2011_a], reminiscent of the discovery of the TAMR [@Gould:2004_a]. Another spin-caloritronics effect which is distinct from the magneto-thermopower (magneto-Seebeck) phenomena is the spin-Seebeck effect [@Uchida:2008_a; @Uchida:2010_a; @Jaworski:2010_a; @Sinova:2010_b]. Here the thermal gradient in a ferromagnet induces a spin-current which is then converted into electrical voltage via, e.g., the SHE in an attached non-magnetic electrode [@Uchida:2008_a; @Uchida:2010_a; @Jaworski:2010_a; @Sinova:2010_b]. Experiments in (Ga,Mn)As [@Jaworski:2010_a] provided a direct evidence that, unlike the Seebeck effect in normal conductors, the spin-Seebeck effect does not originate from charge flow. The intriguing origin of the spin-Seebeck effect has been extensively debated [@Bauer:2012_a; @Tikhonov:2013_a] since these seminal experiments.
In Section \[material\] we provide an overview of the material properties of (Ga,Mn)As with the emphasis on characteristics that make (Ga,Mn)As a favorable model system for spintronics research. For more detailed discussions of the materials aspects of the research of (Ga,Mn)As in the context of the family of (III,Mn)V and other magnetic materials we refer to other comprehensive review articles [@Matsukura:2002_a; @Dietl:2003_a; @Jungwirth:2006_a; @Sato:2010_a; @Dietl:2013_a]. The focus of this review are the spin-dependent phenomena and devices concepts explored in (Ga,Mn)As, and their relevance within the broad spintronics research field. These are discussed in Section \[spintronics\]. Our aim is to find conceptual links between the seemingly diverse areas of spintronic studies in (Ga,Mn)As. Simultaneously, we attempt to provide intuitive physical pictures of the spin-dependent phenomena and functionalities for not only describing the specific observations in the ferromagnetic semiconductor (Ga,Mn)As but also for highlighting their applicability to other materials including the common transition metal ferromagnets, and other types of magnetic-order such as antiferromagnets. While (Ga,Mn)As and the related ferromagnetic semiconductors have so far failed to allow for practical spintronic functionalities at room temperature, transition metal ferromagnets are commonly used in commercial spintronic devices [@Chappert:2007_a] and antiferromagnets can readily combine room temperature operation with not only metal but also semiconductor electronic structure [@Jungwirth:2010_a]. In Section \[sum\] we provide a brief summary of the spintronics research directions inspired by (Ga,Mn)As.
Test-bed material for spintronics research {#material}
==========================================
Electronic structure and magnetism in (Ga,Mn)As {#electronic_magnetism}
-----------------------------------------------
The elements in the (Ga,Mn)As compound have nominal atomic structures \[Ar\]$3d^{10}4s^2p^1$ for Ga, \[Ar\]$3d^{5}4s^2$ for Mn, and \[Ar\]$3d^{10}4s^2p^3$ for As. This circumstance correctly suggests that the most stable position of Mn in the GaAs host lattice, at least up to a certain level of Mn doping, is on the Ga site where its two $4s$-electrons can participate in crystal bonding in much the same way as the two Ga $4s$-electrons. Because of the missing valence $4p$-electron, the substitutional Mn$_{\rm Ga}$ impurity acts as an acceptor. In the electrically neutral state, the isolated Mn$_{\rm Ga}$ has the character of a local moment with zero angular momentum and spin $S=5/2$ (Landé g-factor $g=2$) due to the five $3d$ electrons and a moderately bound hole. GaAs is an intermediate band-gap III-V semiconductor, with $E_g=1.5$ eV at low temperatures. The experimental acceptor binding energy of an isolated Mn impurity substituting for Ga is of an intermediate strength, $E_a^0\approx0.1$ eV [@Chapman:1967_a; @Blakemore:1973_a; @Bhattacharjee:2000_a; @Yakunin:2004_b; @Madelung:2003_a].
The perturbation of the crystal potential of GaAs due to a single Mn impurity has three main components [@Masek:2010_a]. (i) The first is the long-range hydrogenic-like potential of a single acceptor in GaAs which alone would produces a bound state at about 30 meV above the valence band [@Marder:1999_a]. (ii) The second contribution is a short-range central-cell potential. It is specific to a given impurity and reflects the difference in the electro-negativity of the impurity and the host atom [@Harrison:1980_a]. For a conventional non-magnetic acceptor Zn$_{\rm Ga}$, which is the 1st nearest neighbor of Ga in the periodic table, the atomic [*p*]{}-levels are shifted by $\sim 0.25$ eV which increases the binding energy by $\sim 5$ meV. For Mn, the 6th nearest neighbor of Ga, the [*p*]{}-level shift is $\sim 1.5$ eV which when compared to Zn$_{\rm Ga}$ implies the central-cell contribution to the acceptor level of Mn$_{\rm Ga}$ $\sim 30$ meV [@Bhattacharjee:2000_a]. (iii) The remaining part of the Mn$_{\rm Ga}$ binding energy is due to the spin-dependent hybridization of Mn $d$-states with neighboring As $p$-states. Its contribution, which has been directly inferred from spectroscopic measurements of uncoupled Mn$_{\rm Ga}$ impurities [@Schneider:1987_a; @Linnarsson:1997_a; @Bhattacharjee:2000_a], is again comparable to the binding energy of the hydrogenic single-acceptor potential. Combining (i)-(iii) accounts for the experimental binding energy of the Mn$_{\rm Ga}$ acceptor of 0.1 eV. An important caveat to these elementary considerations is that the short-range potentials alone of strengths inferred in (ii) and (iii) would not produce a bound-state above the top of the valence band but only a broad region of scattering states inside the valence band.
![(Color online) Schematic illustration of the long-range Coulomb and the two short-range potentials each contributing $\sim 30$ meV to the binding energy of the Mn$_{\rm Ga}$ acceptor. From Supplemental Material of [@Masek:2010_a]. []{data-label="Mn_cartoons"}](fig1){width="1\columnwidth"}
The low-energy degrees of freedom in (Ga,Mn)As materials are the orientations of Mn local moments and the occupation numbers of acceptor levels near the top of the valence band. The number of local moments and the number of holes may differ from the number of Mn$_{\rm Ga}$ impurities in the GaAs host due to the presence of charge and moment compensating defects. Hybridization between Mn $d$-orbitals and valence As/Ga $sp$-orbitals, mainly the As $p$-orbitals on the neighboring sites, leads to an antiferromagnetic exchange interaction between the spins that they carry [@Schneider:1987_a; @Linnarsson:1997_a; @Bhattacharjee:2000_a; @Okabayashi:1998_a].
At concentrations $\ll 1$% of substitutional Mn, the average distance between Mn impurities (or between holes bound to Mn ions) is much larger than the size of the bound hole characterized approximately by the impurity effective Bohr radius. These very dilute (Ga,Mn)As systems are insulating, with the holes occupying a narrow impurity band, and paramagnetic. Experimentally, ferromagnetism in (Ga,Mn)As is observed when Mn doping reaches approximately 1% and the system is still below but near the insulator-to-metal transition [@Ohno:1999_a; @Campion:2003_b; @Potashnik:2002_a; @Jungwirth:2007_a]. ($x=1$% Mn-doping corresponds to Mn density $c=4 x/a^3=2.2\times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$ where $a$ is the lattice constant in Ga$_{1-x}$Mn$_x$As.)
At these Mn concentrations, the localization length of the holes is extended to a degree that allows them to mediate, via the $p-d$ hybridization, ferromagnetic exchange interaction between Mn local moments, even though the moments are dilute.
Beyond a critical Mn doping, which in experiments is about 1.5%, Mn doped GaAs exhibits a transition to a state in which the Mn impurity levels overlap sufficiently strongly that the ground state is metallic, [*i.e.*]{}, that states at the Fermi level are not bound to a single or a group of Mn atoms but are delocalized across the system [@Matsukura:2002_a; @Jungwirth:2006_a; @Jungwirth:2007_a]. In the metallic regime Mn can, like a shallow acceptor (C, Be, Mg, Zn, e.g.), provide delocalized holes with a low-temperature density comparable to Mn density [@Ruzmetov:2004_a; @MacDonald:2005_a; @Jungwirth:2005_b]. The transition to the metallic state occurs at Mn density which is about two orders of magnitude larger than in GaAs doped with shallow acceptors [@Silva:2004_a]. This is because of the central cell and $p-d$ hybridization contributions to the binding energy which make Mn acceptors more localized than the shallow acceptors. A crude estimate of the critical metal-insulator transition density can be obtained with a short-range potential model, using the experimental binding energy and assuming an effective mass of valence band holes, $m^{\ast}=0.5m_e$. This model implies an isolated acceptor level with effective Bohr radius $a_0=(\hbar^2/2m^{\ast}E_a^0)^{1/2}=10\,\AA$. The radius $a_0$ then equals the Mn impurity spacing scale $c^{-1/3}$ at $c\approx 10^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$. This explains qualitatively the higher metal-insulator-transition critical density in Mn doped GaAs compared to the case of systems doped with shallow, more hydrogenic-like acceptors which have binding energies $E_a^0\approx 30$ meV [@Madelung:2003_a; @Silva:2004_a].
Unlike the metal-insulator phase transition, which is sharply defined in terms of the temperature $T=0$ limit of the conductivity, the crossover in the character of states near the Fermi level in semiconductors with increased doping is gradual [@Shcklovskii:1984_a; @Lee:1985_a; @Paalanen:1991_a; @Jungwirth:2006_a; @Dietl:2007_b; @Dietl:2007_d]. At very weak doping, the Fermi level resides inside a narrow impurity band (assuming some compensation) separated from the valence band by an energy gap of a magnitude close to the impurity binding energy. In this regime strong electronic correlations are an essential element of the physics and a single-particle picture has limited utility. Well into the metallic state, on the other hand, the impurities are sufficiently close together, and the long-range Coulomb potentials which contribute to the binding energy of an isolated impurity are sufficiently screened, that the system can be viewed as an imperfect crystal with disorder-broadened and shifted host bands. In this regime, electronic correlations are usually less strong and a single-particle picture often suffices. The short-range components of the Mn binding energy in GaAs, which are not screened by the carriers, move the crossover to higher dopings and contribute significantly to carrier scattering in the metallic state. The picture of disorder-broadened and shifted Bloch bands has to be applied, therefore, with care even in the most metallic (Ga,Mn)As materials. While for some properties it may provide even a semiquantitatively reliable description for other properties it may fail, as we discuss in more detail below.
Although neither picture is very helpful for describing the physics in the crossover regime which spans some finite range of dopings, the notion of the impurity band on the lower doping side from the crossover and of the disordered exchange-split host band on the higher doping side from the crossover still have a clear qualitative meaning. The former implies that there is a deep minimum in the density-of-states between separate impurity and host band states. In the latter case the impurity band and the host band merge into one inseparable band whose tail may still contain localized states depending on the carrier concentration and disorder. In metallic ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As materials, hard X-ray angle-resolved photoemission [@Gray:2012_a] and the differential off- and on-resonance photoemission [@Marco:2013_a] data do not show a separation or intensity drop near the Fermi energy that would indicate the presence of a gap between the valence band and a Mn impurity band. The host and impurity bands are merged in ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As according to these spectroscopic measurements. Note that terms overlapping and merging impurity and valence bands describe the same basic physics in (Ga,Mn)As. This is because the Mn-acceptor states span several unit cells even in the very dilute limit and many unit cells as the impurity band broadens with increasing doping. The localized and the delocalized states then have a similarly mixed As-Ga-Mn [*spd*]{}-character. This applies to systems on either side of the metal-insulator transition. By recognizing that the bands are merged, that is, overlapped and mixed, in ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As materials, the distinction between ÔvalenceÕ and ÔimpurityÕ states becomes mere semantics which can lead to seemingly controversial statements on the material’s electronic structure but has no fundamental physics relevance.
A microscopic theory directly linked to the above qualitative considerations is based on the $spd$ tight-binding approximation (TBA) Hamiltonian of (Ga,Mn)As in which electronic correlations on the localized Mn $d$-orbitals are treated using the Anderson model of the magnetic impurity [@Masek:2010_a]. In Fig. \[TBA\_10percent\] we plot an examples of the total and orbital resolved densities of states (DOSs) for 10% of Mn$_{\rm Ga}$ impurities. The Mn-[*d*]{} spectral weight is peaked at several eV’s below the top of the valence band, in agreement with photoemission data [@Okabayashi:1998_a; @Gray:2012_a; @Marco:2013_a], and is significantly smaller near the Fermi energy $E_F$. The Fermi level states at the top of the valence band have a dominant As(Ga) $p$-orbital character. The [*p-d*]{} coupling strength, $N_0\beta\equiv N_0J_{ex}=\Delta/(Sx)$ ($N_0=1/\Omega_{u.c.}$ where $\Omega_{u.c.}$ is the unit cell volume) [@Jungwirth:2006_a], determined from the calculated valence band exchange splitting $\Delta$ (and taking $S=5/2$) is close to the upper bound of the reported experimental range of $N_0\beta\sim 1-3$ eV [@Matsukura:1998_a; @Okabayashi:1998_a; @Szczytko:1999_a; @Bhattacharjee:2000_a; @Omiya:2000_a]. This is regarded as a moderately weak [*p-d*]{} coupling because the corresponding Fermi level states of the (Ga,Mn)As have a similar orbital character to the states in the host GaAs valence band. These spectral features are among the key characteristics of the hole mediated ferromagnetism in (Ga,Mn)As.
The effective Hamiltonian theory of (Ga,Mn)As, based on the kinetic-exchange (Zener) model [@Dietl:1997_a; @Jungwirth:1999_a; @Dietl:2000_a; @Jungwirth:2006_a], assumes also a value of $N_0\beta$ within the above experimental range, namely $N_0\beta=1.2$ eV ($J_{ex}=55$ meV nm$^3$) which is closer to the lower experimental bound [@Jungwirth:2006_a]. It is this moderate [*p-d*]{} hybridization that allows it to be treated perturbatively and to perform the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation from the microscopic TBA-Anderson Hamiltonian to the effective model in which valence band states experience a spin-dependent kinetic-exchange field [@Jungwirth:2006_a]. Hence, the effective kinetic-exchange model and the microscopic TBA-Anderson theory provide a consistent physical picture of ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As. These two models of the electronic structure of (Ga,Mn)As have represented the most extensively used basis for analyzing the spin-dependent phenomena and device functionalities in (Ga,Mn)As.
In Fig. \[LDA+U\] we show DOSs over the entire Mn$_{\rm Ga}$ doping range obtained from the GGA+U density functional calculations [@Masek:2010_a; @Sato:2010_a]. The GGA+U, the TBA-Anderson, and the kinetic-exchange Zener theories all provide a consistent picture of the band structure of ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As. Simultaneously, it is important to keep in mind that the moderate acceptor binding energy of Mn$_{\rm Ga}$ shifts the insulator-to-metal transition to orders of magnitude higher doping densities than in the case of common shallow non-magnetic acceptors, as mentioned above [@Jungwirth:2007_a; @Masek:2010_a]. Disorder and correlation effects, therefore, play a comparatively more significant role in (Ga,Mn)As than in degenerate semiconductors with common shallow dopants and any simplified one-particle band picture of ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As can only represent a proxy to the electronic structure of the material.
As seen in Fig. \[LDA+U\], the bands evolve continuously from the intrinsic non-magnetic semiconductor GaAs, via the degenerate ferromagnetic semiconductor (Ga,Mn)As to the ferromagnetic metal MnAs. From this it can by expected that $T_c$ of MnAs, with the value close to room temperature (350 K for cubic MnAs inclusions in (Ga,Mn)As [@Yokoyama:2005_a; @Kovacs:2011_a]), sets the upper theoretical bound of achievable $T_c$’s in (Ga,Mn)As across the entire doping range. In experiment, as we discuss in Section \[trends\], the Mn$_{\rm Ga}$ doping is limited to approximately 10% with corresponding $T_c$ reaching 190 K in uniform thin-film crystals prepared by optimized LT-MBE synthesis and post-growth annealing. In these samples the hole density is in the $\sim 10^{20}-10^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$ range, i.e., several orders of magnitude higher then densities in commonly used non-magnetic semiconductors but also 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than is typical for metals.
### Curie point singularities {#Curie}
Ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As with Mn doping ranging from $\sim 1$ to $\sim 10$% is a very heavily doped compound semiconductor or can be also regarded at these high Mn concentrations as a random alloy. Quantities like the residual resistivity are then inevitably affected by strong disorder effects. Even in the most metallic (Ga,Mn)As materials the hole mean free path is comparable to the separation of the Mn impurities so the diffusivity is low. Typically, the product of the Fermi wavevector and the mean free path is, $k_F \Lambda=\hbar\mu k_F^2/e \sim 1-10$, estimated from the experimental mobilities $\mu$ and hole densities [@Jungwirth:2007_a]. For thermodynamic properties, as well as for the spintronics effects discussed in Section \[spintronics\], the disordered nature of (Ga,Mn)As can, however, play a less significant role. This makes the spin-dependent phenomena and device functionalities discovered and explored in (Ga,Mn)As applicable to a broad class of materials beyond the dilute moment ferromagnetic semiconductor compounds.
An example of the seemingly surprising similarity between the basic magnetic characteristics of (Ga,Mn)As and the common transition metal ferromagnets such as Ni is shown in Fig. \[drdtfig1\]. Here we illustrate that (Ga,Mn)As can have Curie point singularities [@Novak:2008_a; @Yuldashev:2010_a] which are typical of uniform itinerant ferromagnets [@Joynt:1984_a; @Shacklette:1974_a]. Fig. \[drdtfig1\](a) shows remanent magnetization $M(T)$ which vanishes sharply at $T\rightarrow T_c^-$. For the same 11% Mn-doped sample, Fig. \[drdtfig1\](a) also shows the resistivity $\rho(T)$ and its temperature derivative, $d\rho/dT$. While $\rho(T)$ has a broad shoulder near $T_c$, $d\rho/dT$ has a singularity at $T_c$ which precisely coincides with $T_c$ inferred from the remanence measurement in the same (Ga,Mn)As material [@Novak:2008_a; @Jungwirth:2010_b; @Nemec:2012_b]. We explain below that the Curie point singularity in $d\rho/dT$ is related to the singularity in the specific heat which was also detected in (Ga,Mn)As [@Yuldashev:2010_a] and is shown in Fig. \[drdtfig1\](b). The specific heat measurements were performed in lower Mn-doped samples (Ga,Mn)As (2.6% Mn-doping in Fig. \[drdtfig1\](b)) and therefore the singularity occurs in these samples at a correspondingly lower $T_c$.
Since seminal works of de Gennes and Friedel [@DeGennes:1958_a] and Fisher and Langer [@Fisher:1968_a], critical behavior of resistivity has been one of the central problems in the physics of itinerant ferromagnets. Theories of coherent scattering from long wavelength spin fluctuations, based on the original paper by de Gennes and Friedel, have been used to explain the large peak in the resistivity $\rho(T)$ at $T_c$ observed in Eu-chalcogenide dense-moment magnetic semiconductors [@Haas:1970_a]. The emphasis on the long wavelength limit of the spin-spin correlation function, reflecting critical behavior of the magnetic susceptibility, is justified in these systems by the small density of carriers relative to the density of magnetic moments, and corresponding small Fermi wavevectors of carriers.
As pointed out by Fisher and Langer [@Fisher:1968_a], the resistivity anomaly in high carrier density transition metal ferromagnets is qualitatively different and associated with the critical behavior of correlations between nearby moments. When approaching $T_c$ from above, thermal fluctuations between nearby moments are partially suppressed by short-range magnetic order. Their singular behavior is like that of the internal energy and unlike that of the magnetic susceptibility. The singularity at $T_c$ occurs in $d\rho/dT$ and is closely related to the critical behavior of the specific heat. While Fisher and Langer expected this behavior for $T\rightarrow T_c^+$ and a dominant role of uncorrelated spin fluctuations at $T\rightarrow T_c^-$, later studies of elemental transition metals found a proportionality between $d\rho/dT$ and specific heat on both sides of the Curie point, as shown in the upper inset of Fig. \[drdtfig1\](b) [@Joynt:1984_a; @Shacklette:1974_a].
![(Color online) (a) Temperature dependent remanent magnetization, resistivity and temperature derivative of the resistivity of a nominally 11% Mn-doped (Ga,Mn)As. From Supplementary information of [@Jungwirth:2010_b]. (b) Magnetic contribution to the specific heat of a 2.6% Mn-doped (Ga,Mn)As. Adapted from [@Yuldashev:2010_a]. Upper inset: Temperature derivative of resistance and a multiple of the specific heat plotted against temperature for Ni. From [@Joynt:1984_a]. Lower inset: Schematic diagram of the spin-spin correlation function in low and large $k$-vector limits [@Fisher:1968_a]. []{data-label="drdtfig1"}](fig4.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"}
The character of the transport anomaly in (Ga,Mn)As is distinct from the critical contribution to transport in the dense-moment magnetic semiconductors [@Haas:1970_a] and is reminiscent of the $d\rho/dT$ singularity in transition metal ferromagnets [@Joynt:1984_a; @Shacklette:1974_a]. Ferromagnetism in (Ga,Mn)As originates from spin-spin coupling between local Mn-moments and valence band holes, $J\sum_i\delta({\bf r}-{\bf R}_i){\boldsymbol\sigma}\cdot{\bf S}_i$ [@Dietl:1997_a; @Jungwirth:1999_a; @Dietl:2000_a; @Jungwirth:2006_a]. Here ${\bf S}_i$ represents the local spin and ${\boldsymbol\sigma}$ the hole spin operator. This local-itinerant exchange interaction plays a central role in theories of the critical transport anomaly. When treated in the Born approximation, the interaction yields a carrier scattering rate from magnetic fluctuations, and the corresponding contribution to $\rho(T)$, which is proportional to the static spin-spin correlation function, $\Gamma({\bf R}_i,T)\sim J^2[\langle{\bf S}_i\cdot{\bf S}_0\rangle - \langle{\bf S}_i\rangle\cdot \langle{\bf S}_0\rangle]$ [@DeGennes:1958_a]. Typical temperature dependences of the uncorrelated part, $\Gamma_{uncor}({\bf R}_i,T)\sim \delta_{i,0}J^2[S(S+1) - \langle{\bf S}_i\rangle^2]$, and of the Fourier components of the correlation function, $\Gamma({\bf k},T)=\sum_{i\neq 0}\Gamma({\bf R}_i,T)\exp({\bf k\cdot R}_i)$, are illustrated in the lower inset of Fig. \[drdtfig1\](b) [@Fisher:1968_a]. At small wavevectors, $\Gamma({\bf k},T)$ and correspondingly $\rho(T)$ have a peak at $T_c$. At $k$ similar to the inverse separation of the local moments ($kd_{\uparrow - \uparrow}\sim 1$) the peak broadens into a shoulder while the singular behavior at $T_c$ is in the temperature derivative of the spin-spin correlator and, therefore, in $d\rho/dT$.
$M^2$ expansion providing a good fit to the magnetic contribution to the resistivity at $T<T_c$ [@Novak:2008_a] corresponds to the dominant contribution from $\Gamma_{uncor}$ on the ferromagnetic side of the transition. The shoulder in $\rho(T)$ on the paramagnetic side and the presence of the singularity in $d\rho/dT$ suggest that large wavevector components of $\Gamma({\bf k},T)$ dominate the temperature dependence of the scattering in the $T\rightarrow T_c^+$ critical region [@Novak:2008_a]. The large $k$-vector limit is consistent with the ratio between hole and Mn local-moment densities approaching unity in high quality (Ga,Mn)As materials with low charge compensation by unintentional impurities [@Nemec:2012_b].
### Localization effects in transport {#localization}
While the sharp transport Curie point singularities highlight that ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As epilayers can have a high degree of uniformity [@Kodzuka:2009_a] and can behave similarly to common, weakly-disordered itinerant ferromagnets, the magnitude of the resistivity at zero and finite frequencies and over the broad temperature range is significantly affected by the vicinity of the metal-insulator transition in (Ga,Mn)As. The valence band calculations treating disorder in the first-order Born approximation overestimate the experimental conductivities of metallic (Ga,Mn)As by up to a factor of 10 [@Jungwirth:2002_c; @Sinova:2002_a]. This discrepancy is removed by accounting for strong disorder and localization effects using, e.g., exact-diagonalization calculations [@Yang:2003_b; @Jungwirth:2007_a]. Even the most metallic (Ga,Mn)As materials with delocalized carriers at the Fermi level may contain localized states in the valence band tail which modify the finite-frequency absorption spectra [@Burch:2006_a; @Chapler:2011_a; @Jungwirth:2007_a; @Jungwirth:2010_b].
The low diffusivity of carriers implies that quantum interference and electron-electron interactions can produce sizable effects in (Ga,Mn)As. Weak localization (WL) quantum corrections are due to constructive interference between partial waves undergoing multiple scattering from a state with wavevector $k$ to a state $-k$ and partial waves traversing the time reversed trajectory. The effect is also referred to as coherent backscattering and it leads to a reduction of the conductivity. A distinct, electron-electron interaction quantum correction to the conductivity [@Lee:1985_a] can arise in disordered conductors which often has a similar magnitude to the WL correction. This arises because electron-electron interactions cannot be treated independently of the disorder scattering for strong disorder.
Explicit expressions for the WL corrections can be obtained for $L_{\Phi}\gg \Lambda\gg\lambda_F$, where $L_{\Phi}$, $\Lambda$, and $\Lambda_F$ are the carrier phase coherence length, mean free path, and Fermi wavelength. The second condition can be rewritten as $k_F \Lambda\gg 1$ where $k_F$ is the Fermi wavevector. The corrections are of order $(k_F \Lambda)^{-1}$ and so become important for small $k_F \Lambda$. It has been argued that higher order corrections are small and that the condition $k_F \Lambda\gg 1$ can be relaxed to $k_F \Lambda > 1$. Application of a magnetic field can suppress the resistance enhancement due to WL as it removes time-reversal invariance leading to negative magnetoresistance. The magnetic field begins to have a significant effect when $\ell_B\sim L_{\Phi}$, where $\ell_B=(\hbar/eB)^{1/2}$ is the magnetic length, and the magnetic field completely suppresses WL when $\ell_B\sim\Lambda$. Since WL quantum corrections are suppressed by sufficiently large magnetic fields one expects a similar suppression by the internal magnetization. For dense moment ferromagnets like Fe, Ni, etc., $\mu_0M\sim 2$ T and the mean free path is usually quite large so WL is strongly suppressed. However WL is observed for example in highly disordered Ni films [@Aprili:1997_a]. For the dilute moment ferromagnet (Ga,Mn)As, $\mu_0M\sim 50$ mT while the field needed to suppresses WL, [*i.e.*]{} when $\ell_B\sim\Lambda\sim 1$ nm, is $\sim 1000$ T. So one expects WL effects to be present, and since typically $k_F \Lambda\sim 1-10$, they may be large.
The identification of WL contributions to the temperature dependence of resistance is difficult as they generally co-exist with other temperature dependent contributions and because the expected functional form can be very different for the different possible phase breaking mechanisms. In disordered ferromagnets like (Ga,Mn)As, spin disorder scattering can, e.g., produce large magnetoresistance, particularly close to the localization boundary [@Kramer:1993_a; @Nagaev:1998_a; @Omiya:2000_a].
For external magnetic fields less than the coercive fields the magnetoresistance response is usually dominated by AMR (see Sections \[Mott-Dirac\],\[AHE-AMR\]). At larger fields a negative isotropic magnetoresistance is observed which can be very large for low conductivity material [@Matsukura:2004_a]. This could be due to the suppression of spin disorder [@Lee:1987_a]. However, as shown in Fig. \[fig\_quant4\] [@Matsukura:2004_a], the negative magnetoresistance does not seem to saturate, even in extremely strong magnetic fields. It has been argued [@Matsukura:2004_a] that the negative magnetoresistance arises from WL and gives a correction consistent with the predicted form proportional to $-B^{1/2}$ [@Kawabata:1980_a], which assumes a complete suppression of spin-disorder and spin-orbit scattering (see Fig. \[fig\_quant4\]).
The role of spin-orbit coupling in WL phenomena in (Ga,Mn)As has been extensively discussed [@Neumaier:2007_a; @Rokhinson:2007_a; @Garate:2008_c]. In the context of the spintronic phenomena and functionalities in (Ga,Mn)As and their applicability to other materials, discussed in Section \[spintronics\], an important conclusion is drawn from numerical studies of WL in (Ga,Mn)As [@Garate:2008_c]. They showed that while WL corrections can significantly contribute to the absolute residual resistivity, the relative changes in resistivity associated with magnetization reorientations, namely the AMR ratios, are nearly independent on whether the WL corrections are included or not [@Garate:2008_c]. These results, which agree qualitatively with analytical considerations on simpler models [@Bhatt:1985_a], illustrate that the intrinsically strong disorder in (Ga,Mn)As can qualitatively play a minor role in not only the thermodynamic properties but also in the spintronic phenomena reflecting the interactions of carrier spins with electrical current, light, or heat. What determines these phenomena is primarily the magnetic exchange and spin-orbit fields acting on the carrier states. Disorder can mix the carrier states but as long as this mixing does not significantly alter the effects of the exchange field and spin-orbit coupling on the carriers the spintronic phenomena remain robust against disorder. This explains the qualitative and often semi-quantitative success, and justifies the applicability, of microscopic theories of spintronic phenomena in (Ga,Mn)As starting from a Bloch-band description of the material’s electronic structure. Simultaneously it should be noted that due to strong disorder and the vicinity of the metal-insulator transition a full quantitative description is unlikely to be achievable within any of the existing theoretical models of (Ga,Mn)As.
We conclude this section by discussing the universal conductance fluctuations (UCFs) in (Ga,Mn)As. These result from the interference between partial waves from scattering centers within a conductor. In the usual semi-classical theory of electron conduction this is neglected since it is assumed that such effects will be averaged away. However, for conductors of size comparable with $L_{\Phi}$ the interference effects are intrinsically non-self-averaging. This leads to corrections to the conductivity of order $e^2/h$. Application of a magnetic field modifies the interference effects, giving reproducible but aperiodic UCFs [@Lee:1987_a] of amplitude $\sim e^2/h$. One can think of a conductor with dimensions $>L_{\Phi}$ as made up of a number of independent phase coherent sub-units leading to averaging. UCFs are then diminished for dimensions $\gg L_{\Phi}$ and only WL due to the coherent backscattering may still contribute in macroscopic samples.
At temperatures which are a significant fraction of the Curie temperature one expects spin-disorder and spin-orbit scattering to lead to the phase coherence length $L_{\Phi}\sim\Lambda$, strongly suppressing quantum corrections. However, in high quality metallic (Ga,Mn)As it has been argued [@Matsukura:2004_a] that $L_{\Phi}$ need not be very small at low temperatures because virtually all spins contribute to the ferromagnetic ordering and the large splitting of the valence band makes both spin-disorder and spin-orbit scattering relatively inefficient. The strong magneto-crystalline anisotropies also tend to suppress magnon scattering at low temperatures.
Recent observations [@Wagner:2006_a; @Vila:2006_a] of large UCFs in (Ga,Mn)As microdevices, and the evidence for the closely related Aharonov-Bohm effect (ABE) in (Ga,Mn)As microrings, confirm that $L_{\Phi}$ can be large at low temperatures. Fig. \[ucf\] shows UCFs measured [@Wagner:2006_a] in (Ga,Mn)As wires of approximate width 20 nm and thickness 50 nm. Panel (a) shows that the UCF amplitude is $\sim e^2/h$ in a 100 nm long wire at 20 mK. This directly demonstrates that $L_{\Phi}\sim 100$ nm. Similar measurements in higher conductivity (Ga,Mn)As give $L_{\Phi}\sim 100$ nm at 100mK. These are large values corresponding to a phase relaxation time that is orders of magnitude larger than the elastic scattering time.
![(a) Electron micrograph of a (Ga,Mn)As ring sample with a diameter of $\sim 100$ nm. (b) Comparison of the magnetoconductance trace of the ring sample with the conductance of a wire of comparable length and 20 nm width. (c) Corresponding FFT taken from the conductance of ring and wire. The region where ABE oscillations are expected is highlighted. From [@Wagner:2006_a].[]{data-label="ABeffect"}](fig7.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[ABeffect\] shows measurements [@Wagner:2006_a] of the magnetic field dependence of the conductivity of a lithographically defined 100 nm diameter (Ga,Mn)As ring compared to that of a 200 nm long (Ga,Mn)As wire. Additional small period oscillations are observed for the ring which the Fourier transform shows to be consistent with the expected ABE period. This confirms the long $L_{\Phi}$ indicated by the large amplitude UCFs and confirms that almost all spins are participating in the magnetic order with strong suppression of spin scattering.
Doping trends in basic magnetic and transport properties of (Ga,Mn)As {#trends}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
### Low Mn-doped bulk materials {#bulk}
Narrow impurity bands have been clearly observed in Mn doped GaAs samples with carrier densities much lower than the metal-insulator transition density, for example in equilibrium grown bulk materials with Mn density $c=10^{17}-10^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$ [@Brown:1972_a; @Woodbury:1973_a; @Blakemore:1973_a]. The energy gap between the impurity band and the valence band, $E_a$, can be measured by studying the temperature dependence of longitudinal and Hall conductivities, which show activated behavior because of thermal excitation of holes from the impurity band to the much more conductive valence band [@Blakemore:1973_a; @Woodbury:1973_a; @Marder:1999_a].
The activation energy decreases with increasing Mn density [@Blakemore:1973_a]. The lowering of impurity binding energies at larger $c$, which is expected to scale with the mean impurity separation, is apparent already in the equilibrium grown bulk materials with $c=10^{17}-10^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$. The degenerate semiconductor regime was, however, not reached in the bulk materials.
### Synthesis of high Mn-doped epilayers {#epilayers}
A comprehensive experimental assessment of basic doping trends including the regimes near and above the insulator-to-metal transition became possible since late 1990’s with the development of LT-MBE (Ga,Mn)As films [@Ohno:1998_a]. The epilayers can be doped well beyond the equilibrium Mn solubility limit while avoiding phase segregation and maintaining a high degree of uniformity [@Kodzuka:2009_a]. Because of the highly non-equilibrium nature of the heavily-doped ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As, the growth and post-growth annealing procedures have to be individually optimized for each Mn-doping level in order to obtain films which are as close as possible to idealized uniform (Ga,Mn)As mixed crystals with the minimal density of compensating and other unintentional defects. This is illustrated in Fig. \[synth1\] showing, side by side, basic electrical and magnetic characteristics of two medium, 7% Mn-doped epilayers [@Nemec:2012_b]. The left column shows data measured on a material which was prepared under optimized conditions for the given nominal Mn-doping. The sample has sharp Curie point singularities in magnetization and $d\rho/dT$ (Fig. \[synth1\]a). Magnetization precession damping factor and spin-wave resonances (SWRs) obtained from magneto-optical measurements (Figs. \[synth1\]b,c) confirm the high magnetic quality of the material. The initial decrease of the damping factor with frequency followed by a frequency independent part (Fig. 1b) is typical of uniform ferromagnets [@Walowski:2008_a]. It allows to accurately separate the intrinsic Gilbert damping constant $\alpha$, corresponding to the frequency independent part, from effects that lead to inhomogeneous broadening of FMR linewidths. Similarly, the observed Kittel SWR modes of a uniform ferromagnet (Fig. 1c) allows to measure accurately the magnetic anisotropy and spin stiffness parameters of (Ga,Mn)As.
The right column data (Figs. \[synth1\]d-f) were measured on a 7% Mn-doped epilayer differing from the sample of the left column in only one of the synthesis parameters not being optimized. The stoichiometry, substrate growth temperature, postgrowth annealing temperature and time, and epilayer thickness are among the key synthesis parameters. All these parameters were equally optimized in the two samples except for the epilayer thickness. In the medium and high Mn-doped samples, full material optimization is possible only for film thicknesses $\lesssim 50$ nm. The epilayer whose measurements are shown in the right panels of Fig. \[synth1\] is 500 nm thick. Its magnetization and transport Curie point singularities are largely smeared out, the damping factor is strongly frequency dependent, and alternating number of SWRs is observed with increasing applied field whose spacings are inconsistent with Kittel modes. The material is non-uniform, the magnetization and transport data indicate strong moment and charge compensation by extrinsic impurities, and for this material it is impossible to reliably extract any of the intrinsic micromagnetic parameters of (Ga,Mn)As.
![(Color online) (a) Magnetization $M$, temperature derivative of the resistivity normalized to the peak value $(d\rho/dT)^\ast$, and resistivity $\rho(T)$ of an optimized 20 nm thick epilayer with 7% nominal Mn-doping. (b) and (c) Frequency dependence of the damping factor and field dependence of the SWR frequencies of the same sample. (d) – (f) Same as (a) – (c) for a material differing by having only one of the synthesis parameters not optimized (epilayer thickness of 500 nm being too large). From [@Nemec:2012_b].[]{data-label="synth1"}](fig8){width="1\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[synth2\] we illustrate that even in films thinner than 50 nm, apparently small changes in the remaining key synthesis parameters can significantly affect the material quality [@Nemec:2012_b]. Staying near the 1:1 stoichiometric As:(Ga+Mn) ratio is favorable for the LT-MBE growth of (Ga,Mn)As [@Myers:2006_a; @Wang:2008_e]. Fig. \[synth2\]a shows the optimal growth temperature $T_G$ for the stoichiometric growth as a function of the nominal Mn-doping $x$. The optimal $T_G$ remains near (from the lower temperature side) the 2D/3D growth-mode boundary which implies its strong dependence on $x$. Fig. \[synth2\]b shows $T_c$ as a function of the annealing time for the optimal $T_G=190^\circ$C for the 13% Mn doped sample and for two annealing temperatures. One is the optimal annealing temperature $T_A=160^\circ$C and the other one is 20$^\circ$ lower. The maximun $T_c=188$ K sample is obtained by optimizing simultaneously the annealing time and $T_A$. Figs. \[synth2\]c,d illustrate how the increasing $T_c$ is accompanied by the improving material quality (reduction of extrinsic compensation and sample inhomogeneity) over the annealing time for optimal $T_G$ and $T_A$. The importance of the optimal $T_G$ during the growth is highlighted in Figs. \[synth2\]e,f showing the same annealing sequence measurements as in Figs. \[synth2\]c,d on a 13% doped sample grown at a temperature of only $10^\circ$ below the optimal $T_G$. In contrast to the material grown at the optimal $T_G$, the sample is insulating and paramagnetic in the as-grown state. Ferromagnetism and metallic conduction can be recovered by annealing, however, the compensation and inhomogeneity cannot be removed and the ferromagnetic transition temperature remains tens of degrees below the $T_c$ of the sample grown at the optimal $T_G$. Similarly lower quality samples are obtained by growing at higher than optimal $T_G$.
Figs. \[synth1\] and \[synth2\] illustrate the following general conclusions drawn from extensive material optimization studies [@Nemec:2012_b]. Inferring doping trends in basic material properties of (Ga,Mn)As from sample series mixing as-grown and annealed materials is unsuitable as the quality of the samples may strongly vary in such a series. Choosing one [*a priori*]{} fixed $T_G$, $T_A$, and annealing time for a range of Mn-dopings is unlikely to produce a high-quality, uniform and uncompensated (Ga,Mn)As material even for one of the considered dopings and is bound to produce low-quality samples for most of the studied Mn-dopings. Finally, optimized (Ga,Mn)As samples require exceedingly long annealing times for film thicknesses $\gtrsim50$ nm and are impossible to achieve in $\sim100$ nm and thicker films by the known (Ga,Mn)As synthesis approaches.
![(Color online) (a) Optimal growth temperature $T_G$ as a function of the nominal Mn-doping $x$. (b) Dependence of the Curie temperature $T_c$ on the annealing time for two different annealing temperatures $T_A$ in a 15 nm thick (Ga,Mn)As epilayer with 13% nominal Mn doping grown at optimal $T_G$. (c), (d) $\rho(T)$ and $(d\rho/dT)^\ast$ in the $x=13\%$ epilayer grown at optimal $T_G$ in the as-grown state, for optimal $T_A$ and annealing time 0.5h, and for optimal $T_A$ and optimal annealing time of 8h. (e), (f), Same as (c), (d) for a $x=13\%$ epilayer grown at 10$^\circ$ below the optimal $T_G$; $(d\rho/dT)^\ast$ is not plotted for the as-grown insulating and paramagnetic sample. From [@Nemec:2012_b].[]{data-label="synth2"}](fig9){width="1\columnwidth"}
When limited attention is paid to the details of the synthesis of the highly non-equilibrium (Ga,Mn)As alloy, seemingly contradictory experimental results can be found in these materials [@Burch:2006_a; @Tang:2008_a; @Dobrowolska:2012_a; @Dobrowolska:2012_b] as compared to measurements on samples prepared under the above optimized growth conditions [@Jungwirth:2010_b; @Edmonds:2012_a]. As an example we show in Fig. \[T\_c-p\] measurements of $T_c$ versus hole density $p$ [@Dobrowolska:2012_a; @Edmonds:2012_a]. The data are normalized to $x_{eff}$ ($N_{eff} = 4 x_{eff}/a^3$) representing the concentration of Mn magnetic moments which contribute to the magnetic order. The results obtained in Ref. [@Dobrowolska:2012_a] indicated a strong suppression of $T_c$ in (Ga,Mn)As layers with close to one hole per substitutional Mn. It was thus suggested that $T_c$ in ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As is determined by the location of the Fermi level within a narrow impurity band, separated from the valence band. On the other hand, experiments on epilayers prepared under the optimized growth conditions found that $T_c$ takes its largest values in weakly compensated samples when $p$ is comparable to the concentration of substitutional Mn acceptors. This is inconsistent with models in which the Fermi level is located within a narrow isolated impurity band and corroborates predictions for $T_c$ of the above discussed microscopic theories (see Fig. \[T\_c-p\]) in which valence and impurity bands are merged in ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As.
Reliable measurements of systematic doping trends in intrinsic semiconducting and magnetic properties of materials which represent as close as possible idealized uniform (Ga,Mn)As mixed crystals with the minimal density of compensating and other unintentional defects require the careful optimization of the synthesis. Many studies of the spintronics phenomena in (Ga,Mn)As, discussed below in Section \[spintronics\], have also benefited from the high quality optimized epilayers. This applies in particular to experiments sensitive to small tilts of carrier spins from the equilibrium direction which is the case, e.g., of the magneto-optical phenomena observed in the pump-and-probe experiments discussed in Section \[LIT\]. While for the detailed analysis the optimally synthesized and thoroughly characterized (Ga,Mn)As epilayers are always favorable, many of the spintronics effects and functionalities have been demonstrated in materials with extrinsic disorder not fully removed from the film. As shown in Figs. \[synth1\] and \[synth2\] these materials can still be ferromagnetic and conductive and as discussed in Sections \[Curie\] and \[localization\] the spintronics phenomena can be, at least on a qualitative level, relatively robust against strong disorder, whether intrinsic or extrinsic.
![(Color online) Curie temperature $T_c$versus hole density $p$ normalized to $x_{eff}$ ($N_{eff} = 4 x_{eff}/a^3$) representing the concentration of Mn magnetic moments which contribute to the magnetic order. Blue squares correspond to samples from Ref. [@Edmonds:2012_a] prepared under optimized growth conditions where hole density $p$ is obtained from high-field Hall measurements. Gray circles correspond to samples from Ref. [@Dobrowolska:2012_a], where $p$ is obtained from ion channeling measurements. Red stars correspond to samples from Ref. [@Rushforth:2008_c] prepared under optimized growth conditions, where $p$ is obtained from ion channeling measurements. The green line is the prediction of the microscopic calculation of Ref. [@Jungwirth:2005_b].[]{data-label="T_c-p"}](fig10){width="1\columnwidth"}
### Curie temperature and conductivity {#Tc_cond}
![(Color online) (a) Temperature dependence of the conductivity $\sigma(T)$ of optimized (Ga,Mn)As epilayers with depicted nominal Mn doping. Dashed lines indicate the activated parts of $\sigma(T)$ of the insulating paramagnetic (Ga,Mn)As with 0.05% Mn doping, corresponding to the Mn acceptor level and the band gap, respectively. (b) Conductivity at 4 K as a function of the nominal Mn doping. Open symbol corresponds to a paramagnetic sample. (c) Sharp Curie point singularities in the temperature derivative of the resistivity in the series of optimized ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As epilayers with metallic conduction. (d-f) hole density $p$, magnetization $M$ and corresponding Mn moment density $N_{Mn}$, and Curie temperature $T_c$ as a function of the nominal Mn doping in the series of optimized (Ga,Mn)As epilayers. From [@Nemec:2012_b]. []{data-label="doping_trends"}](fig11){width="1\columnwidth"}
Uniform (Ga,Mn)As materials with minimized extrinsic disorder can be divided into the following groups: at nominal dopings below $\sim0.1\%$ the (Ga,Mn)As materials are paramagnetic, strongly insulating, showing signatures of the activated transport corresponding to valence band – impurity band transitions at intermediate temperatures, and valence band – conduction band transitions at high temperatures (see Fig. \[doping\_trends\](a)) [@Jungwirth:2007_a; @Nemec:2012_b]. For higher nominal dopings, $0.5 \lesssim x \lesssim 1.5\%$, no clear signatures of activation from the valence band to the impurity band are seen in the dc transport, indicating that the bands start to overlap and mix, yet the materials remain insulating. At $x\approx1.5\%$, the low-temperature conductivity of the film increases abruptly by several orders of magnitude (see Fig. \[doping\_trends\](b)), and the system turns into a degenerate semiconductor. The onset of ferromagnetism occurs already on the insulating side of the transition at $x\approx 1\%$. All ferromagnetic samples over a broad nominal Mn-doping range can have sharp Curie point singularities when synthesized under individually optimized growth and post-growth annealing conditions (see Fig. \[doping\_trends\](c)).
The hole concentration $p$ can be measured by the slope of the Hall curve at high fields with an error bar due to the multi-band nature estimated to $\sim 20\%$.[@Jungwirth:2005_b] Within this uncertainty, the overall trend shows increasing $p$ with increasing doping in the optimized materials, as shown in Fig. \[doping\_trends\](d). Similarly, the saturation moment and $T_c$ steadily increase with increasing nominal doping up to $x\approx 13\%$, as shown in Figs. \[doping\_trends\](e),(f). Assuming 4.5$\mu_B$ per Mn atom [@Jungwirth:2005_a] the density $c\equiv N_{Mn}$ of uncompesated Mn$_{\rm Ga}$ moments can be inferred from the magnetization data (see left y-axis in Fig. \[doping\_trends\](e)). Since there is no apparent deficit of $p$ compared to $N_{Mn}$, and since the interstitial Mn impurity [@Maca:2002_a; @Yu:2002_a; @Edmonds:2002_b] compensates one local moment but two holes it can be concluded that interstitial Mn, which is the key contributor to extrinsic disorder, is removed in the optimally grown and annealed epilayers. Hence, a broad series of optimized (Ga,Mn)As materials can be prepared with reproducible characteristics, showing an overall trend of increasing saturation moment with increasing $x$ , increasing $T_c$ (reaching 188 K), and increasing hole density. The materials have no measurable charge or moment compensation of the substitutional Mn$_{\rm Ga}$ impurities and have a large degree of uniformity.
Fig. \[stiffness\_etc\] demonstrates that the intrinsic micromagnetic parameters of (Ga,Mn)As measured on the optimized materials show also a smooth monotonic doping dependence [@Nemec:2012_b]. As detailed below, their values are characteristic of common band ferromagnets and all the semiconducting and magnetic properties summarized in Figs. \[doping\_trends\] – \[stiffness\_etc\] are consistent with the microscopically established electronic structure of (Ga,Mn)As. The control and reproducibility of material properties of (Ga,Mn)As have been confirmed in the optimized films by multiple material synthesis and characterization experiments in different MBE chambers [@Nemec:2012_b; @Edmonds:2012_a].
### Micromagnetic parameters {#micromag}
Micromagnetic parameters of (Ga,Mn)As and related (III,Mn)V ferromagnetic semiconductors were studied by magnetization, magneto-transport, magneto-optical, or ferromagnetic/spin-wave resonance (FMR/SWR) measurements [@Munekata:1993_a; @Ohno:1998_a; @Dietl:2001_b; @Abolfath:2001_a; @Sinova:2004_b; @Rappoport:2004_a; @Sawicki:2004_a; @Zhou:2007_a; @Liu:2007_e; @Wenisch:2007_a; @Humpfner:2006_a; @Pappert:2007_a; @Wunderlich:2007_c; @Rushforth:2008_a; @Rushforth:2008_b; @Goennenwein:2008_a; @Khazen:2008_a; @Gould:2008_a; @Stolichnov:2008_a; @Overby:2008_a; @Owen:2008_a; @Chiba:2008_a; @Bihler:2009_a; @Potashnik:2002_a; @Gourdon:2007_a; @Wang:2007_f; @Zemen:2009_a; @Werpachowska:2010_a; @Cubukcu:2010_a; @Cubukcu:2010_b; @Haghgoo:2010_a; @Nemec:2012_b; @Ranieri:2012_a]. A large experimental scatter of the measured micromagnetic parameters can be found in the literature which reflects partly the issues related to the control of extrinsic disorder in the synthesis of (Ga,Mn)As. The experimental scatter also reflects, however, the favorable intrinsic tuneability of (Ga,Mn)As properties by varying the temperature, hole and Mn-moment density, III-V substrate on which the (Ga,Mn)As film is deposited, or by alloying the magnetic film with other III or V elements, by device microfabrication, by applying electrostatic or piezoelectric fields on the film, etc.
When measuring the micromagnetic parameters on the optimally and consistently synthesized series of bare (Ga,Mn)As epilayers on a GaAs substrate, fully reproducible and systematic trends can be inferred when simultaneously determining the magnetic anisotropy $K_i$, Gilbert damping $\alpha$, and spin stiffness $D$ constants from one set of measurements. This has been demonstrated, e.g., on a series of (Ga,Mn)As/GaAs epilayers over a broad range of Mn-dopings by employing the magneto-optical pump-and-probe technique, as shown in Fig. \[stiffness\_etc\] [@Nemec:2012_b].
![ (Color online) (a) Dependence of magnetic anisotropy constants on nominal Mn doping. (b) Dependence of the Gilbert damping constant $\alpha$ and the spin stiffness constant $D$ on nominal Mn doping. From [@Nemec:2012_b]. Measurements were performed at 15 K.[]{data-label="stiffness_etc"}](fig12){width="1\columnwidth"}
The magnetic anisotropy fields are dominated by three components. The out-of-plane component $K_{out}$ is a sum of the thin-film shape anisotropy and the magnetocrystalline anisotropy due to the substrate lattice-matching growth strain. In (Ga,Mn)As grown on GaAs the strain in the (Ga,Mn)As epilayer is compressive and $K_{out}$ favors for most Mn-dopings in-plane magnetization (see Fig. \[stiffness\_etc\](a)). However, when using an InGaAs substrate or adding P into the magnetic film, the growth strain can change from compressive to tensile, $K_{out}$ flips sign and the film turns into an out-of-plane ferromagnet [@Dietl:2001_b; @Abolfath:2001_a; @Yamanouchi:2004_a; @Rushforth:2008_b; @Cubukcu:2010_b]. This transition from an in-plane to an out-of-plane magnet has been exploited, e.g., in studies of the current induced domain wall motion and spin-orbit torque discussed below in Sections \[STT\] and \[SOT\] [@Yamanouchi:2004_a; @Wang:2010_a; @Curiale:2012_a; @Ranieri:2012_a; @Fang:2010_a].
The cubic magnetocrystalline anisotropy $K_{c}$ reflects the zinc-blende crystal structure of the host semiconductor. The origin of the additional uniaxial anisotropy component along the in-plane diagonal $K_{u}$ is associated with a more subtle symmetry breaking mechanism introduced during the epilayer growth [@Kopecky:2011_a; @Mankovsky:2011_a; @Birowska:2012_a]. The sizable magnitudes of $K_c$ and $K_{u}$ and the different doping trends of these two in-plane magnetic anisotropy constants (see Fig. \[stiffness\_etc\](a)) are crucial for the micromagnetics of the in-plane magnetized (Ga,Mn)As materials. The cubic anisotropy $K_c$ dominates at very low dopings and the easy axis aligns with the main crystal axis \[100\] or \[010\]. At intermediate dopings, the uniaxial anisotropy $K_{u}$ is still weaker but comparable in magnitude to $K_c$. In these samples the two equilibrium easy-axes are tilted towards the \[1$\bar1$0\] direction and their angle is sensitive to changes of temperature (the ratio of $K_u/K_c$ tends to increase with temperature [@Wang:2005_e]) or externally applied electrostatic or piezo-voltages which has been exploited in numerous studies of spintronics effects and device functionalities in (Ga,Mn)As [@Ohno:2000_a; @Chiba:2003_a; @Chiba:2008_a; @Olejnik:2008_a; @Owen:2008_a; @Stolichnov:2008_a; @Rushforth:2008_a; @Overby:2008_a; @Goennenwein:2008_a; @Ranieri:2012_a]. The origin of the magnetocrystalline anisotropies is in the spin-orbit coupling of the valence band holes mediating the ferromagnetic Mn-Mn coupling, as described on a qualitative or semi-quantitative level by the model, kinetic-exchange Hamiltonian theory [@Dietl:2001_b; @Abolfath:2001_a; @Zemen:2009_a].
A systematic doping trend of the Gilbert damping constant is also found across the series of optimized materials (see Fig. \[stiffness\_etc\](b)). The magnitudes of $\alpha\sim 0.1-0.01$ and the doping dependence are consistent with Gilbert damping constants in conventional transition metal ferromagnets. In metals, $\alpha$ typically increases with increasing resistivity and is enhanced in alloys with enhanced spin-orbit coupling [@Ingvarsson:2002_a; @Rantschler:2007_a; @Gilmore:2008_a]. Similarly in (Ga,Mn)As the increase of $\alpha$ correlates with an increase of the resistivity in the lower Mn-doped samples. Moreover, the spin-orbit coupling effects tend to be stronger in the lower doped samples with lower filling of the hole bands and with the carriers closer to the metal-insulator transition. Theory ascribing magnetization relaxation to the kinetic-exchange coupling of Mn moments with the spin-orbit coupled holes yields a comparable range of values of $\alpha$ as observed in experiment Fig. \[stiffness\_etc\](b) [@Sinova:2004_b; @Nemec:2012_b].
The direct measurement of the spin stiffness requires a rather delicate balance between thin enough epilayers whose material quality can be optimized and thick enough films allowing to observe the higher-index Kittel spin-wave modes [@Kittel:1958_a] of a uniform thin-film ferromagnet. The magneto-optical pump-and-probe technique [@Nemec:2012_b] has an advantage that, unlike ferromagnetic resonance (FMR), it is not limited to odd index spin wave modes [@Kittel:1958_a]. The ability to excite and detect the $n=0$, 1, and 2 resonances is essential for the observation of the Kittel modes in the optimized (Ga,Mn)As epilayers whose thickness $L$ is limited to $\sim50$ nm. The modes in the optimized films show the expected quadratic scaling with $n$ and with $1/L$, and could be fitted by one set of magnetic anisotropy constants and spin-stiffness constant $D$ [@Nemec:2012_b]. In the optimized series of (Ga,Mn)As epilayers a consistent, weakly increasing trend in $D$ with increasing doping is observed (see Fig. \[stiffness\_etc\](b)) with values of $D$ between $\sim 2$ and 3 meVnm$^2$. Similar to the Gilbert damping constant, the measured spin stiffness constant in the optimized (Ga,Mn)As epilayers is comparable to the spin stiffness in conventional transition metal ferromagnets [@Collins:1969_a]. The values of the spin stiffness of the order meVnm$^2$ are consistent with calculations based on the model kinetic-exchange and tight-binding Hamiltonians, or the [*ab initio*]{} electronic structure of (Ga,Mn)As [@Konig:2001_a; @Brey:2003_a; @Bouzerar:2006_c; @Werpachowska:2010_a].
To conclude Section \[material\], the micromagnetic parameters of optimized (Ga,Mn)As epilayers are characteristic of common band ferromagnets and the semiconducting and magnetic properties summarized in Figs. \[doping\_trends\] – \[stiffness\_etc\] are consistent with the model Hamiltonian or [*ab initio*]{} theories of the electronic structure of (Ga,Mn)As. The materials research reviewed in Section \[material\] establishes the overall view of (Ga,Mn)As as a well behaved and understood degenerate semiconductor and band ferromagnet. Combined with the tuneability of its electronic and magnetic properties, strong exchange and spin-orbit interactions in the carrier bands, special symmetries of the host zinc-blende lattice, and the compatibility with established III-V semiconductor microfabrication techniques, this makes (Ga,Mn)As an ideal model system for spintronics research.
Phenomena and device concepts for spintronics {#spintronics}
=============================================
Non-relativistic versus relativistic based spintronics concepts {#Mott-Dirac}
----------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the spintronic devices discussed in Section \[spintronics\] can be associated with one of two basic physical principles. The first one stems from Mott’s two-spin-channel picture of transport in ferromagnets with exchange-split bands [@Mott:1936_a] and we will label it a Mott spintronics principle. Phenomena which follow from the Mott picture can be typically understood using the non-relativistic band structure with momentum-independent spin quantization axis. The second paradigm is due to the quantum-relativistic spin-orbit coupling [@Strange:1998_a] and we will label it a Dirac principle. Spintronics effects based on the Dirac principle stem from a relativistic band structure comprising states with momentum dependent spin expectation values. Mott devices require that spins are transported between at least two non-collinear parts of a non-uniform magnetic structure with the magnetization in one part serving as a reference to the other one. Dirac devices, on the other hand, can rely on a single uniform magnetic component and the reference for detecting or manipulating spins by charge carriers is provided internally by the spin-orbit coupling.
![(Color online) Schematic comparison of ohmic Mott (GMR) and Dirac (AMR) devices and tunneling Mott (TMR) and Dirac (TAMR) devices. At the bottom of the figure we show a Dirac device based on the chemical potential anisotropy (e.g. CB-AMR) which has no immediate counterpart in Mott spintronics. In GMR, the thick short arrows show the magnetization orientations in two metallic ferromagnets separated by a non-magnetic metallic (yellow) spacer. The straight long arrow illustrates a highly conductive spin channel in the parallel magnetization configuration. In the antiparallel configuration, non of the spin channels is highly conductive in both ferromagnets. Broken lines illustrate stronger scattering. In AMR, the majority and minority bands cannot be assigned to the spin-up and spin-down channels because spin-orbit coupling mixes the up and down spins. The figure illustrates that due to spin-orbit coupling the scattering strength, and therefore conduction, depends on the orientation of magnetization with respect to current direction or crystal axes. Middle panels with insulating (grey) barriers illustrate the more direct relation between magnetoresistance and spin-up and spin-down bands in the tunneling device (TMR), as compared to the ohmic GMR. Similarly, the relation between magnetoresistance and spin-orbit coupled bands is more direct in case of the TAMR as compared to AMR. In GMR and TMR, at least two separate magnetic components have to be connected by spin current. AMR and TAMR, on the other hand, require only one magnet which does not have to be connected to another reference magnet by spin current. Chemical potential AMR illustrated in the bottom panel is a Dirac spintronic device which can operate with no spin current within the magnetic component. The electrical current depicted by yellow arrows is moved from the magnetic component to a capacitively coupled conventional charge channel. The charge current is still sensitive to the orientation of the magnetization in the magnetic gate due to the spin-orbit coupling induced shifts of the internal chemical potential in the magnet. []{data-label="mott-dirac"}](fig13){width=".85\columnwidth"}
The archetype ohmic Mott device, schematically illustrated in Fig. \[mott-dirac\], is based on the giant-magnetoresistance (GMR) of a ferromagnet/normal-metal/ferromagnet multilayer in which magnetizations in the ferromagnets are switched between parallel and anti-parallel configurations [@Baibich:1988_a; @Binasch:1989_a]. The archetype ohmic Dirac device (see Fig. \[mott-dirac\]), which is discussed below in Section \[amr\], is based on the relativistic AMR of a uniform magnetic conductor in which magnetization is rotated with respect to the current direction or crystal axes [@Thomson:1857_a; @McGuire:1975_a]. In early 1990’s the AMR and subsequently the GMR sensors were introduced in hard disk drive read-heads launching the field of applied spintronics [@Chappert:2007_a]. In these ohmic devices, the exchange-split and, in case of the AMR also spin-orbit coupled, bands enter the physics of spin transport in a complex way via electron scattering which is often difficult to control and accurately model.
A more direct connection between spin dependent transport and band structure is realized in tunneling devices. Here the TMR stack with two ferromagnetic electrodes [@Julliere:1975_a; @Moodera:1995_a; @Myiazaki:1995_a] operates on the Mott principle and the TAMR stack with one magnetic electrode [@Gould:2004_a; @Brey:2004_a; @Giraud:2005_a; @Sankowski:2006_a; @Ciorga:2007_a; @Moser:2006_a; @Gao:2007_a; @Park:2008_a; @Park:2010_a], discussed below in Section \[tamr\], is the corresponding Dirac spintronics device (see Fig. \[mott-dirac\]). The more direct connection between transport and electronic structure in tunneling devices implies that tunneling spintronics effects can be significantly larger than their ohmic counterparts. The large TMR signals are used, e.g., to represent logical 0 and 1 in MRAMs [@Chappert:2007_a].
CB-AMR devices discussed in Section \[cbamr\] represent an ultimate simplification in the relation between the magneto-transport and the relativistic exchange-split band structure. Transport is governed here by a single electronic structure parameter which is the magnetization-direction dependent chemical potential, resulting in a huge magnetoresistance response of the device [@Wunderlich:2006_a]. A CB-AMR device with the spin-orbit coupled magnet forming a gate-electrode of the SET [@Ciccarelli:2012_a] illustrates that the Dirac spintronics principle not only works without a spin-current connecting two separate magnetic electrodes but also with the spin-orbit-coupled magnetic component completely removed from the transport channel (see Fig. \[mott-dirac\]). Such a spintronic device operating without spin-current cannot be realized within the more commonly considered Mott spintronics principle which may explains why it falls beyond the Wikipedia’s definition of spintronics as “a portmanteau meaning spin transport electronics” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spintronics).
The Mott GMR and TMR effects have their spin-caloritronic counterparts in the giant magneto-thermopower (GMT) [@Sakurai:1991_a] and TMT [@Walter:2011_a; @Liebing:2011_a]. A similar correspondence is between the Dirac electrical transport AMR and TAMR effects and the spin-caloritronic AMT [@Pu:2006_a; @Wisniewski:2007_a; @Tang:2011_a; @Mitdank:2012_a; @Anwar:2012_a] and TAMT [@Naydenova:2011_a], discussed in Section \[TAMT\].
The distinction between Mott and Dirac spintronics can be analogously applied to the inverse magneto-transport effects (spin-torques), discussed below in Sections \[STT\] and \[SOT\]. The STT [@Slonczewski:1996_a; @Berger:1996_a; @Zhang:2004_c; @Ralph:2007_a] applied to switch the magnetization of a free layer by a vertical current driven through the TMR stack is a Mott spin-torque effect. The in-plane current induced SOT in a uniform magnet with a broken space-inversion symmetry [@Bernevig:2005_c; @Manchon:2008_b; @Chernyshov:2009_a; @Miron:2010_a] is the Dirac spin-torque counterpart. Similarly the optical STT and SOT [@Rossier:2003_a; @Nunez:2004_b; @Nemec:2012_a; @Tesarova:2012_b] reviewed in Section \[LIT\] can be viewed as Mott and Dirac phenomena arising from the interaction of spin with light.
Observations of the ohmic AMR in an antiferromagnetic metal FeRh [@Marti:2014_a] and antiferromagnetic semiconductor Sr$_2$IrO$_4$ [@Marti:2013_a], and of the TAMR in tunnel junctions with a magnetic electrode made of a metal antiferromagnet IrMn [@Park:2010_a; @Wang:2012_a] illustrate that the Dirac approach to spintronics can be equally applicable to spin-orbit coupled ferromagnets and antiferromagnets. The anisotropic magnetoresistance phenomena make in principle no difference between the parallel-aligned moments in ferromagnets and antiparallel-aligned moments in antiferromagnets because they are an even function of the microscopic magnetic moments. In non-magnetic conductors the SHE is an example of a spintronic phenomenon converting a normal electrical current into a spin-current or [*vice versa*]{} [@Kato:2004_d; @Wunderlich:2004_a; @Valenzuela:2006_a; @Jungwirth:2012_a]. It has a similar microscopic physics origin to the AHE [@Hall:1881_a; @Nagaosa:2010_a] in uniform spin-orbit coupled ferromagnets and the SHE can be therefore regarded as an example of the Dirac spintronic phenomenon in non-magnetic systems. The relevance of the research in (Ga,Mn)As to these Dirac spintronic phenomena observed in antiferromagnetic and non-magnetic conductors will be also discussed in the following sections.
Interaction of spin with electrical current {#AHE-AMR}
-------------------------------------------
### Anomalous and spin Hall effects {#AHE-SHE}
Advanced computational techniques and experiments in new unconventional ferromagnets have recently led to a significant progress in coping with the subtle nature of the magnetoresistance effects based on relativistic spin-orbit coupling. There are two distinct relativistic MR coefficients in uniformly magnetized ohmic devices, the AHE [@Hall:1881_a] and the AMR [@Thomson:1857_a]. The AHE is the antisymmetric transverse MR coefficient obeying $\rho_{xy}({\bf M})=-\rho_{xy}({\bf -M})$, where the magnetization vector ${\bf M}$ is pointing perpendicular to the plane of the Hall bar sample. The AMR, discussed in the following section, is the symmetric MR coefficient with the longitudinal and transverse resistivities obeying, $\rho_{xx}({\bf
M})=\rho_{xx}({\bf -M})$ and $\rho_{xy}({\bf M})=\rho_{xy}({\bf -M})$, where ${\bf M}$ has an arbitrary orientation. Note, that in this review we use the term transverse AMR rather than the alternative term planar Hall effect [@Tang:2003_a] to clearly distinguish this symmetric off-diagonal magnetoresistance coefficient which is even in ${\bf M}$ from the above antisymmetric off-diagonal Hall coefficient which is odd in ${\bf M}$.
(Ga,Mn)As has become one of the favorable test-bed systems for the investigation of the AHE. Here the unique position of (Ga,Mn)As ferromagnets stems from their tunability and the relatively simple, yet strongly spin-orbit coupled and exchange split carrier bands. The principles of the microscopic description of the AHE in the metallic (Ga,Mn)As materials, based on the scattering independent intrinsic mechanism [@Luttinger:1958_a; @Onoda:2002_a; @Jungwirth:2002_a], have been successfully applied to explain the effect in other itinerant ferromagnets [@Yao:2004_a; @Fang:2003_a; @Lee:2004_a; @Dugaev:2005_a; @Kotzler:2005_a; @Sinitsyn:2005_a; @Haldane:2004_a], including conventional transition metals such as iron and cobalt, a pattern that has since then been repeated for other relativistic magneto-transport effects. The advances in the understanding of the AHE are discussed in several reviews [@Chien:1980_a; @Dietl:2003_c; @Sinova:2004_c; @Jungwirth:2006_a; @Nagaosa:2010_a]. Here we recall the link between the AHE and SHE.
Since the 1881 discovery of the AHE by Hall in Ni and Co the phenomenon has been extensively employed in polarimetry measurements of electron spins in ferromagnets. One line of physical descriptions, illustrated in Fig. \[intrinsic\_ahe\_she\], associates the AHE with the same physical mechanism as the electron spin-dependent scattering from heavy nuclei which is used in polarimetry of high-energy electron beams in accelerators. This relativistic spin-dependent skew-scattering mechanism is referred to as Mott scattering [@Mott:1929_a]. (To avoid confusion we point out that Mott scattering [@Mott:1929_a] is unrelated to the other work of Mott on the non-relativistic two-channel description of transport in ferromagnets [@Mott:1936_a] mentioned earlier; the AHE and SHE physics discussed here is relativistic in nature and falls within the family of Dirac spintronics phenomena, in the terminology used in the previous section.) The applicability of the Mott skew scattering mechanism to electrons scattering from heavy nuclei in the vacuum environment of accelerators as well as to electrons scattering off impurities in the solid-state environment of ferromagnets implies the presence of the same mechanism in non-magnetic conductors. This was recognized in 1971 by Dyakonov and Perel in their theoretical prediction of the skew-scattering SHE [@Dyakonov:1971_a].
A complementary line of research, also illustrated in Fig. \[intrinsic\_ahe\_she\] and prompted by AHE experiments in the highly-doped metallic (Ga,Mn)As epilayers [@Jungwirth:2002_a; @Jungwirth:2003_b; @Chun:2006_a; @Glunk:2009_b], ascribes the AHE to a scattering-independent based mechanism in which the anomalous transverse component of the spin-dependent velocity stems directly from the spin-orbit coupled band structure in a clean crystal. In analogy with the skew-scattering AHE and SHE, a link was proposed between the scattering-independent mechanism of the AHE and a corresponding intrinsic SHE [@Murakami:2003_a; @Sinova:2004_a], followed by experimental discoveries of the SHE [@Kato:2004_d; @Wunderlich:2004_a]. We will come back to the physical description of these phenomena in Section \[SOT\] where the link is extended from the AHE and SHE to the SOT.
![(Color online) Schematic illustrations of the skew (Mott) scattering AHE and SHE (top panels) and the intrinsic AHE and SHE due to the anomalous transverse component of the spin-dependent velocity originating from the spin-orbit coupled band structure in a clean crystal (bottom panels). In the AHE, an electrical current driven through a ferromagnetic conductor $j_e^s$ is spin-polarized and the spin-dependent transverse deflection of electrons produces a transverse voltage. In the SHE, an unpolarized electrical current $j_e$ is driven through a normal conductor and the spin-dependent transverse deflection of electrons produces a transverse spin-current. Opposite spins accumulate at opposite edges but unlike the AHE the transverse voltage remains zero. []{data-label="intrinsic_ahe_she"}](fig14){width="1\columnwidth"}
### Anisotropic magnetoresistance {#amr}
Phenomenologically, the AMR has “non-crystalline” and “crystalline” components [@Doring:1938_a; @McGuire:1975_a]. The former corresponds to the dependence of the resistance of the ferromagnet on the angle between magnetization and the direction of the electrical current while the latter depend on the angle between magnetization and crystal axes. The non-crystalline AMR is the only component contributing to the AMR in polycrystalline samples in which the crystal axes directions average out. It is the component identified in Kelvin’s seminal AMR measurements in Ni and Fe [@Thomson:1857_a]. The crystalline AMR components can be isolated in single-crystal materials patterned into a Corbino-disk microdevice geometry for which the averaging over the radial current lines eliminates all effects originating from a specific direction of the current. This was demonstrated in experiments in (Ga,Mn)As [@Rushforth:2007_a]. The measurements took advantage of the near perfect single-crystal epilayers of (Ga,Mn)As and, simultaneously, of the low carrier density and mobility (compared with single crystal metals) resulting in large source-drain resistances compared with the contact resistances even in the short current-line Corbino geometry. Moreover, the strong spin-orbit coupling in the (Ga,Mn)As electronic structure yields sizable and tuneable crystalline AMR components which in the lower conductive (Ga,Mn)As materials can even dominate over the non-crystalline AMR component [@Rushforth:2007_a]. In contrast, crystalline AMR components in common transition metal ferromagnets have been extracted indirectly from fitting the total AMR angular dependencies [@vanGorkom:2001_a].
Apart from the distinct phenomenologies there is also a qualitative difference between the microscopic origins of the non-crystalline and crystalline AMR components. Since the former component depends only on the angle between magnetization and current, the effects of the rotating magnetization on the equilibrium electronic structure of the ferromagnet do not contribute to the non-crystalline AMR. Instead, in the leading order, the non-crystalline AMR reflects the difference between transport scattering matrix elements of electrons with momentum parallel to the current for the current parallel or perpendicular to [**M**]{}.
Unlike the non-crystalline AMR, the crystalline AMR originates from the changes in the equilibrium relativistic electronic structure induced by the rotating magnetization with respect to crystal axes. The picture applies not only to the ohmic crystalline AMR but also to the TAMR and CB-AMR discovered in (Ga,Mn)As [@Gould:2004_a; @Wunderlich:2006_a]. In the CB-AMR case, the anisotropy of the electronic structure with respect to the magnetization angle, or more specifically the anisotropy of the DOS and the corresponding position of the chemical potential, provides a direct quantitative description of the measured transport effect [@Wunderlich:2006_a; @Ciccarelli:2012_a]. In the case of the TAMR or the crystalline ohmic AMR, the quantitative relativistic transport theory requires to combine the calculated DOS anisotropy with the tunneling or scattering matrix elements, respectively [@Brey:2004_b; @Giddings:2004_a; @Elsen:2007_a; @Jungwirth:2003_b]. Due to the anisotropy of the electronic structure with respect to the magnetization angle the matrix elements may also change when magnetization is rotated.
A physically appealing picture has been used to explain the positive sign of the non-crystalline AMR (defined as the relative difference between resistances for current parallel and perpendicular to [**M**]{}) observed in most transition metal ferromagnets [@McGuire:1975_a; @Smit:1951_a]. The interpretation is based on the model of the spin-up and spin-down two-channel conductance corrected for perturbative spin-orbit coupling effects. In the model most of the current is carried by the light-mass $s$-electrons which experience no spin-orbit coupling and a negligible exchange splitting but can scatter to the heavy-mass $d$-states. AMR is then explained by considering the spin-orbit potential which mixes the exchange-split spin-up and spin-down $d$-states in a way which leads to an anisotropic scattering rate of the current carrying $s$-states [@McGuire:1975_a; @Smit:1951_a]. Controversial interpretations, however, have appeared in the literature based on this model [@Smit:1951_a; @Potter:1974_a] and no clear connection has been established between the intuitive picture of the AMR the model provides and the numerical [*ab initio*]{} transport theories [@Banhart:1995_a; @Ebert:2000_a; @Khmelevskyi:2003_a].
![Measured longitudinal and transverse in-plane AMR curves at external fields smaller than the saturation field (0.1 and 0.25 T) and larger than the saturation field (0.7 T). The solid lines represent fits to the experimental data. From [@Limmer:2006_a]. []{data-label="limmer"}](fig15){width=".8\columnwidth"}
Among the remarkable AMR features of (Ga,Mn)As are the opposite sign of the non-crystalline component, as compared to most metal ferromagnets, and the sizable crystalline terms reflecting the rich magnetocrystalline anisotropies of (Ga,Mn)As [@Baxter:2002_a; @Jungwirth:2003_b; @Tang:2003_a; @Matsukura:2004_a; @Goennenwein:2004_a; @Wang:2005_c; @Limmer:2006_a; @Rushforth:2007_a]. In Fig. \[limmer\] we show an example of AMR data from a systematic experimental and phenomenological study of the AMR coefficients in (Ga,Mn)As films grown on (001)- and (113)A-oriented GaAs substrates at non-saturating and saturating in-plane and out-of-plane magnetic fields [@Limmer:2006_a]. In the following paragraphs we describe the AMR phenomenology in (Ga,Mn)As in more detail and explain the basic microscopic physics origin of the non-crystalline AMR in (Ga,Mn)As. For simplicity we focus on the AMR in saturating magnetic fields, for ${\bf M}$ oriented in the plane of the device, and for (Ga,Mn)As films grown on the (001)-GaAs substrate.
The phenomenological decomposition of the AMR of (Ga,Mn)As into various terms allowed by symmetry is obtained by extending the standard phenomenology [@Doring:1938_a] to systems with the cubic and in-plane uniaxial anisotropy. The corresponding AMR is then phenomenologically described as [@Rushforth:2007_a; @Ranieri:2008_a], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Delta\rho_{xx}}{\rho_{av}}
&=& C_I\cos2\phi + C_U\cos2\psi + C_C\cos4\psi \nonumber \\
&+& C_{I,C}\cos(4\psi-2\phi)\;,
\label{rho_xx}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta\rho_{xx}=\rho_{xx}-\rho_{av}$, $\rho_{av}$ is the $\rho_{xx}$ averaged over 360$^{o}$ in the plane of the film, $\phi$ is the angle between the magnetization unit vector ${\bf \hat{M}}$ and the current ${\bf I}$, and $\psi$ the angle between ${\bf \hat{M}}$ and the \[110\] crystal direction. The four contributions are the non-crystalline term, the lowest order uniaxial and cubic crystalline terms, and a crossed non-crystalline/crystalline term. The purely crystalline terms are excluded by symmetry for the transverse AMR and one obtains [@Rushforth:2007_a; @Ranieri:2008_a], $$\frac{\Delta\rho_{xy}}{\rho_{av}}
=C_I\sin2\phi - C_{I,C}\sin(4\psi-2\phi)\; .
\label{rho_xy}$$
Microscopic numerical simulations [@Jungwirth:2002_c; @Jungwirth:2003_b; @Rushforth:2007_a; @Vyborny:2009_a] consistently describe the sign and magnitudes of the non-crystalline AMR in (Ga,Mn)As materials with metallic conductivities and capture the presence of the more subtle crystalline terms [@Jungwirth:2002_c; @Matsukura:2004_a]. Based on the numerical simulations the origin and sign of the non-crystalline AMR in (Ga,Mn)As was qualitatively explained using a simplified model in which carriers, represented by the heavy-hole Fermi surface in the spherical spin-texture approximation (see Fig. \[amr\_theory\]), scatter off random Mn impurity potential approximated by $\propto(r\mathds{1}+ {\bf \hat{M}}\cdot {\bf s})$. Here ${\bf s}={\bf j}/3$ is the carrier spin-operator in the spherical approximation with ${\bf j}$ representing the total angular momentum operator of heavy holes ($j=3/2$), and $r$ effectively models the ratio of non-magnetic (Coulomb and central cell) and magnetic ($p-d$ kinetic exchange) parts of the Mn impurity potential [@Rushforth:2007_a; @Trushin:2009_a; @Vyborny:2009_a].
The qualitative AMR considerations focus on scattering matrix elements of state with momentum along the current ${\bf I}$ and, in particular, on the strongest contribution to the transport life-time which comes from back-scattering (see Fig. \[amr\_theory\]) [@Rushforth:2007_a; @Trushin:2009_a; @Vyborny:2009_a]. When neglecting the non-magnetic part of the impurity potential ($r=0$), non-zero back-scattering matrix elements occur only for ${\bf M}\parallel{\bf I}$ and in the notation of Fig. \[amr\_theory\] they correspond to the elements $\langle\rightarrow|j_x|\rightarrow\rangle$ and $\langle\leftarrow|j_x|\leftarrow\rangle$. For ${\bf M}\perp{\bf I}$, all back-scattering elements $\langle\rightarrow|j_y|\rightarrow\rangle=0$, $\langle\leftarrow|j_y|\rightarrow\rangle=0$, etc., i.e., the back-scattering is completely suppressed. The picture changes when the non-magnetic part of the Mn-impurity potential is included, as illustrated in Fig. \[amr\_theory\] for $r=1/2$. For ${\bf M}\parallel{\bf I}$, the coherent scattering of the non-magnetic and magnetic parts interferes constructively or destructively leaving only one of the back-scattering elements non-zero (see Fig. \[amr\_theory\]). For ${\bf M}\perp{\bf I}$, the non-magnetic and magnetic parts do not interfere and now the non-magnetic part of the scattering potential results in two non-zero back-scattering elements (see Fig. \[amr\_theory\]). As a result the resistivity $\rho_{xx}^{\parallel}$ for ${\bf M}\parallel{\bf I}$ is larger than $\rho_{xx}^{\perp}$ for ${\bf M}\perp{\bf I}$ when $r=0$ and $\rho_{xx}^{\parallel}$ is smaller than $\rho_{xx}^{\perp}$ when $r=1/2$. The presence of the non-magnetic part of the impurity potential can, therefore, flip the sign of the AMR from the positive which is seen in common transition-metal ferromagnets to the negative which is typical of (Ga,Mn)As. The negative sign is obtained in the above simplified model for $r>1/\sqrt{20}$ which is safely satisfied in (Ga,Mn)As [@Rushforth:2007_a; @Trushin:2009_a; @Vyborny:2009_a].
![(Color online) Left panel: Cross-section (parallel to the $k_x,k_y$ plane) of the 3D radial spin texture belonging to the two heavy-hole bands of (Ga,Mn)As in a spherical approximation. Right top panel: Non-zero back-scattering elements when neglecting the non-magnetic part of the Mn-impurity potential. The corresponding AMR has a positive sign. The purely magnetic Mn-impurity is illustrated by a red dot with an arrow. Right bottom panel: Non-zero back-scattering elements for the same strengths of the non-magnetic and magnetic parts of the Mn-impurity potential. The corresponding AMR has a negative sign. The combined ionized-acceptor and magnetic nature of the Mn-impurity is illustrated by a red dot with a negative sign and an arrow. (Electrical current ${\bf I}\parallel x$.) From [@Trushin:2009_a].[]{data-label="amr_theory"}](fig16){width=".9\columnwidth"}
### Tunneling anisotropic magnetoresistance {#tamr}
The electrical response to changes in the magnetic state is strongly enhanced in layered structures consisting of alternating ferromagnetic and non-magnetic materials. The GMR and TMR effects which are widely exploited in metal spintronics technologies reflect the large difference between resistivities in configurations with parallel and antiparallel polarizations of ferromagnetic layers in magnetic multilayers, or trilayers like spin-valves and magnetic tunnel junctions [@Chappert:2007_a; @Gregg:2002_a]. The effect relies on transporting spin information between the layers. In (Ga,Mn)As, functional magnetic tunnel junction devices can be built, as demonstrated by the measured large TMR effects [@Tanaka:2001_a; @Chiba:2004_a; @Chiba:2004_b; @Brey:2004_b; @Saito:2005_a; @Mattana:2005_a; @Sankowski:2006_a; @Saffarzadeh:2006_a; @Ohya:2006_a; @Elsen:2007_a].
Here we focus on the physics of the TAMR which was discovered in (Ga,Mn)As based tunnel devices [@Gould:2004_a; @Brey:2004_b; @Ruester:2004_a; @Saito:2005_a; @Giraud:2005_a; @Sankowski:2006_a; @Elsen:2007_a; @Ciorga:2007_a]. TAMR, like AMR, arises from spin-orbit coupling and reflects the dependence of the tunneling density of states of the ferromagnetic layer on the orientation of the magnetization. The effect does not rely on spin-coherence in the tunneling process and requires only one ferromagnetic contact.
![(Color online) (a) Device schematic showing the contact geometry and the crystallographic directions. (b) Hysteretic magnetoresistance curves acquired at 4.2 K with 1 mV bias by sweeping the magnetic field along the 0$^\circ$, 50$^\circ$, and 55$^\circ$ directions. Spin-valve-like features of varying widths and signs are clearly visible, delimited by two switching events labeled $H_{c1}$ and $H_{c2}$. The magnetoresistance is independent of the bias direction or amplitudes up to 1 meV. (c) TAMR along 30$^\circ$ for temperatures from 1.6 to 20 K, showing a change of sign of the signal. The curves are vertically offset for clarity. From [@Gould:2004_a].[]{data-label="tamr1"}](fig17){width="1\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[tamr1\] we show the TAMR signal which was measured in a (Ga,Mn)As/AlO$_x$/Au vertical tunnel junction [@Gould:2004_a; @Ruster:2005_a]. For the in-plane magnetic field applied at an angle 50$^{\circ}$ off the \[100\]-axis the magnetoresistance is reminiscent of the conventional spin-valve signal with hysteretic high resistance states at low fields and low resistance states at saturation. Unlike the TMR or GMR, however, the sign changes when the field is applied along the \[100\]-axis. Complementary SQUID magnetization measurements confirmed that for the sample measured in Fig. \[tamr1\], the high resistance state corresponds to magnetization in the (Ga,Mn)As contact aligned along the \[100\]-direction and the low resistance state along the \[010\]-direction, and that this TAMR effect reflects the underlying magnetocrystalline anisotropy between the ${\bf M}\parallel$\[100\] and ${\bf M}\parallel$\[010\] magnetic states of the specific (Ga,Mn)As material used in the study. Since the field is rotated in the plane perpendicular to the current, the Lorentz force effects on the tunnel transport can be ruled out. Microscopic calculations consistently showed that the spin-orbit coupling induced density-of-states anisotropies with respect to the magnetization orientation can produce TAMR effects in (Ga,Mn)As of the order $\sim 1$% to $\sim 10$% [@Gould:2004_a; @Ruster:2005_a].
All-semiconductor TAMR devices with a single ferromagnetic electrode were realized in $p$-(Ga,Mn)As/$n$-GaAs Zener-Esaki diodes [@Giraud:2005_a; @Ciorga:2007_a]. For magnetization rotations in the (Ga,Mn)As plane [@Ciorga:2007_a] comparable TAMR ratios were detected as in the (Ga,Mn)As/AlO$_x$/Au tunnel junction. About an order of magnitude larger TAMR (40%) was observed when magnetization was rotated out of the (Ga,Mn)As plane towards the current direction [@Giraud:2005_a].
Several detailed numerical studies have been performed based on microscopic tight-binding or kinetic-exchange models of the (Ga,Mn)As electronic structure and the Landauer-Büttiker quantum transport theory [@Brey:2004_b; @Giddings:2004_a; @Sankowski:2006_a; @Elsen:2007_a]. Besides the Zener-Esaki diode geometry [@Sankowski:2006_a] the simulations consider magnetic tunnel junctions with two ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As contacts and focus on comparison between the TMR and TAMR signals in structures with different barrier materials and (Ga,Mn)As parameters [@Brey:2004_b; @Sankowski:2006_a; @Elsen:2007_a]. Fig. \[tamr2\] shows the theoretical dependence of the TMR ratio for parallel and antiparallel configurations of the two (Ga,Mn)As contacts and ${\bf M}$ along the \[100\]-direction and the TAMR ratio for parallel magnetizations in the (Ga,Mn)As films and ${\bf M}$ along the \[100\]-direction and the \[001\]-direction (current direction) in a tunneling device with an [InGaAs]{} barrier [@Elsen:2007_a]. The corresponding experimental measurements are shown in Fig. \[tamr3\]. There is an overall agreement between the theory and experiment, seen also in tunnel junctions with other barrier materials, showing that the TMR is typically 10$\times$ larger than the TAMR. Both the theory and experiment also find that the TMR signal is always positive, i.e., the magnetoresistance increases as the field is swept from saturation to the switching field. The TAMR can have both signs depending on the field angle but also depending on the parameters of the (Ga,Mn)As film such as the hole concentration and polarization, on the barrier characteristics, or on the temperature [@Gould:2004_a; @Elsen:2007_a].
![(Color online) (a) TMR measurements as a function of the magnetic field at 1 mV and 3 K for a 128 $\mu$m$^2$ junction. (b) TMR measurements as a function of Resistance.Area product at 3 K for 4 (un)annealed junctions. (c) TMR at 1 mV as a function of the temperature before and after annealing. (d) TAMR measurements as a function of the magnetic field at 1 mV and 3 K. From [@Elsen:2007_a].[]{data-label="tamr3"}](fig19){width="1\columnwidth"}
At very low temperatures and bias voltages huge TAMR signals were observed [@Ruster:2005_a] in a (Ga,Mn)As/GaAs/(Ga,Mn)As tunnel junction which are not described by the one-body theories of anisotropic tunneling transmission coefficients. The observation was interpreted as a consequence of electron-electron correlation effects near the metal-insulator transition [@Pappert:2006_a]. Large anisotropic magnetoresistance effects were also measured in lateral nano-constriction devices fabricated in ultra-thin (Ga,Mn)As materials [@Giddings:2004_a; @Ruester:2003_a; @Schlapps:2006_a]. The comparison of the anisotropic magnetoresistance signals in the unstructured part of the device and in the nano-constriction showed a significant enhancement of the signal in the constriction [@Giddings:2004_a]. Subsequent studies of these nano-constrictions with an additional side-gate patterned along the constriction, discussed in detail in the following section [@Wunderlich:2006_a; @Wunderlich:2007_a; @Wunderlich:2007_b; @Schlapps:2009_a], indicated that single-electron charging effects were responsible for the observed large anisotropic magnetoresistance signals.
Before moving on to the (Ga,Mn)As-based field effect transistors we conclude this section with a remark on the impact of the TAMR discovery in (Ga,Mn)As on spintronics research in other magnetic materials. [*Ab initio*]{} relativistic calculations of the anisotropies in the density of states predicted sizable TAMR effects in transition metal ferromagnets [@Shick:2006_a]. Landauer-Büttiker transport theory calculations for a Fe/vacuum/Cu structure pointed out that apart from the density-of-states anisotropies in the ferromagnetic metal itself, the TAMR in the tunnel devices can arise from spin-orbit coupling induced anisotropies of resonant surface or interface states [@Chantis:2006_a]. Experimentally, several reports of metal TAMR devices have already appeared in the literature including Fe, Ni, and Co lateral break-junctions [@Bolotin:2006_a; @Viret:2006_a] which showed comparable ($\sim 10$%) low-temperature TMR and TAMR signals, Fe/GaAs/Au and Fe/n-GaAs vertical tunnel junctions [@Moser:2006_a; @Uemura:2009_a] with a $\sim$1% TAMR at low temperatures reflecting the spin-orbit fields and symmetries at the metal/semiconductor interface, a Co/Al$_2$O$_3$/NiFe magnetic tunnel junction with a 15% TAMR at room temperature [@Grigorenko:2006_a], reports of strongly bias dependent TAMRs in devices with CoFe [@Gao:2007_a] and CoPt electrodes [@Park:2008_a], and larger than 100% TAMRs in tunneling devices with an antiferromagnetic IrMn electrode [@Park:2010_a; @Wang:2012_a].
### Transistor and chemical potential anisotropy devices {#cbamr}
![(Color online) Top panel: Schematics of a capacitor with an ultrathin (3.5 nm) (Ga,Mn)As layer. Bottom panel: Experimental temperature dependence of the spontaneous moment for selected values of gate voltage. Temperatures at which moment disappears define the Curie temperature $T_c$, as marked by arrows. From [@Sawicki:2009_a]. []{data-label="fet"}](fig20){width=".8\columnwidth"}
As mentioned in the Introduction, (In,Mn)As, (Ga,Mn)As, and (Ga,Mn)(As,P) based field effect transistors were fabricated to demonstrate the electric field control of ferromagnetism. It was shown that changes in the carrier density and distribution in thin ferromagnetic semiconductor films due to an applied gate voltage can change the Curie temperature, as illustrated in Fig. \[fet\], and thus reversibly induce the ferromagnetic/paramagnetic transition [@Ohno:2000_a; @Chiba:2006_b; @Stolichnov:2008_a; @Riester:2009_a; @Sawicki:2009_a]. Another remarkable effect observed in these transistors is the electric field control of the magnetization orientation [@Chiba:2003_a; @Chiba:2006_b; @Wunderlich:2007_a; @Chiba:2008_a; @Olejnik:2008_a; @Owen:2008_a; @Stolichnov:2008_a; @Niazi:2013_a; @Chiba:2013_a]. This functionality is based on the dependence of the magnetic anisotropies on the gate voltage, again through the modified charge density profile in the ferromagnetic semiconductor thin film.
For a spintronic transistor, the magnetoresistance is another key characteristic which should be controllable by the gate electric field. Large and voltage-dependent AMR effects were reported in ohmic (Ga,Mn)(As,P) channels with an integrated polymer ferroelectric gate [@Mikheev:2012_a] and CB-AMR effects were demonstrated in (Ga,Mn)As SETs [@Wunderlich:2006_a; @Wunderlich:2007_a; @Wunderlich:2007_b; @Schlapps:2009_a; @Ciccarelli:2012_a], as illustrated in Fig. \[GaMnAs\_SET\_1\].
![(Color online) (a) Electron micrograph of the central part of a (Ga,Mn)As SET device. (b) Polar plot of the source-drain resistance $R_{sd}$ at 1.6 K showing the strong anisotropy as a function of the magnetization direction. From [@Schlapps:2009_a].[]{data-label="GaMnAs_SET_1"}](fig21){width="1\columnwidth"}
In the conventional SET, the transfer of an electron from a source lead to a drain lead via a small, weakly-coupled island is blocked due to the charging energy of $e^2/2C_{\Sigma}$, where $C_{\Sigma}$ is the total capacitance of the island [@Likharev:1999_a]. Applying a voltage $V_G$ between the source lead and a gate electrode changes the electrostatic energy function of the charge $Q$ on the island to $Q^2/2C_{\Sigma} + QC_GV_G/C_{\Sigma}$ which has a minimum at $Q_0=-C_GV_G$. By tuning the continuous external variable $Q_0$ to $(n+1/2)e$, the energy associated with increasing the charge $Q$ on the island from $ne$ to $(n+1)e$ vanishes and electrical current can flow between the leads. Changing the gate voltage then leads to CB oscillations in the source-drain current where each period corresponds to increasing or decreasing the charge state of the island by one electron. The energy can be written as a sum of the internal, electrostatic charging energy term and the term associated with, in general, different chemical potentials of the lead and of the island: $$U=\int_0^Q dQ^{\prime} \Delta V_D(Q^{\prime}) + Q\Delta\mu/e \; ,$$ where $\Delta V_D(Q)=(Q+C_GV_G)/C_{\Sigma}$. The Gibbs energy $U$ is minimized at $Q_0=-C_G(V_G+V_M)$.
The ferromagnetic SETs with (Ga,Mn)As in the transport channel of the transistor [@Wunderlich:2006_a; @Schlapps:2009_a] were fabricated by trench-isolating a side-gated narrow (10’s nm) channel in a thin-film (Ga,Mn)As epilayer. The narrow channel technique is a simple approach to realize a SET and was used previously to produce non-magnetic thin film Si and GaAs-based SETs in which disorder potential fluctuations create small islands in the channel without the need for a lithographically defined island [@Kastner:1992_a; @Tsukagoshi:1998_a]. The non-uniform carrier concentration produces differences between chemical potentials $\Delta\mu$ of the lead and of the island in the constriction. There are two mechanisms through which $\Delta\mu$ depends on the magnetic field. One is caused by the direct Zeeman coupling of the external magnetic field and leads to a CB magnetoresistance previously observed in ferromagnetic metal SETs [@Ono:1997_a].
The CB-AMR effect, discovered in the (Ga,Mn)As SETs, is attributed to the spin-orbit coupling induced anisotropy of the carrier chemical potential, i.e., to magnetization orientation dependent differences between chemical potentials of the lead and of the island in the constriction [@Wunderlich:2006_a]. For the CB-AMR effect, the magnetization orientation dependent shift of the CB oscillations is given by $V_M=C_{\Sigma}/C_G \, \Delta\mu({\bf M})/e$. Since $|C_GV_M|$ has to be of order $|e|$ to cause a marked shift in the oscillation pattern, the corresponding $|\Delta\mu({\bf M})|$ has to be similar to $e^2/C_{\Sigma}$, [*i.e.*]{}, of the order of the island single-electron charging energy. The fact that CB-AMR occurs when the anisotropy in a band structure derived parameter is comparable to an independent scale (single-electron charging energy) makes the effect distinct and potentially much larger in magnitude as compared to the AMR and TAMR. Indeed, resistance variations by more than 3 orders of magnitude were observed in the (Ga,Mn)As SETs.
The sensitivity of the magnetoresistance to the orientation of the applied magnetic field is an indication of the anisotropic magnetoresistance origin of the effect. This is confirmed by the observation of comparably large and gate-controlled magnetoresistance in a field-sweep experiment and when the saturation magnetization is rotated with respect to the crystallographic axes. The field-sweep and rotation measurements are shown in Figs. \[CBAMR\](c) and (d) and compared with analogous measurements of the ohmic AMR in the unstructured part of the (Ga,Mn)As bar, plotted in Figs. \[CBAMR\](a) and (b) [@Wunderlich:2006_a]. In the unstructured bar, higher or lower resistance states correspond to magnetization along or perpendicular to the current direction. Similar behavior is seen in the SET part of the device at, for example, $V_G=-0.4V$, but the anisotropic magnetoresistance is now hugely increased and depends strongly on the gate voltage.
![(Color online) (a) Resistance $R_{S}=V_S/I$ of the unstructured bar (see schematic diagram) vs up and down sweeps of in-plane magnetic field parallel (blue/green) and perpendicular (red /black) to the current direction. (b) $R_S$ vs the angle between the current direction and an applied in-plane magnetic field of 5 T, at which ${\bf M} \parallel {\bf B}$. (c) Channel resistance $R_C$ vs gate voltage and down sweep of the magnetic field parallel to current. (d) $R_C$ vs. gate voltage and the angle between the current direction and an applied in-plane magnetic field of 5 T. From [@Wunderlich:2006_a].[]{data-label="CBAMR"}](fig22){width="1\columnwidth"}
The huge magnetoresistance signals can be also hysteretic which shows that CB-AMR SETs can act as a non-volatile memory/transistor element. In non-magnetic SETs, the CB “on” (low-resistance) and “off” (high-resistance) states can represent logical “1” and “0” and the switching between the two states can be realized by applying a gate voltage, in analogy with a standard field-effect transistor. The CB-AMR SET can be addressed also magnetically with comparable “on” to “off” resistance ratios in the electric and magnetic modes. The functionality is illustrated in Fig. \[cbamr\_trans\] [@Wunderlich:2007_a]. The inset of Fig. \[cbamr\_trans\](a) shows two CB oscillation curves corresponding to two different magnetization states ${\bf M_0}$ and ${\bf M_1}$. As illustrated in Fig. \[cbamr\_trans\](b), ${\bf M_0}$ can be achieved by performing a small loop in the magnetic field, $B\rightarrow B_0\rightarrow0$ where $B_0$ is larger than the first switching field $B_{c1}$ and smaller than the second switching field $B_{c2}$, and ${\bf M_1}$ is achieved by performing the large field-loop, $B\rightarrow B_1\rightarrow0$ where $B_1<-B_{c2}$. The main plot of Fig. \[cbamr\_trans\](a) shows that the high resistance 0 state can be set by either the combinations $({\bf M_1},V_{G0})$ or $({\bf M_0},V_{G1})$ and the low resistance 1 state by $({\bf M_1},V_{G1})$ or $({\bf M_0},V_{G0})$. One can therefore switch between states 0 and 1 either by changing $V_G$ in a given magnetic state (the electric mode) or by changing the magnetic state at fixed $V_G$ (the magnetic mode). Due to the hysteresis, the magnetic mode represents a non-volatile memory effect. The diagram in Fig. \[cbamr\_trans\](c) illustrates one of the new functionality concepts the device suggests in which low-power electrical manipulation and permanent storage of information are realized in one physical nanoscale element. Fig. \[cbamr\_trans\](d) highlights the possibility to invert the transistor characteristic; for example, the system is in the low-resistance “1” state at $V_{G1}$ and in the high-resistance “0” state at $V_{G0}$ (reminiscent of an n-type field effect transistor) for the magnetization ${\bf M_1}$ while the characteristic is inverted (reminiscent of a p-type field effect transistor) by changing magnetization to ${\bf M_0}$.
![(Color online) (a) Two opposite transistor characteristics (blue and green) in a gate-voltage range V ($V_{G0}$) to 1.04 V ($V_{G1}$) for two different magnetization orientations ${\bf M_0}$ and ${\bf M_1}$; corresponding Coulomb blockade oscillations in a larger range of $V_G = 0.6$ to 1.15 V are shown in the inset. Switching between low-resistance (“1”) and high-resistance (“0”) states can be performed electrically or magnetically. (b) Hysteretic magnetoresistance at constant gate voltage $V_{G1}$ illustrating the non-volatile memory effect in the magnetic mode. (c) Illustration of integrated transistor (electric mode) and permanent storage (magnetic mode) functions in a single nanoscale element. (d) The transistor characteristic for ${\bf M}={\bf M_1}$ is reminiscent of an n-type field effect transistor and is inverted (reminiscent of a p-type field effect transistor) for ${\bf M}={\bf M_0}$; the inversion can also be realized in the non-volatile magnetic mode. From [@Wunderlich:2007_a].[]{data-label="cbamr_trans"}](fig23){width="1\columnwidth"}
Chemical potential shifts in the relativistic band structure of solids have rarely been discussed in the scientific literature. This reflects the conceptual difficulty in describing the chemical potential shifts by quantitative theories, the lack of direct measurements of the effect, and the lack of proposals in which the phenomenon could open unconventional paths in microelectronic device designs. Refs. [@Wunderlich:2006_a; @Shick:2010_a; @Ciccarelli:2012_a] are among the few attempts to quantify chemical potential anisotropies with respect to the spin orientation in semiconductor and metal magnets using relativistic model Hamiltonian or full-potential density-functional band structure calculations. The theories could account for chemical potential shifts due to the distortion in the dispersion of the spin-orbit coupled bands but for principle reasons omit possible shifts of the vacuum level with respect to band edges, in other words, possible shifts in band line-ups in realistic heterostructure systems.
In experiments described above and in other related measurements, the magnetic materials have been integrated in a conventional design of a magneto-electronic device, i.e. embedded in the transport channel, and the chemical potential shifts could have been inferred only indirectly from the measured data [@Ono:1997_a; @Deshmukh:2002_a; @vanderMolen:2006_a; @Wunderlich:2006_a; @Tran:2009_a; @Schlapps:2009_a; @Bernand-Mantel:2009_a]. One exception is the work discussed in more detail below, which has demonstrated direct measurements of chemical potential shifts in a spin-orbit coupled ferromagnet [@Ciccarelli:2012_a]. The corresponding spintronic device operates without spin currents, i.e, it demonstrates a functionality which goes beyond the common concepts of spintronics. The device represents an unconventional spin transistor where the charge state of the transport channel is sensitive to the spin state of its magnetic gate.
The SET from Ref. [@Ciccarelli:2012_a] has a micron-scale Al island separated by aluminum oxide tunnel junctions from Al source and drain leads (Fig. \[spin\_gating\](a)). It is fabricated on top of an epitaxially grown (Ga,Mn)As layer, which is electrically insulated from the SET by an alumina dielectric, and act as a spin-back-gate to the SET. By sweeping the externally applied potential to the SET gate ($V_g$) one obtains the conductance oscillations that characterize the CB, as shown in Fig. \[spin\_gating\](b). Due to the magnetic gate a shift is observed in these oscillations by an applied saturating magnetic field which rotates the magnetization in the (Ga,Mn)As gate. Fig. \[spin\_gating\](b) shows measurements for the in-plane ($\Phi=90^\circ$) and for the perpendicular-to-plane ($\Phi=0^\circ$) directions of magnetization. Alternatively, Fig. \[spin\_gating\](c) shows the channel conductance as a function of the magnetization angle $\Phi$ for a fixed external potential $V_g$ applied to the gate. The oscillations in $\Phi$ seen in Fig. \[spin\_gating\](c) are of comparable amplitude as the oscillations in $V_g$ in Fig. \[spin\_gating\](b).
Since the (Ga,Mn)As back-gate is attached to a charge reservoir, any change in the internal chemical potential of the gate induced by the rotating magnetization vector causes an inward, or outward, flow of charge in the gate, as illustrated in Fig. \[spin\_gating\](e). This change in back-gate charge offsets the Coulomb oscillations (Fig. \[spin\_gating\](b)) and changes the conductance of the transistor channel for a fixed external potential applied to the gate (Fig. \[spin\_gating\](c)).
In the case of the SET with the magnetic gate no capacitance scaling factors are required and the chemical potential shift may be directly read off as a shift in gate voltage. This removes a source of systematic error, present in experiments on the magneto-Coulomb effect [@Ono:1997_a; @Deshmukh:2002_a; @vanderMolen:2006_a] or chemical potential anisotropy in SETs with the ferromagnet forming part of the transport channel (lead or island) [@Wunderlich:2006_a; @Schlapps:2009_a; @Bernand-Mantel:2009_a; @Tran:2009_a], where the gate voltage shift must be scaled due to the presence of a capacitive divider.
![(Color online) (a) Schematic showing the SET channel separated by AlO$_x$ dielectric from the ferromagnetic (Ga,Mn)As back-gate. The SET comprises Al leads and island, and AlO$_x$ tunnel barriers. (b) Coulomb oscillations for the SET on Ga$_{0.97}$Mn$_{0.03}$As for two different polar angles $\Phi$ of the magnetization. (c) Magneto-Coulomb oscillations shown by the same SET by varying the angle of magnetization for two different gate voltages. (d) Magnetization vector with respect to (Ga,Mn)As crystal axes. (e) Schematic explaining the spin gating phenomenon: reorientation of the magnetization from **M$_1$** to **M$_2$** causes a change in the chemical potential of the (Ga,Mn)As back-gate (BG). This causes charge to flow onto the back-gate from the reservoir (Res.). The net effect is to alter the charge on the back-gate and therefore the SET conductance. The externally applied electrochemical potential on the gate $\mu_{ec}=qV_g$ is held constant. From [@Ciccarelli:2012_a].[]{data-label="spin_gating"}](fig24){width="1\columnwidth"}
In agreement with experiment, the theoretical chemical potential anisotropies in the studied (Ga,Mn)As epilayers with Mn doping of several per cent are of the order of 10-100 $\mu$eV [@Ciccarelli:2012_a]. So far, the spin-gating technique was employed to accurately measure the anisotropic (and also isotropic Zeeman [@Ciccarelli:2012_a]) chemical potential shifts in (Ga,Mn)As. However, the technique can be applied to catalogue these effects in other magnetic materials by the simple step of exchanging the magnetic gate electrode.
### Spin torques and spin pumping {#torques}
When spin polarized carriers are injected into a magnetic region whose moments are misaligned with the injected spin polarization of the carriers, STTs can act on the magnetic moments [@Ohno:2007_a; @Ralph:2007_a]. The phenomena belong to an important area of spintronics research focusing on the means for manipulating magnetization by electrical currents and are the basis of the emerging technologies for scalable MRAMs [@Chappert:2007_a]. Apart from STTs in non-uniform magnetic structures, whose research in (Ga,Mn)As is reviewed later in Section \[STT\], experiments in (Ga,Mn)As devices established the presence of current-induced spin torques in uniform magnetic structures originating from the internal spin-orbit coupling. These current-induced SOT phenomena are reviewed in Section \[SOT\], and in Sections \[OSTT\] and \[OSOT\] we discuss the optical counterparts of the STT and SOT which were also discovered in (Ga,Mn)As. A theory framework outlined in this section can be used to highlight the key common and distinct characteristics of all these spin torque phenomena [@Ralph:2007_a; @Zhang:2004_c; @Vanhaverbeke:2007_a; @Rossier:2003_a; @Nemec:2012_a; @Tesarova:2012_b; @Ranieri:2012_a]. At the end of this section we also introduce the Onsager related reciprocal effects to the STT (spin-pumping) and to the SOT [@Tserkovnyak:2005_a; @Hals:2010_a].
The framework for describing spin torque phenomena treats the non-equilibrium spin density of carriers ${\bf s}$ and magnetization of the ferromagnet as separate degrees of freedom and explores their coupled dynamics. The dilute moment ferromagnetic semiconductor (Ga,Mn)As is a model system in which the separation is well justified microscopically; magnetization is primarily due to Mn $d$-orbital local moments while the carrier states near the top of the valence band (or bottom of the conduction band) are dominated by As $p$-orbitals (or Ga $s$-orbitals).
The carrier Hamiltonian can be written as $$H=H_0+H_{ex}+H_{so}\,,
\label{H}$$ where $H_0$ is the spin-independent part of the Hamiltonian, the kinetic-exchange term $$H_{ex}=J{\bf M}\cdot{\bm\sigma}
\label{H_ex}$$ where $J$ is the exchange coupling constant (in units of energy$\cdot$volume), ${\bf M}=cS\hat{\bf M}$ ($S=5/2$) is the spin density of Mn local-moments, $\hat{\bf M}$ is the magnetization unit vector, and ${\bm\sigma}$ is the carrier spin operator, and $H_{so}$ is the spin-orbit coupling Hamiltonian. The current-induced and optical STT phenomena are determined by the following dynamics equations for the non-equilibrium carrier spin density [**s**]{} and for the magnetic moment density ${\bf M}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{carrier_STT}
\frac{d{\bf s}}{dt}&=&\frac{J}{\hbar}{\bf s}\times{\bf M}+P{\bf n}-\frac{\bf s}{\tau_s}\\
\frac{d{\bf M}}{dt}&=&\frac{J}{\hbar}{\bf M}\times{\bf s}\,.
\label{M_STT}\end{aligned}$$ The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[carrier\_STT\]) is obtained from the Hamiltonian dynamics, $$\frac{d\langle{\bm\sigma}\rangle}{dt}=\frac{1}{i\hbar}\langle[{\bm\sigma},H]\rangle\,,
\label{Ham_dyn}$$ where $\langle\cdot\cdot\cdot\rangle$ represents quantum-mechanical averaging over the non-equilibrium carrier states, $\langle{\bm\sigma}\rangle={\bf s}$, and $H_{so}$ was neglected in $H$ for the STT effects which are basically non-relativistic. The second term in Eq. (\[carrier\_STT\]) is the rate $P$ of carriers with spin polarization along a unit vector ${\bf n}$ injected from an external polarizer. In the current induced STT, the external polarizer may be, e.g., an adjacent magnetic layer in a multilayer structure. In the optical STT, $P$ and ${\bf n}$ of non-equilibrium photo-carrier spins are governed again by the properties of an external polarizer which are the intensity, propagation axis and helicity of the circularly polarized pump laser pulse. The last term in Eq. (\[carrier\_STT\]) reflects a finite spin-lifetime of the non-equilibrium carriers in the ferromagnet.
Two components of the STT can be distinguished when considering two limiting cases of Eq. (\[carrier\_STT\]) [@Ralph:2007_a; @Zhang:2004_c; @Vanhaverbeke:2007_a; @Rossier:2003_a; @Nemec:2012_a]. One limit is when the carrier spin lifetime $\tau_{\rm s}\gg\tau_{\rm ex}$ where the carrier precession time $\tau_{\rm ex}=\hbar/JcS$. In this limit the last term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[carrier\_STT\]) can be neglected and introducing the steady-state solution of Eq. (\[carrier\_STT\]) ($d{\bf s}/dt=0$), $${\bf s}=P\tau_{ex}({\bf n}\times\hat{\bf M})\,,
\label{adiabatic_s}$$ into Eq. (\[M\_STT\]) yields the anti-damping adiabatic STT [@Slonczewski:1996_a; @Berger:1996_a], $$\frac{d{\bf M}}{dt}=P\hat{\bf M}\times({\bf n}\times\hat{\bf M})\,.
\label{adiabatic_STT}$$ (Recall that the form of this torque is the same as the damping term in the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation.) In this adiabatic STT the entire spin angular momentum of the injected carriers is transferred to the magnetization, independent of $\tau_{\rm s}$, $\tau_{\rm ex}$, and other parameters of the system. The adiabatic STT has been considered since the seminal theory works [@Slonczewski:1996_a; @Berger:1996_a] on carrier induced magnetization dynamics which opened a large field ranging from metal magnetic tunnel junctions switched by current to tuneable oscillators [@Ralph:2007_a] and ultrafast photo-magnetic laser excitations of ferromagnetic semiconductors [@Rossier:2003_a; @Nemec:2012_a]
In the opposite limit of $\tau_{\rm s}\ll\tau_{\rm ex}$, the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[carrier\_STT\]) can be neglected resulting in the field-like non-adiabatic STT [@Zhang:2004_c], $$\frac{d{\bf M}}{dt}=\frac{\tau_s}{\tau_{ex}}P(\hat{\bf M}\times{\bf n})\,,
\label{non-adiabatic_STT}$$ The non-adiabatic STT is perpendicular to the adiabatic STT and only a fraction $\tau_{\rm s}/\tau_{\rm ex}$ of the injected spin angular momentum is transferred to the magnetization. For intermediate ratios $\tau_{\rm ex}/\tau_{\rm s}$, both the non-adiabatic and adiabatic torques are present and the ratio of their magnitudes (non-adiabatic to adiabatic) is given by $\beta=\tau_{\rm ex}/\tau_{\rm s}$ [@Zhang:2004_c; @Vanhaverbeke:2007_a; @Rossier:2003_a]. The non-adiabatic STT plays a crucial role in current induced domain wall (DW) motion [@Zhang:2004_c; @Vanhaverbeke:2007_a; @Metaxas:2007_a; @Mougin:2007_a] and, as we discuss below, (Ga,Mn)As is a favorable material for exploring the effects of the non-adiabatic and adiabatic STTs.
The SOT is distinct from the STT as it is a relativistic phenomenon in which magnetization dynamics is induced in a uniform spin-orbit coupled ferromagnet in the absence of the external polarizer [@Bernevig:2005_c; @Manchon:2008_b; @Manchon:2009_a; @Chernyshov:2009_a; @Garate:2009_a; @Miron:2010_a; @Endo:2010_a; @Fang:2010_a; @Gambardella:2011_a; @Kurebayashi:2013_a; @Tesarova:2012_b]. The Hamiltonian spin-dynamics described by Eq. (\[Ham\_dyn\]) with the $H_{so}$ term included in the carrier Hamiltonian implies that Eq. (\[carrier\_STT\]) is replaced with, $$\frac{d{\bf s}}{dt}=\frac{J}{\hbar}{\bf s}\times{\bf M}+\frac{1}{i\hbar}\langle[{\bm\sigma},H_{so}]\rangle\,.
\label{carrier_SOT}$$ The SOT is obtained by introducing the steady-state solution of Eq. (\[carrier\_SOT\]) into Eq. (\[M\_STT\]), $$\frac{d{\bf M}}{dt}=\frac{J}{\hbar}{\bf M}\times{\bf s}=\frac{1}{i\hbar}\langle[{\bm\sigma},H_{so}]\rangle\,.
\label{SOT_eq}$$
In the current-induced SOT the absence of an external polarizer implies that the effect can be observed when electrical current is driven through a uniform magnetic structure [@Bernevig:2005_c; @Manchon:2008_b; @Manchon:2009_a; @Chernyshov:2009_a; @Garate:2009_a; @Miron:2010_a; @Endo:2010_a; @Fang:2010_a; @Gambardella:2011_a; @Kurebayashi:2013_a]. The optical SOT analogy of the absence of an external polarizer is in that the non-equilibrium photo-carriers are excited by helicity independent pump laser pulses which do not impart angular momentum [@Tesarova:2012_b].
The electrical and optical SOTs may differ in the specific contributions to $H_{so}$ which dominate the effect. This can be illustrated considering the Boltzmann linear-response transport theory of the current induced SOT. Here $\langle\cdot\cdot\cdot\rangle$ represents quantum-mechanical averaging constructed from the equilibrium eigenstates of $H$ and with the non-equilibrium steady state entering through an asymmetric redistribution of the occupation numbers of these eigenstates on the Fermi surface due to the applied electrical drift and relaxation. Because of this specific form of the asymmetric non-equilibrium charge redistribution with a conserved total number of carriers, the current induced SOT requires broken inversion symmetry terms in $H_{so}$ [@Manchon:2008_b; @Manchon:2009_a; @Garate:2009_a; @Chernyshov:2009_a; @Miron:2010_a; @Fang:2010_a]. The optical SOT is caused by optical generation and relaxation of photo-carriers without an applied drift (without a defined direction of the carrier flow) and without conserving the equilibrium number of carriers in dark. Therefore, the broken inversion symmetry in the crystal is not required, and inversion symmetric $H_{so}$ plus the time-reversal symmetry breaking exchange-coupling term in the carrier Hamiltonian are sufficient for observing the optical SOT.
In the STT, spin-angular momentum is transferred from the carriers to the magnet, applying a torque to the magnetization. Via the STT, the injected spin current is able to excite magnetization dynamics. A reciprocal effect to the STT is the spin-pumping phenomenon in which pure spin-current is generated from magnetization precession [@Mizukami:2001_a; @Tserkovnyak:2005_a]. The spin-pumping has been measured, e.g., in ferromagnet/normal-metal/ferromagnet GMR structures or in ferromagnet/normal-metal bilayers [@Saitoh:2006_a; @Czeschka:2011_a]. In the latter structure, the inverse SHE in the spin-orbit coupled paramagnet adjacent to the ferromagnet serves as a spin-charge converter and provides direct means for detecting the spin pumping phenomenon electrically. Spin pumping can, therefore, be used not only for probing magnetization dynamics in ferromagnets but also spin physics in paramagnets, e.g., for measuring the SHE angles. Magnetization dynamics of ferromagnetic resonance also produces electrical signals in the ferromagnetic layer through galvanomagnetic effects. Experiments in a (Ga,Mn)As/p-GaAs model system, where sizable galvanomagnetic effects are present, have demonstrated that neglecting the galvanomagnetic effects in the ferromagnet can lead to a large overestimate of the SHE angle in the paramagnet. The study has also shown a method to separate voltages of these different origins in the spin-pumping experiments in the ferromagnet/paramagnet bilayers [@Chen:2013_a].
The Onsager reciprocity relations imply that, as for the STT/spin-pumping, there exists a reciprocal phenomenon of the SOT in which electrical signal is generated from magnetization precession in a uniform, spin-orbit coupled magnetic system with broken spatial inversion symmetry [@Hals:2010_a; @Tatara:2013_a]. In this reciprocal SOT effect no secondary spin-charge conversion element is required and, as for the SOT, (Ga,Mn)As with broken inversion symmetry in its bulk crystal structure and strongly spin-orbit coupled holes represents a favorable model system to explore this phenomenon.
### Current induced spin-transfer torque {#STT}
In this section we focus on the current-induced STT studies in (Ga,Mn)As. The dilute-moment ferromagnet (Ga,Mn)As has a low saturation magnetization, as compared to conventional dense-moment metal ferromagnets. Together with the high degree of spin polarization of carriers it implies that electrical currents required to excite magnetization by STT in (Ga,Mn)As are also comparatively low. In magnetic tunnel junctions with (Ga,Mn)As electrodes, STT induced switching was observed at current densities of the order $10^{4}-10^{5}$ Acm$^{-2}$ [@Chiba:2004_b], consistent with theory expectations [@Sinova:2004_b]. These are 1-2 orders of magnitude lower current densities than in the STT experiments in common dense-moment metal ferromagnets.
![(Color online) (a) Layout of the device showing the 5 $\mu$m mesa and step for DW pinning in perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (Ga,Mn)As film. (b) 7 $\mu$m wide magneto-optical images with a 5 $\mu$m mesa in the center show that DW moves in the opposite direction to current independent of the initial magnetization orientation, and that DW displacement is proportional to pulse duration (c). The lowest panel in (b) shows destruction of ferromagnetic phase by Joule heating. From [@Yamanouchi:2006_a].[]{data-label="ohno_dw"}](fig25){width="1\columnwidth"}
Current induced DW motion in the creep regime at $\sim 10^{5}$ Acm$^{-2}$ current densities was reported and thoroughly explored in perpendicularly magnetized (Ga,Mn)As thin film devices, shown in Fig. \[ohno\_dw\] [@Yamanouchi:2004_a; @Chiba:2006_a; @Yamanouchi:2006_a; @Yamanouchi:2007_a]. The perpendicular magnetization geometry was achieved by growing the films under a tensile strain on a (In,Ga)As substrate and allowed for a direct magneto-optical Kerr-effect imaging of the magnetic domains, as illustrated in Fig. \[ohno\_dw\].
Alternatively, tensile-strained perpendicularly magnetized films for DW studies were grown on a GaAs substrate with P added into the magnetic film [@Wang:2010_a; @Curiale:2012_a; @Ranieri:2012_a]. In high crystal quality (Ga,Mn)(As,P)/GaAs epilayers the viscous flow regime was achieved over a wide current range allowing to observe [@Ranieri:2012_a] the lower-current steady DW motion regime separated from a higher-current precessional regime by the Walker breakdown (WB) [@Thiaville:2005_a; @Metaxas:2007_a; @Mougin:2007_a]. This in turn enabled to assess the ratio of adiabatic and non-adiabatic STTs in the current driven DW motion. When the non-adiabatic STT is strong enough that $\beta/\alpha>1$, where $\alpha$ is the DW Gilbert damping parameter, the mobility of a DW (velocity divided by the DW driving current) is larger below the WB. For $\beta/\alpha<1$, on the other hand, the DW mobility is larger above the WB critical current. From the experiments in (Ga,Mn)(As,P) samples, shown in Fig. \[DW\_2\], it was concluded that $1>\beta/\alpha\gtrsim 0.5$ [@Ranieri:2012_a], i.e., that the non-adiabatic STT plays a significantly more important role than in conventional transition metals where typically $\beta/\alpha\ll 1$ [@Zhang:2004_c]. Relatively large values of $\beta=\tau_{ex}/\tau_s$, compared to common dense-moment ferromagnets, are both due to larger $\tau_{ex}$ in the dilute-moment ferromagnetic semiconductors and due to smaller $\tau_s$ of the strongly spin-orbit coupled holes in the ferromagnetic semiconductor valence band [@Garate:2008_d; @Hals:2008_a; @Adam:2009_a; @Curiale:2012_a; @Ranieri:2012_a].
The combination of low saturation moment and strong spin-orbit coupling has yet another key advantage which is the dominant role of magnetocrystalline anisotropy fields over the shape anisotropy fields. It allows to control the internal DW structure and stability [*ex situ*]{} by strain relaxation in (Ga,Mn)As microstructures [@Wunderlich:2007_c] or [*in situ*]{} by a piezo-electric stressor attached to the ferromagnetic semiconductor epilayer [@Ranieri:2012_a]. As a result, the WB critical current can be tuned [@Roy:2011_a] resulting in the observed 500% variations of the DW mobility induced by the applied piezo-voltage [@Ranieri:2012_a].
![(Color online) (a) Illustration of the steady-state non-equilibrium carrier spin polarization [**s**]{} and corresponding adiabatic STT (STT$_{\rm AD}$) acting on magnetization [**m**]{} in the $\tau_s\gg\tau_{ex}$ limit (left) and non-adiabatic STT (STT$_{\rm NA}$) in the $\tau_s\ll\tau_{ex}$ limit (right). (b) Schematic diagram of the predicted DW velocity as a function of the driving current in the presence of adiabatic and non-adiabatic STTs and $\beta/\alpha<1$ or $\beta/\alpha>1$, and of the predicted shift of the WB threshold current $j_{WB}$ for two values of the in-plane magnetocrystalline constant ${K_{u,1}<K_{u,2} }$, controlled [*in situ*]{} by a piezo-stressor. (c) Measured DW velocity vs. driving current density at piezo-voltages -200 V or +200 V, strengthening or weakening the \[1$\bar{1}$0\] in-plane easy axis, respectively. Open symbols correspond to the \[1$\bar{1}$0\]-oriented microbar with less internally stable Néel DW and filled symbols to the \[110\]-oriented microbar with more internally stable Bloch DW. The character of the measured data, including the shift of the WB threshold current, imply STTs with $\beta/\alpha<1$. (d) $\Delta v_{DW} = v_{DW}(+200V)-v_{DW}(-200V)$ vs. current density illustrates the piezo-electric control of the DW mobility achieved starting from lower currents in the \[1$\bar{1}$0\]-oriented microbar with less internally stable DW. From [@Ranieri:2012_a].[]{data-label="DW_2"}](fig26){width="1\columnwidth"}
### Current induced spin-orbit torque {#SOT}
Following the theoretical prediction for III-V zinc-blende crystals with broken inversion symmetry [@Bernevig:2005_c], the experimental discovery of the SOT was reported in a (Ga,Mn)As device whose image is shown Fig. \[SOT\_Rokhinson\_1\](a) [@Chernyshov:2009_a]. The sample was patterned into a circular device with eight non-magnetic ohmic contacts (Fig. \[SOT\_Rokhinson\_1\]a). In the presence of a saturating external magnetic field $H$, the magnetization of the (Ga,Mn)As sample is aligned with the field. For weak fields, however, the direction of magnetization is primarily determined by magnetic anisotropy. As a small field ($5 < H < 20$ mT) is rotated in the plane of the sample, the magnetization is re-aligned along the easy axis closest to the field direction. Such rotation of magnetization by an external field is demonstrated in Fig. \[SOT\_Rokhinson\_2\]a,b. For the current ${\bf I}\parallel [1\bar{1}0]$, the measured transverse AMR ($R_{xy}$) is positive for ${\bf M}\parallel [100]$ and negative for ${\bf M}\parallel [010]$. The switching angles where $R_{xy}$ changes sign are denoted as $\varphi_H^{(i)}$ on the plot. The data can be qualitatively understood if one considers an extra current-induced effective magnetic field $H_{eff}$, as shown schematically in Fig. \[SOT\_Rokhinson\_1\]b. The symmetry of the measured $H_{eff}$ with respect to the direction of current is sketched in Fig. \[SOT\_Rokhinson\_1\]c and this current-induced SOT field has been shown to allow for reversibly switching magnetization between the \[010\] and \[$\bar{1}$00\] directions at a fixed magnetic field when applying positive and negative current pulses with the current ${\bf I}\parallel [1\bar{1}0]$, as shown in Fig. \[SOT\_Rokhinson\_2\]c. It was also demonstrated that the SOT in (Ga,Mn)As can generate a 180$^\circ$ magnetization reversal in the absence of an external magnetic field [@Endo:2010_a]. Apart from the current-induced magnetization switching of a uniform ferromagnet, the SOT was shown to provide means for developing an all-electrical broadband FMR technique applicable to individual nanomagnets [@Fang:2010_a]. The SOT-FMR was used for determining micromagnetic parameters of (Ga,Mn)As nano-bars which were not accessible by conventional FMR techniques and simultaneously allowed to perform 3D vector magnetometry on the driving SOT fields [@Fang:2010_a; @Kurebayashi:2013_a].
![(Color online) (a) Atomic force micrograph of the studied sample with eight non-magnetic metal contacts. (b) Diagram of device orientation with respect to crystallographic axes, with easy and hard magnetization axes marked with blue dashed and red dot-dash lines, respectively. Measured directions of ${\bf H}_{eff}$ field are shown for different current directions. (c),(d) Orientation of effective SOT field with respect to current direction for Dresselhaus (c) and Rashba (d) spin-orbit interactions. From [@Chernyshov:2009_a].[]{data-label="SOT_Rokhinson_1"}](fig27){width="1\columnwidth"}
![(Color online) (a),(b) Transverse anisotropic magnetoresistance $R_{xy}$ as a function of external field direction $\varphi_H$ for $H=10$ mT and current $I=\pm0.7$ mA. The angles $\varphi_H^{(i)}$ mark magnetization switchings. (c) Magnetization switches between the \[010\] and \[$\bar{1}$00\] directions when alternating $I=\pm1$ mA current pulses are applied with the current ${\bf I}\parallel [1\bar{1}0]$. The pulses have 100 ms duration and are shown schematically above the data curve. $R_{xy}$ is measured with $I=10$ $\mu$A. Adapted from [@Chernyshov:2009_a].[]{data-label="SOT_Rokhinson_2"}](fig28){width=".9\columnwidth"}
The SOT fields of the Dresselhaus and Rashba symmetries shown in Figs. \[SOT\_Rokhinson\_1\]c,d, respectively, can arise in (Ga,Mn)As due to the following broken inversion symmetry terms in the spin-orbit-coupling Hamiltonian, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:c4strain_main}
H_{so}^{D,R}
&=& - 3C_4\left[
\sigma_x k_x\left(\epsilon_{yy}-\epsilon_{zz}\right)-\sigma_y k_y\left(\epsilon_{xx}-\epsilon_{zz}\right)
\right] \nonumber \\
&& - 3C_5
\left[
(\sigma_x k_y-\sigma_y k_x)\epsilon_{xy}
\right] \,.
\label{H_so^D,R}\end{aligned}$$ The first, Dresselhaus term is due to the broken inversion symmetry of the host zinc-blende lattice combined with the growth-induced strain in the (Ga,Mn)As epilayer ($\epsilon_{xx}=\epsilon_{yy}\neq\epsilon_{zz}$) while the second, Rashba term combines the zinc-blende inversion asymmetry with a shear strain in the epilayer ($\epsilon_{xy}\neq0$) [@Silver:1992_a; @Stefanowicz:2010_a; @Chernyshov:2009_a; @Fang:2010_a; @Kurebayashi:2013_a]. In Ref. [@Chernyshov:2009_a], a Dresselhaus SOT field was identified corresponding to a compressively strained (Ga,Mn)As epilayer grown on a GaAs substrate. In Ref. [@Fang:2010_a], a sign change of the Dresselhaus SOT field was observed between (Ga,Mn)As/GaAs and (Ga,Mn)(As,P)/GaAs samples consistent with the change in the growth-induced strain in the epilayer from compressive in the former sample to tensile in the latter sample. A weaker Rashba SOT field was also observed in these experiments [@Fang:2010_a]. The shear-strain component which yields the Rashba SOT field is not physically present in the crystal structure of (Ga,Mn)As epilayers. It has been introduced, however, in magnetization and SOT studies to effectively model the in-plane uniaxial anisotropy present in (Ga,Mn)As epilayers [@Fang:2010_a; @Sawicki:2004_a; @Zemen:2009_a].
The correspondence between the in-plane Dresselhaus and Rashba spin-orbit Hamiltonian terms in Eq. (\[H\_so\^D,R\]) and the in-plane SOT fields shown in Figs. \[SOT\_Rokhinson\_1\]c,d can be understood from Eq. (\[SOT\_eq\]) within the Boltzmann transport theory description of the non-equilibrium state $\langle\cdot\cdot\cdot\rangle$. In this semiclassical transport theory, the linear response of the carrier system to the applied electric field is described by the non-equilibrium distribution function of carrier eigenstates which are considered to be unperturbed by the electric field. The form of the non-equilibrium distribution function is obtained by accounting for the combined effects of the carrier acceleration in the field and of scattering. In particular, the non-equilibrium distribution function is used here to evaluate the current induced SOT.
Eq. (\[SOT\_eq\]) explicitly shows that the SOT is non-zero only when both the exchange and spin-orbit fields act on the carrier states. However, when evaluating the SOT from $\frac{J}{\hbar}{\bf M}\times\langle{\bm\sigma}\rangle$ where part of the effect of the exchange field is explicitly factored out in the expression, an approximate form of the SOT can be obtained by considering in $\langle{\bm\sigma}\rangle$ eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $H$ with $H_{ex}$ neglected. Since the resulting $${\bf s}=\langle{\bm\sigma}\rangle=\frac{1}{V}\sum_{n,{\bf k}}{\bm\sigma}_{n,{\bf k}}g_{n,{\bf k}}
\label{field-like-SOT}$$ is independent of [**M**]{} this approximate form describes a pure field-like SOT whose origin is illustrated in Fig. \[field-like\_SOT\] for the Rashba spin-orbit coupling (analogous cartoons apply for the Dresselhaus or another broken inversion symmetry $H_{so}$). The non-equilibrium spin-density in the $H_{ex}=0$ approximation is a direct consequence of an electric-field and scattering induced redistribution of carriers $g_{n,{\bf k}}$ on the Fermi surface whose texture of spin expectation values ${\bm\sigma}_{n,{\bf k}}$ has a broken inversion symmetry. For the Rashba spin-orbit coupling, the in-plane non-equilibrium spin polarization is perpendicular to the applied electric field for all crystal directions of the electric field. For the Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling the relative angle between the in-plane non-equilibrium spin polarization and the applied electric field depends on the crystal direction of the electric field (see Fig. \[SOT\_Rokhinson\_1\]c). This current induced spin-polarization phenomenon was discussed in non-magnetic semiconductors [@Aronov:1989_a; @Edelstein:1990_a; @Ganichev:2002_b] prior to the SOT experiments in (Ga,Mn)As. Analogous field-like SOT mechanism was subsequently considered in non-magnetic/ferromagnetic transition metal bilayers with broken structural inversion symmetry at the interface [@Manchon:2008_a; @Manchon:2009_a; @Miron:2010_a].
![(Color online) Left panel: Rashba spin-texture in equilibrium with zero net spin-density. Right panel: Non-equilibrium redistribution of eigenstates in applied electric field resulting in a non-zero spin-density due to broken inversion symmetry of the spin-texture.[]{data-label="field-like_SOT"}](fig29){width=".8\columnwidth"}
Studies of the SOT in (Ga,Mn)As have identified an additional, anti-damping SOT contribution which has a common microscopic origin with the intrinsic SHE [@Kurebayashi:2013_a]. Unlike the above scattering-related field-like SOT, described within the semi-classical Boltzmann theory, the presence of an anti-damping SOT with a scattering-independent origin is captured by the time-dependent quantum-mechanical perturbation theory. Here the linear response theory considers the equilibrium distribution function and the applied electric field perturbs the carrier wavefunctions. This can be visualized by solving the Bloch equations of the carrier spin dynamics during the acceleration of the carriers in the applied electric field, i.e., between the scattering events, as shown in Fig. \[fig\_berry\_1\] [@Kurebayashi:2013_a]. In the limit of large $H_{ex}$ compared to $H_{so}$ the spins are approximately aligned with the exchange field in equilibrium. During the acceleration, the field acting on the carriers acquires a time-dependent component due to $H_{so}$, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_berry\_1\]b for the Rashba spin-orbit coupling. This yields a non-equilibrium spin reorientation. In the linear response, i.e. for small tilts of the spins from equilibrium, the carriers acquire a time and momentum independent out-of-plane component, resulting in a net out-of-plane spin density proportional to the strength of the spin-orbit field and inverse proportional to the strength of the exchange field [@Kurebayashi:2013_a].
![(Color online) (a) Rashba (red) and Dresselhaus (blue) spin textures. (b) For the case of a Rashba-like symmetry, the out-of-plane non-equilibrium carrier spin-density that generates the intrinsic anti-damping SOT has a maximum for $\mathbf{E}$ (anti)parallel to $\mathbf{M}$. In this configuration the equilibrium effective field $B^{eq}_{eff}$ and the additional field $\Delta B_{eff}\perp \mathbf{M}$ due to the acceleration are perpendicular to each other causing all spins to tilt in the same out-of-plane direction. (c) For the case of a Rashba-like symmetry, the out-of-plane non-equilibrium carrier spin-density is zero for $\mathbf{E}\perp \mathbf{M}$ since $B^{eq}_{eff}$ and $\Delta B_{eff}$ are parallel to each other. (d) The analogous physical phenomena for zero magnetization induces a tilt of the spin out of the plane that has opposite sign for momenta pointing to the left or the right of the electric field, inducing in this way the intrinsic SHE. From [@Sinova:2004_a] and [@Kurebayashi:2013_a].[]{data-label="fig_berry_1"}](fig30){width="1\columnwidth"}
As illustrated in Figs. \[fig\_berry\_1\]b,c, the non-equilibrium out-of-plane spin density $s_z$ depends on the direction of the magnetization $\mathbf{M}$ with respect to the applied electric field. For the Rashba spin-orbit coupling it has a maximum for $\mathbf{M}$ (anti)parallel to $\mathbf{E}$ and vanishes for $\mathbf{M}$ perpendicular to $\mathbf{E}$. For a general angle $\theta_{\mathbf{M-E}}$ between $\mathbf{M}$ and $\mathbf{E}$, $s_z\sim\cos\theta_{\mathbf{M-E}}$. The non-equilibrium spin polarization produces an out-of-plane field which exerts a torque on the in-plane magnetization given by Eq. (\[SOT\_eq\]). This intrinsic SOT is anti-damping-like, $$\frac{d\mathbf{M}}{dt}=\frac{J}{\hbar}(\mathbf{M}\times s_z\hat{z})\sim \mathbf{M}\times([\mathbf{E}\times\hat{z}]\times\mathbf{M})\,.
\label{SOT_R}$$ For the Rashba spin-orbit coupling, Eq. (\[SOT\_R\]) applies to all directions of the applied electric field with respect to crystal axes. In the case of the Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling, the symmetry of the anti-damping SOT depends on the direction of $\mathbf{E}$ with respect to crystal axes, as seen from Fig. \[fig\_berry\_1\]a.
To highlight the analogy between the intrinsic anti-damping SOT and the intrinsic SHE [@Murakami:2003_a; @Sinova:2004_a] the solution of the Bloch equations in the absence of the exchange Hamiltonian term is illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_berry\_1\]d [@Sinova:2004_a]. In the SHE case, the sense of the out-of-plane spin rotation depends on the carrier momentum resulting in a non-zero transverse spin-current but no net non-equilibrium spin density.
The anti-damping like SOT with the theoretically predicted symmetries was identified in measurements in (Ga,Mn)As, as shown in Fig. \[fig\_berry\_2\] [@Kurebayashi:2013_a]. The all-electrical broadband SOT-FMR technique [@Fang:2010_a] was applied which allowed to perform 3D vector magnetometry on the driving SOT fields. Since the magnitude of the measured out-of-plane and in-plane SOT fields are comparable, the anti-damping SOT plays an important role in driving the magnetization dynamics in (Ga,Mn)As.
The observation of the intrinsic anti-damping like SOT in (Ga,Mn)As has direct consequences also for the physics of in-plane current induced torques in the transition metal bilayers [@Miron:2011_b; @Liu:2012_a]. Here the anti-damping like SOT considered at the broken inversion symmetry interface can compete with another, conceptually distinct mechanism in which the intrinsic SHE in the paramagnet generates a spin-current which upon entering the ferromagnet exerts an anti-damping STT on the magnetization [@Liu:2012_a]. It has been mentioned above that the non-equilibrium spin-density in the intrinsic anti-damping SOT scales with the strength of the spin-orbit field and with the inverse of the strength of the exchange field. Similarly, the SHE spin-current, which takes the role of the spin-injection rate $P$ in Eq. (\[adiabatic\_s\]) for the non-equilibrium spin density ${\bf s}$ in the adiabatic STT, scales with the strength of the spin-orbit coupling in the paramagnetic metal [@Tanaka:2007_b] and ${\bf s}$ in the adiabatic STT is inverse proportional to the exchange field (Eq. (\[adiabatic\_s\])).
![(Color online) Measured in-plane and out-of-plane SOT fields in (Ga.Mn)As. In-plane spin-orbit field and coefficients of the $\cos{\theta_{\mathbf{M-E}}}$ and $\sin{\theta_{\mathbf{M-E}}}$ fits to the angle-dependence of out-of-plane SOT field for our sample set. For the in-plane fields, a single sample in each micro-bar direction is shown (corresponding to the same samples that yield the blue out-of-plane data points). In the out-of-plane data, 2 samples are shown in each micro-bar direction. The symmetries expected for the anti-damping SOT, on the basis of the theoretical model for the Dresselhaus term in the spin-orbit interaction, are shown by light green shading. All data are normalised to a current density of $10^5$ Acm$^{-2}$. From [@Kurebayashi:2013_a].[]{data-label="fig_berry_2"}](fig31){width="1\columnwidth"}
Interaction of spin with light {#LIT}
------------------------------
### Magneto-optical effects {#MO}
Similar to the dc conductivity, the unpolarized finite-frequency absorption spectra [@Burch:2006_a; @Chapler:2011_a; @Jungwirth:2007_a; @Jungwirth:2010_b] show signatures of the vicinity of the metal-insulator transition and of strong disorder effects even in the most metallic (Ga,Mn)As materials, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_IR\_absorption\]. Compared to a shallow-acceptor counterpart such as, e.g., C-doped GaAs (see inset of Fig. \[fig\_IR\_absorption\](c)), the spectral weight in (Ga,Mn)As is shifted from the low-frequency Drude peak to higher frequencies. The ac conductivity scales with the dc conductivity over a broad range of Mn dopings and does not reflect strongly the spin-dependent interactions in the system.
![(Color online) (a) Infrared absorption of a series of optimized (Ga,Mn)As/GaAs epilayers with nominal Mn doping $x=0.1-14$% plotted from the measured optical transmissions of the samples ($T$) and of the reference bare GaAs substrate ($T_0$). (b) Real part of the ac conductivity (lines) obtained from the measured complex conductivity in the terahertz range (points) and from fitting the complex conductivity in the infrared range to the measured transmissions. (c) Comparison of the infrared absorption in as-grown and annealed 4.5% doped sample. Inset: Comparison to GaAs:C samples with carbon doping densities $2\times 10^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $2\times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$. (d) Height of the (Ga,Mn)As mid-infrared absorption peak as a function of Mn doping. (e) Position of the peak inferred from the transmission measurements and from the fitted ac conductivities. (f) Zero frequency conductivities obtained from dc transport measurements and from extrapolated optical ac conductivities measured in the terahertz range.From [@Jungwirth:2010_b].[]{data-label="fig_IR_absorption"}](fig32){width="1\columnwidth"}
Magneto-optical spectroscopies, on the other hand, provide a detailed probe into the exchange-split and spin-orbit coupled electronic structure of (Ga,Mn)As [@Ando:1998_a; @Kuroiwa:1998_a; @Beschoten:1999_a; @Szczytko:1999_a; @Komori:2003_a; @Lang:2005_a; @Chakarvorty:2007_a; @Ando:2008_a; @Acbas:2009_a; @Kimel:2005_a; @Moore:2003_a; @Tesarova:2012_c; @Tesarova:2012_a; @Tesarova:2013_a]. It implies that they can be used as sensitive optical spin-detection tools, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_MLD\] [@Kimel:2005_a].
For the light propagating in the perpendicular direction to the sample surface the magneto-optical effects can be classified in the following way [@Tesarova:2013_a]: The magnetic circular birefringence (MCB) is given by the real part of the difference between refractive indices of two circularly polarized modes with opposite helicities and the magnetic circular dichroism (MCD) is given by its imaginary part. These magneto-optical coefficients are sensitive to the out-of-plane component of the magnetization, are an odd function of ${\bf M}$, and represent the finite frequency counterparts of the AHE. The magnetic linear birefringence (MLB) is given by the real part of the difference between refractive indices of two modes linearly polarized perpendicular and parallel to the magnetization and the magnetic linear dichroism (MLD) is given by its imaginary part. These magneto-optical coefficients are sensitive to the in-plane components of the magnetization, are an even function of ${\bf M}$, and represent the finite frequency counterparts of the AMR.
Both the circular and linear magneto-optical effects can cause a rotation (and ellipticity) of the polarization of a transmitted or reflected linearly polarized light. For the rotation originating form the MCB/MCD the effects are referred to as the Faraday effect in transmission and Kerr effect in reflection. For the rotation originating from the MLB/MLD the terminology is not unified across the literature [@Tesarova:2013_a], however, it is clearly distinguishable from the Kerr (Faraday) rotation. While the Kerr (Faraday) rotation is independent of the polarization angle of the incident light, the rotation originating from the MLB/MLD depends on the angle between the light polarization and the in-plane magnetization. There is a direct analogy between this magneto-optical effect and the transverse voltage in the non-crystalline off-diagonal AMR described by Eq. (\[rho\_xy\]). The transverse voltage in the latter case and the polarization rotation in the former case have both the $\sim\sin\phi$ form where $\phi$ is the angle between the in-plane magnetization and the applied voltage in the transverse AMR case, and between the in-plane magnetization and the incident light polarization in the case of the MLB/MLD induced rotation.
Measurements in Fig. \[fig\_MLD\]b used the dependence on the polarization angle to optically detect magnetization switchings between \[100\] and \[010\] crystal axes in a 2% Mn-doped (Ga,Mn)As sample with a dominant in-plane cubic anisotropy [@Kimel:2005_a]. Consistent with the phenomenology of the MLB/MLD induced rotation, the largest signal is observed when the incident-light polarization is aligned with the in-plane diagonal crystal axis. Fig. \[fig\_MLD\]c,d highlight that both the Kerr effect and the MLB/MLD induced rotation can be strong in (Ga,Mn)As for a suitably chosen frequency of the probe laser light. This allows for a sensitive optical detection of the in-plane and out-of-plane components of the magnetization.
![(Color online) (a) Ga$_{0.98}$Mn$_{0.02}$As sample orientation with respect to the applied magnetic field and the four-step magnetization reversal process as consecutive 90$^\circ$ jumps (shown by dotted arrows) between the four easy directions (1)Ð(4). (b) Field dependencies of the magnetic linear dichroism for different angles $\theta$ between the incident polarization and the \[100\] crystallographic direction, measured at a wavelength of $\lambda=815$ nm. Numbers (1) to (4) correspond to the magnetization directions indicated in (a). $H_{12}$ and $H_{23}$ are the magnetic field values required for making jumps (1)$\rightarrow$(2) and (2)$\rightarrow$(3), respectively. (c) Spectra of polar magneto-optical Kerr effect and magnetic linear dichroism (at $\theta=135^\circ$); (d) absorption spectrum at 5 K. In panels (c) and (d) Fabry-Perot oscillations in the signal due to the finite buffer thickness have been removed numerically using a bandpass filter. From [@Kimel:2005_a].[]{data-label="fig_MLD"}](fig33){width="1\columnwidth"}
The decomposition of the magneto-optical signal into the MCB/MCD induced rotation due to the out-of-plane magnetization and the MLB/MLD induced rotation due to in-plane magnetization was also employed to quantitatively determine the three-dimensional magnetization vector trajectory in the time-resolved pump-and-probe magneto-optical measurements in (Ga,Mn)As, as shown in Fig. \[optical\_3D\_trajectory\] [@Tesarova:2012_a]. The technique helped to experimentally identify different mechanisms by which photo-carriers can induce magnetization dynamics in the pump-and-probe experiments in (Ga,Mn)As. The recombining photo-carriers can heat the lattice and the transient increase of temperature can trigger magnetization dynamics or, on much shorter time-scales, the photo-carriers can directly induce spin torques acting on the magnetization [@Oiwa:2005_a; @Wang:2006_b; @Takechi:2007_a; @Qi:2007_a; @Qi:2009_a; @Rozkotova:2008_a; @Rozkotova:2008_b; @Hashimoto:2008_a; @Hashimoto:2008_b; @Kobayashi:2010; @Nemec:2012_a; @Tesarova:2012_a; @Tesarova:2012_b]. These effects are reviewed in more detail in the following sections. We note that earlier magneto-optical pump-and-probe studies of photo-carriers exchange coupled to local magnetic moments have been performed in non-ferromagnetic (II,Mn)VI diluted magnetic semiconductors [@Baumberg:1994_a; @Crooker:1996_a; @Camilleri:2001_a].
![(Color online) (a) Schematic diagram of the experimental set-up for a detection of the magnetization precession induced in (Ga,Mn)As by an impact of the femtosecond laser pump pulse. Rotation of the polarization plane of reflected linearly polarized probe pulses is measured as a function of the time delay $\Delta t$ between pump and probe pulses. The orientation of magnetization in the sample is described by the in-plane angle $\varphi$ and the out-of-plane angle $\theta$. The external magnetic field $H_{ext}$ is applied in the sample plane at an angle $\varphi_H$. (b) Dynamics of the magneto-optical signal induced by an impact of pump pulse on the sample that was measured by probe pulses with different polarization orientations $\beta$. (c) Time evolution of the in-plane magnetization angle $\delta\varphi (t)$, the out-of-plane angle $\delta\theta (t)$, and the magnitude $\delta M_s(t)/M_0$; the dotted line depicts the in-plane evolution of the easy axis position around which the magnetization precesses. (d) Orientation of magnetization at different times after the impact of the pump pulse; the sample plane is represented by the vertical line and the equilibrium position of the easy axis is depicted by the grey spot. From [@Tesarova:2012_a].[]{data-label="optical_3D_trajectory"}](fig34){width="1\columnwidth"}
### Optical spin-transfer torque {#OSTT}
A direct observation of a non-thermal photo-carrier induced spin torque was reported in a pump-and-probe optical experiment in which a coherent spin precession in a (Ga,Mn)As ferromagnetic semiconductor was excited by circularly polarized laser pulses at normal incidence [@Nemec:2012_a]. During the pump pulse, the spin angular momentum of photo-carriers generated by the absorbed circularly-polarized light is transferred to the collective magnetization of the ferromagnet, as described by Eqs. (\[H\])-(\[non-adiabatic\_STT\]) and prediced in Refs. [@Rossier:2003_a; @Nunez:2004_b].
![(Color online) Schematic illustration (top inset) of the optical spin transfer torque induced by the rate $P$ of the photo-carrier spin injection along light propagation axis $\hat{\bf n}$ (normal to the sample plane). The steady state component of the non-equilibrium spin density ${\bf s}$ is oriented in the plane of the sample and perpendicular to the in-plane equilibrium magnetization vector. The (Ga,Mn)As sample is placed on a piezoelectric stressor (lower inset) which allows to control the magnetic anisotropy [*in situ*]{}. Top panel: Precession of the magnetization induced in (Ga,Mn)As by $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ circularly polarized pump pulses. Points are the measured rotations of the polarization plane of the reflected linearly polarized probe pulse as a function of the time delay between pump and probe pulses. The experiment was performed on the (Ga,Mn)As sample attached to a piezo-stressor at applied bias $U=-150$ V for which the $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ circularly polarized pump pulses produces signals with opposite sign corresponding to the opposite sign of the optical STT and no polarization-independent ($\sigma^+ +\sigma^-$) signal for this piezo-voltage. Bottom panel: Same as in the top panel for a piezo-voltage $U=+150$ V. Here magnetization dynamics is excited by both the optical STT and a polarization-independent mechanism. Adapted from [@Nemec:2012_a].[]{data-label="OSTT_1"}](fig35){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The timescale of photo-electron precession due to the exchange field produced by the ferromagnetic Mn moments is $\tau_{ex}\sim$100 fs in (Ga,Mn)As [@Rossier:2003_a; @Nemec:2012_a]. The major source of spin decoherence of the photo-electrons in (Ga,Mn)As is the exchange interaction with fluctuating Mn moments. Microscopic calculations of the corresponding relaxation time give a typical scale of 10’s ps [@Rossier:2003_a]. The other factor that limits $\tau_s$ introduced in Eq. (\[M\_STT\]) is the photo-electron decay time which is also $\sim$10’s ps, as inferred from reflectivity measurements of the (Ga,Mn)As samples [@Nemec:2012_a]. Within the spin life-time, the photo-electron spins therefore precess many times around the exchange field of ferromagnetic moments. In the corresponding regime of $\tau_s\gg\tau_{ex}$, the steady-state photo-electron spin-polarization is given by Eq. (\[adiabatic\_s\]), i.e. is perpendicular to both the polarization unit vector of the optically injected carrier spins and magnetization, and the optical STT has the form of the adiabatic STT given by Eq. (\[adiabatic\_STT\]), as illustrated in the top inset of Fig. \[OSTT\_1\]a. The precession time of holes in (Ga,Mn)As is $\sim$10’s fs and the spin life-time of holes, dominated by the strong spin-orbit coupling, is estimated to $\sim$1-10 fs [@Rossier:2003_a]. Since $\tau_s\lesssim\tau_{ex}$ for holes, their contribution in the experiment with circularly-polarized pump-pulse is better approximated by the weaker torque which has the form of the non-adiabatic STT given by Eq. (\[non-adiabatic\_STT\]) and can be neglected.
The experimental observation of the magnetization precession in (Ga,Mn)As excited by the optical STT, with the characteristic opposite phases of the oscillations excited by pump pulses of opposite helicities, is shown in the top panel of Fig. \[OSTT\_1\] [@Nemec:2012_a]. Since the period of the magnetization precession (0.4 ns) is much larger than the pump-pulse duration, the action of the optical STT is reflected only in the initial phase and amplitude of the free precession of the magnetization. The decomposition of the magneto-optical signal in Fig. \[OSTT\_1\] into MCB/MCD induced rotation due to the out-of-plane magnetization and the MLB/MLD induced rotation due to in-plane magnetization shows [@Nemec:2012_a] that the initial tilt of the magnetization is in the out-of-plane direction, as expected from Eq. (\[adiabatic\_STT\]) for the adiabatic STT. The precisely opposite phase of the measured magneto-optical signals triggered by pump pulses with opposite helicities, shown in the top panel of Fig. \[OSTT\_1\], implies that the optical STT is not accompanied by any polarization-independent excitation mechanism. These were intentionally suppressed in the experiment shown in the top panel of Fig. \[OSTT\_1\] by negatively biasing an attached piezo-stressor to the (Ga,Mn)As sample which modified the magnetic anisotropy of the ferromagnetic film. At positive piezo-voltage, on the other hand, the polarization-independent mechanisms [@Oiwa:2005_a; @Wang:2006_b; @Takechi:2007_a; @Qi:2007_a; @Qi:2009_a; @Rozkotova:2008_a; @Rozkotova:2008_b; @Hashimoto:2008_a; @Hashimoto:2008_b; @Kobayashi:2010] start to act along with the optical STT, as illustrated in the bottom panel of Fig. \[OSTT\_1\] [@Nemec:2012_a]. The polarization-independent optical excitation mechanisms are discussed in the following section.
### Optical spin-orbit torque {#OSOT}
In the optical STT reviewed above, the external source for injecting spin polarized photo-carriers is provided by the circularly polarized light at normal incidence which yields high degree of out-of-plane spin-polarization of injected photo-carriers due to the optical selection rules in GaAs. Since large optical STT requires large spin lifetime of injected carriers, i.e. spin-orbit coupling is detrimental for optical STT, the weakly spin-orbit coupled photo-electrons play the key role in this case. The optical SOT, on the other hand, originates from spin-orbit coupling of non-equilibrium photo-carriers excited by polarization-independent pump laser pulses which do not impart angular momentum. Since the effect relies on the strong spin-orbit coupling, the non-equilibrium photo-holes generated in (Ga,Mn)As valence band are essential for the optical SOT. The physical picture of the optical SOT in (Ga,Mn)As is based on the SOT formalism of Eqs. (\[carrier\_SOT\]) and (\[SOT\_eq\]), and on the following representation of the non-equilibrium steady state spin-polarization of the photo-holes [@Tesarova:2012_b]: The optically injected photo-holes relax towards the hole Fermi energy of the p-type (Ga,Mn)As on a short ($\sim100$ fs) timescale [@Yildirim:2012_a] and the excitation/relaxation processes create a non-equilibrium excess hole density in the spin-orbit coupled, exchange-split valence band. The increased number of non-equilibrium occupied hole states, as compared to the equilibrium state in dark, can generate a non-equilibrium spin-polarization of holes which is misaligned with the equilibrium orientation of Mn moments. This non-equilibrium photo-hole polarization persists over the timescale of the hole recombination ($\sim$ps) during which it exerts a torque on the Mn local moments. Approximately, the non-equilibrium photo-holes can be represented by a steady state which differs from the equilibrium state in the dark in that the distribution function has a shifted Fermi level corresponding to the extra density of the photo-holes. In this approximation, the non-equilibrium spin-polarization of holes which is misaligned with the equilibrium orientation of Mn moments, and the corresponding optical SOT, is determined by the hole density dependent magnetocrystalline anisotropy field [@Tesarova:2012_b].
![(Color online) (a) Schematic illustration of the thermally excited precession of magnetization [**M**]{}(t) around the transient quasi-equilibrium easy axis (EA). [**M**]{}$_0$ is the magnetization vector aligned with in-plane equilibrium EA before the pump pulse. (b) Schematic illustration of optical SOT induced by the in-plane transverse component [**s**]{}$_{\varphi}$ of the non-equilibrium hole spin polarization. On the time-scale of magnetization precession, optical SOT causes an instantaneous tilt of the magnetization [**M**]{}(t$_1$) which allows to clearly distinguish optical SOT from the considerably slower thermal excitation mechanism. The initial optical SOT induced tilt of magnetization can yield precession angles that are inaccessible in the thermally induced magnetization dynamics. (c) Definition of the coordinate system. (d) Time evolution of the magnetization vector measured in a (Ga,Mn)As material with nominal Mn-doping $x=3$%. The direction of the time increase is depicted by arrows. Magnetization tilt angles $\delta\varphi$ and $\delta\theta$ are measured with respect to equilibrium EA. From [@Tesarova:2012_b].[]{data-label="OSOT_1"}](fig36){width="1.1\columnwidth"}
The experimental identification of the optical SOT [@Tesarova:2012_b] required to separate this non-thermal photo-magnetic effect from the competing thermal excitation mechanism of magnetization dynamics [@Wang:2006_d; @Kirilyuk:2010_a]. The absorption of the pump laser pulse leads to photo-injection of electron-hole pairs. The non-radiative recombination of photo-electrons produces a transient increase of the lattice temperature which builds up on the time scale of $\sim 10$ ps and persists over $\sim1000$ ps. This results in a quasi-equilibrium easy-axis (EA) orientation which is tilted from the equilibrium EA. Consequently, Mn moments in (Ga,Mn)As will precess around the quasi-equilibrium EA, as schematically illustrated in Fig. \[OSOT\_1\]a, with a typical precession time of $\sim 100$ ps given by the magnetic anisotropy fields in (Ga,Mn)As. The EA stays in-plane and the sense of rotation within the plane of the (Ga,Mn)As film with increasing temperature is uniquely defined by the different temperature dependences of the in-plane cubic and uniaxial anisotropy fields [@Zemen:2009_a; @Tesarova:2012_b]. In the notation shown in Fig. \[OSOT\_1\]c, the change of the in-plane angle $\delta\varphi$ of the magnetization during the thermally excited precession can be only positive.
The optical SOT, illustrated schematically in Fig. \[OSOT\_1\]b, acts during the laser pulse (with a duration of 200 fs) and fades away within the hole recombination time ($\sim$ ps), followed by free magnetization precession. It causes an impulse tilt of the magnetization which is a signature that allowed to clearly distinguish the optical SOT from the considerably slower thermal excitation mechanism. Moreover, the initial optical SOT induced tilt of magnetization can yield precession angles that are opposite to the initial tilt of the magnetization dynamics induced by the slower thermal mechanism.
Examples of the direct observation of the thermally governed excitation of magnetization at a lower pump pulse intensity, $6I_0$ where $I_0=7$ $\mu$J cm$^{-2}$, and of the excitation at a higher intensity, $12I_0$, with a strong contribution from the optical SOT are shown in Fig. \[OSOT\_1\]d for a 3% doped (Ga,Mn)As sample [@Tesarova:2012_b]. The distinct features of the optical SOT observed at pump intensity $12I_0$, namely the impulse tilt and precession angles inaccessible by thermal excitations seen at the lower intensity $6I_0$, are clearly visible when comparing the two measured magnetization trajectories in Fig. \[OSOT\_1\]d. We recall that both dynamical magneto-optical signals shown in Fig. \[OSOT\_1\]d are independent of the polarization of pump pulses which distinguishes both the slower thermal mechanism and the fast optical SOT mechanism from the optical STT. A complete suppression of the thermal mechanism and magnetization precession induced solely by the optical SOT was achieved by tuning the micromagnetics of the (Ga,Mn)As film [*ex situ*]{} by doping or [*in situ*]{} by applied magnetic fields [@Tesarova:2012_b].
Magneto-optical pump-and-probe studies in (Ga,Mn)As demonstrated the possibility to study STT and SOT on the short time-scales achievable by the optical techniques. The relativistic optical SOT should be observable in other systems including, e.g., antiferromagnetic semiconductors which unlike their ferromagnetic counterparts can have magnetic transition temperatures well above room temperature [@Jungwirth:2010_a]. It is well established that magnetocrystalline anisotropies are equally present in spin-orbit coupled antiferromagnets as in ferromagnets and in Sections \[tamr\] we pointed out that the spin-orbit coupling induced anisotropic magnetotransport effects can be also strong in antiferromagnets. The optical SOT belongs to this family of relativistic effects and its exploration in antiferromagnets may open a new direction of optical spin torque studies beyond the ferromagnetic semiconductor (Ga,Mn)As.
Interaction of spin with heat {#heat}
-----------------------------
In Section \[Mott-Dirac\] we have outlined the distinction between the basically non-relativistic Mott spintronic phenomena, such as the GMR or TMR, which depend on relative magnetization orientations in non-uniform magnetic structures, and the relativistic Dirac effects, such as the AHE, AMR, or TAMR, in uniform spin-orbit coupled magnets. In this section we recall that the research of the relativistic spintronics effects in (Ga,Mn)As has led to seminal results not only in magneto-transport and magneto-optical studies but also in the research of magneto-thermopower phenomena.
### Anomalous Nernst effect {#ANE}
In analogy to the AHE, we consider an experimental geometry for detecting the ANE in which the thermal gradient $\nabla T\parallel\hat{x}$, magnetization ${\bf M}\parallel\hat{z}$, and the Nernst signal is the M-antisymmetric electric field ${\bf E}\parallel\hat{y}$. In non-magnetic systems in zero magnetic field, the charge current density is given by, $$j_x=\sigma_{xx}E_x-\alpha_{xx}\partial_x T$$ which for the open circuit geometry ($j_x=0$) yields, $$E_x=\frac{\alpha_{xx}}{\sigma_{xx}}\partial_x T=S_{xx}\partial_x T\,,$$ where $\alpha_{xx}$ is the diagonal Peltier coefficient and $S_{xx}$ is the diagonal Seebeck (thermopower) coefficient. In the presence of the $\hat{z}$-axis magnetization, an off-diagonal Peltier current is generated resulting in the ANE, $$j_y=-\alpha_{yx}\partial_x T+\sigma_{yx}E_x+\sigma_{xx}E_y\,,$$ and for $j_y=0$, $$E_y=\frac{1}{\sigma_{xx}}(\alpha_{yx}-\sigma_{yx}S_{xx})\partial_x T=S_{yx}\partial_x T\,,
\label{S_xy}$$ where $\alpha_{xy}$ and $S_{xy}$ are the antisymmetric off-diagonal Peltier and Seebeck coefficients, respectively.
Thermoelectric measurements on Hall bars fabricated in (Ga,Mn)As/(Ga,In)As epilayers with perpendicular-to-plane easy-axis were performed [@Pu:2008_a] in order to test in a ferromagnet the validity of the Mott relation for the off-diagonal transport coefficients [@Wang:2001_b], $$\alpha_{yx}=\frac{\pi^2k_B^2T}{3e}\left(\frac{\partial\sigma_{yx}}{\partial E}\right)_{\mu}\,,
\label{Mott_relation}$$ and to experimentally assess the microscopic mechanism of the AHE and ANE in (Ga,Mn)As. In the same devices, the four thermoelectric coefficients, $\rho_{xx}$, $\rho_{xy}$, $S_{xx}$, and $S_{xy}$ were measured which allowed to directly fit the experimental data by the formula, $$S_{yx}=\frac{\rho_{xy}}{\rho_{xx}}\left(T\frac{\pi^2k_B^2}{3e}\frac{\lambda^\prime}{\lambda}+(1-n)S_{xx}\right)\,.
\label{Mott_test}$$ Eq. (\[Mott\_test\]) is obtained by introducing the Mott relation (\[Mott\_relation\]) into the expression for $S_{yx}$ from Eq. (\[S\_xy\]) and by considering a general power-law dependence of the AHE resistivity on the diagonal resistivity, $$\rho_{xy}=\sigma_{yx}/(\sigma_{xx}^2+\sigma_{xy}^2)\approx\sigma_{yx}/\sigma_{xx}^2=\lambda M_z\rho_{xx}^n\,.$$ Here the proportionality of the AHE to $M_z$ is factored out explicitly in the power-low dependence, $\lambda$ is the remaining scaling factor ($\lambda^\prime=(\partial\lambda/\partial E)_\mu$), and $$\rho_{xx}=\sigma_{xx}/(\sigma_{xx}^2+\sigma_{xy}^2)\approx 1/\sigma_{xx}\,.$$
The intrinsic AHE is characterized by the off-diagonal conductivity $\sigma_{yx}$ which is independent of the scattering life-time $\tau$, i.e., independent of $\sigma_{xx}$. This corresponds to the above power-law scaling with $n=2$. On the other hand, for e.g. the extrinsic skew-scattering AHE, $\sigma_{yx}\sim\tau\sim\sigma_{xx}$, which corresponds to $n=1$. The detection of both the AHE and ANE signals in (Ga,Mn)As Hall-bar samples is illustrated in the top panels of Fig. \[nernst\]. The measured $\rho_{xx}$, $\rho_{xy}$, $S_{xx}$, and $S_{xy}$ could be accurately fitted to Eq. (\[Mott\_test\]) which confirmed the Mott relation between the AHE and ANE in a ferromagnet. Moreover, the inferred values of $n$ from the fitting were close to 2 in all measured samples (see bottom panels of Fig. \[nernst\]). This confirmed the intrinsic origin of the AHE and ANE in (Ga,Mn)As. Using Eq. (\[S\_xy\]) we can rewrite Eq. (\[Mott\_test\]) as, $$\alpha_{yx}=\sigma_{yx}\left(T\frac{\pi^2k_B^2}{3e}\frac{\lambda^\prime}{\lambda}+(2-n)S_{xx}\right)\,,
\label{alpha_xy}$$ from which we directly obtain that for $n=2$ the intrinsic, scattering independent AHE coefficient is accompanied by a scattering-independent ANE coefficient, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{yx}&=&\lambda M_z \nonumber \\
\alpha_{yx}&=&\lambda^\prime M_zT\frac{\pi^2k_B^2}{3e}\,.\end{aligned}$$
![(Color online) Top eight panels: AHE and ANE loops at $T=10$ K for different samples (left column) and at different temperatures for the 4% annealed sample (right column). In the left column, ANE data of 0.04\*, 0.05\*, and 0.07\* samples were multiplied by -1 ($\ast$ means that the sample was annealed). Bottom four panels: zero-field ANE coefficient. The solid lines are the best fits using Eq. (\[Mott\_test\]) (or equivalently Eq. (\[alpha\_xy\]), and the dashed curves are the best fits with $n=1$. Adapted from [@Pu:2008_a].[]{data-label="nernst"}](fig37){width=".8\columnwidth"}
### Anisotropic magneto-thermopower {#AMT}
Besides ANE, the thermoelectric measurements in (Ga,Mn)As also revealed strong AMT signals, in particular the spin-caloritronic analogue of the non-crystalline AMR [@Pu:2006_a]. A non-crystalline AMT as high as 6% was measured in the longitudinal direction obeying the $\cos2\phi$ dependence as for the non-crystalline longitudinal AMR, where $\phi$ is the angle between magnetization and the applied electrical (thermal) voltage. Simultaneously, the transverse AMT was also observed, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_AMT\], following the $\sin2\phi$ dependence of the corresponding transverse AMR coefficient. Experiments in (Ga,Mn)As marked a renewed interest in the AMT phenomenon [@Ky:1966_a] which was subsequently identified in a broad class of magnetic materials, ranging from the strongly spin-orbit coupled uranium pnictides [@Wisniewski:2007_a] to transition-metal based oxides [@Tang:2011_a; @Anwar:2012_a], and nano-wires and thin films of elemental transition metal ferromagnets [@Mitdank:2012_a; @Anwar:2012_a].
![(Color online) (a) Transverse AMT, $S_{x,y}$, and transverse AMR, $R_H$, in a 3.9% Mn-doped (Ga,Mn)As. (b) Sketch of the relative orientation of $-\nabla T$, [**M**]{} and magnetic field [**H**]{}. Four directions marked as I, II, III, and IV are easy directions of [**M**]{}. (c) Angular dependence of the transverse AMT. (d) Comparison of $S_{xy}/S_{xx}$ and $R_H/R$, and sample magnetization M measured by SQUID. From [@Pu:2006_a]. Note that we use the terms transverse AMT and transverse AMR instead of the alternative planar Nernst effect and planar Hall effect [@Pu:2006_a] to clearly distinguish that the effects shown here are the symmetric off-diagonal coefficients even in [**M**]{}.[]{data-label="fig_AMT"}](fig38){width=".9\columnwidth"}
### Tunneling anisotropic magneto-thermopower {#TAMT}
Similar to uniform magnetic films, in the ohmic GMR multilayers electrical and heat transport measurements can be performed in macroscopic samples in the current-parallel-to-plane geometry. This allowed to observe the GMT effect [@Sakurai:1991_a] shortly after the discovery of the GMR [@Baibich:1988_a; @Binasch:1989_a] in the same type of transition-metal-multilayer samples and to show that switching from parallel to anti-parallel magnetization configurations can lead to comparatively large changes in the thermopower [@Sakurai:1991_a].
Magneto-thermopower measurements are significantly more challenging in the perpendicular-to-plane geometry of the magnetic tunnel junctions and the TMT effect was observed in transition metal tunnel devices [@Walter:2011_a; @Liebing:2011_a] more than 15 years after the discovery of the TMR [@Moodera:1995_a; @Myiazaki:1995_a]. Similar to the electrical-transport, the magneto-thermopower in the tunneling regime is much more closely related to the exchange-split electronic structure of the ferromagnets than in the ohmic regime of the GMR multilayers and correspondingly can be in principle much stronger in the tunneling devices [@Czerner:2011_a; @Liebing:2011_a].
The origin of the TMT effect is schematically illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_TMT\] [@Walter:2011_a]. Unlike electrical conductance of the tunneling device, $$G=\frac{e^2}{h}\int T(E)(-\partial_E f(E,\mu,T))dE\,,$$ which in the linear response is governed by the transmission function $T(E)$ multiplied by the derivative of the electron occupation function $\partial_E f(E,\mu,T)$ at temperature $T$ and electrochemical potential $\mu$, the Seebeck coefficient, $$S=-\frac{\int T(E)(E-\mu)(-\partial_E f(E,\mu,T))dE}{eT\int T(E)(-\partial_E f(E,\mu,T))dE}\,,$$ reflects the asymmetry in the energy dependence of the transmission around the chemical potential. As shown in Fig. \[fig\_TMT\], the Seebeck coefficient is the geometric centre of $T(E)(-\partial_E f(E,\mu,T))$. When this changes from the parallel to the antiparallel magnetization configurations the corresponding Seebeck coefficients are different in the two configurations resulting in the TMT.
![(Color online) In magnetic tunnel junctions, thermal differences in the electron distributions and strong asymmetry in the spin-dependent tunneling channels are depicted. $T(E)$ is the transmission of the full tunnel junction, for which either the ferromagnetic electrodes can be a highly spin-polarized half-metal or the combination of the barrier and the ferromagnet exhibits half-metallic characteristics. The function $T(E)(-\partial_Ef(E,\mu,T))$ is given in darker color. The thick line marks the resulting value of the geometric centre determining the Seebeck coefficient in the parallel magnetization, $S_P$, and antiparallel magnetization, $S_{AP}$, of the electrodes. Adapted from [@Walter:2011_a]. Note that we use the term TMT instead of the alternative magneto-Seebeck effect to distinguish it clearly from the spin-Seebeck effect discussed in the following section.[]{data-label="fig_TMT"}](fig39){width=".9\columnwidth"}
The relativistic counterpart of the TMT in a tunnel junction with only one magnetic electrode is the TAMT. Observations of the TMT [@Walter:2011_a; @Liebing:2011_a] and TAMT [@Naydenova:2011_a] effects were reported independently and simultaneously and, reminiscent of the discovery of the TAMR [@Gould:2004_a], the TAMT was first identified in a (Ga,Mn)As based tunnel junction [@Naydenova:2011_a]. The experiment was performed while rotating the magnetization in the plane of the (Ga,Mn)As layer, i.e., always perpendicular to the applied temperature gradient across the tunnel junction. As shown in Fig. \[fig\_TAMT\], four equivalent minima close to the \[100\] and \[010\] crystal axes and two sets of local maxima were observed. The symmetry of the observed TAMT reflects the competition of in-plane cubic and uniaxial magnetocrystalline anisotropies in the (Ga,Mn)As epilayer. The TAMT phenomenon originates from the changes in the energy dependence of the tunneling density of states when changing the angle of the magnetization with respect to crystal axes, i.e., has the same spin-orbit-coupled band structure origin as magnetocrystalline anisotropies and the TAMR.
![(Color online) Thermovoltage in a (Ga,Mn)As/i-GaAs/GaAs:Si tunnel junction as a function of the magnetization angle. 0 is along \[010\] crystal axis. From [@Naydenova:2011_a].[]{data-label="fig_TAMT"}](fig40){width=".9\columnwidth"}
### Spin Seebeck effect {#spin-Seebeck}
Among the most intriguing spin-caloritronics effects is the spin-Seebeck effect [@Uchida:2008_a; @Uchida:2010_a; @Jaworski:2010_a; @Sinova:2010_b; @Bauer:2012_a]. Instead of directly generating electrical voltages from thermal gradients, as was the case of the above discussed magneto-thermopower effects, in the spin-Seebeck effect it is primarily the difference between spin-up and spin-down chemical potentials, $\mu_\uparrow-\mu_\downarrow$, which is induced by the applied thermal voltage in a ferromagnet. An appealing picture was proposed following the first experimental observation of the spin-Seebeck effect in NiFe in which the ferromagnet functions like a thermocouple, but in the spin sector [@Uchida:2008_a]. In this picture, instead of two different charge Seebeck coefficients in two metals forming the thermocouple, it is the different carrier scattering and density and the corresponding Seebeck coefficient in the two spin channels which produce the non-zero difference $\mu_\uparrow-\mu_\downarrow$.
In this seminal work and in the subsequent experiments, the SHE in attached non-magnetic electrodes was employed to convert the difference in spin-dependent chemical potentials into electrical voltages [@Uchida:2008_a; @Uchida:2010_a; @Jaworski:2010_a]. Specifically, $|\mu_\uparrow-\mu_\downarrow|$ decreases in the non-magnetic electrode from the interface with the ferromagnet along the vertical direction. This results in a vertical spin-current in the non-magnetic electrode which is converted into an in-plane electrical voltage via the SHE.
Experiments in which the transition metal ferromagnet was replaced with the layer of a metallic (Ga,Mn)As [@Jaworski:2010_a] ruled out the original picture of longitudinal diffusion of electrons in the two spin channels over macroscopic distances in the ferromagnet. As shown in Fig. \[fig\_spin-Seebeck\], same electrical signals were detected on the SHE electrodes after scratching out the conductive (Ga,Mn)As film in the middle of the sample. The non-local character of the observed spin-Seebeck effect, i.e. the dependence of the measured SHE voltage on the position of the electrode along the sample, has been intensively discussed since the experiments in (Ga,Mn)As and the parallel observation of the spin-Seebeck effect in a ferromagnetic insulator [@Uchida:2010_a]. It has been argued that phonons or magnons in the ferromagnet/substrate structure may be responsible for the non-locality of the spin-Seebeck effect [@Bauer:2012_a; @Tikhonov:2013_a].
![(Color online) Top panel: Measurement geometry of the spin-Seebeck effect. a, Transverse voltage, $V_y$, as a function of applied field, $B$, from the strip contact 0.3 mm above the scratch (star) with an applied $\Delta T_x$ of 0.63 K. b, Spatial dependence of the spin-Seebeck coefficient, $S_{xy}$, before and after the scratch. The scratched region is indicated by the shaded region. c, Temperature dependence of $S_{xy}$ after the scratch at various positions along the sample. Adapted from [@Jaworski:2010_a].[]{data-label="fig_spin-Seebeck"}](fig41){width=".9\columnwidth"}
Summary {#sum}
=======
We have reviewed several areas of the rich physics of spintronics phenomena and device concepts explored in the ferromagnetic semiconductor (Ga,Mn)As. The most extensively studied transport characteristics of (Ga,Mn)As are the spin-orbit coupling related magnetoresistance effects. Experiments and calculations in (Ga,Mn)As have provided an unprecedented physical insight into the anomalous Hall effect which prompted a renewed interest and experimental discovery of the spin Hall effect. Anisotropic magnetoresistance phenomena have been identified in (Ga,Mn)As based tunneling devices and in devices sensing the anisotropy of the chemical potential. Apart from these direct magnetoresistance phenomena, (Ga,Mn)As has become a fruitful model system for exploring the inverse magnetotransport phenomena, i.e., the current induced spin torques. The studies have provided new insight into spin-transfer torques in domain walls and led to the discovery of the current induced spin-orbit torques in uniform magnets. Moreover, optical counterparts of both the non-relativistic spin-transfer and the relativistic spin-orbit torques have been identified in (Ga,Mn)As, allowing to study these phenomena on timescales attainable in the optical pump-and-probe experiments. (Ga,Mn)As based research has also made seminal contributions to the field of spin-caloritronics by discovering the ohmic and tunneling anisotropic thermopower effects and helping to elucidate the origin of the spin-Seebeck effect.
It is likely that (Ga,Mn)As and related ferromagnetic semiconductors will continue to inspire new avenues of magnetic materials and spintronics research in the future. Many studies, in particular of the relativistic phenomena in (Ga,Mn)As may become directly relevant to room-temperature magnetic systems with strong spin-orbit coupling and may therefore lead to new technological applications, independent of the existing limits of the Curie temperature in the ferromagnetic semiconductors. This knowledge transfer applies to room-temperature magnetic systems which include not only the conventional transition metal ferromagnets but also, e.g., a class of metal and semiconductor antiferromagnets with high Néel temperatures.
List of acronyms {#list-of-acronyms .unnumbered}
================
[**ABE**]{}: Aharonov-Bohm effect
[**AHE**]{}: Anomalous Hall effect
[**AMR**]{}: Anisotropic magnetoresistance
[**AMT**]{}: Anisotropic magneto-thermopower
[**ANE**]{}: Anomalous Nernst effect
[**CB**]{}: Coulomb blockade
[**DOS**]{}: Density of states
[**DW**]{}: Domain wall
[**FMR**]{}: Ferromagnetic resonance
[**GMR**]{}: Giant magnetoresistance
[**GMT**]{}: Giant magneto-thermopower
[**GGA**]{}: Generalized gradient approximations
[**LT-MBE**]{}: Low temperature molecular beam epitaxy
[**MCB**]{}: magnetic circular birefringence
[**MCD**]{}: magnetic circular dichroism
[**MLB**]{}: magnetic linear birefringence
[**MLD**]{}: magnetic linear dichroism
[**MRAM**]{}: Magnetic random access memory
[**SET**]{}: Single electron transistor
[**SHE**]{}: Spin Hall effect
[**SOT**]{}: Spin orbit torque
[**STT**]{}: Spin transfer torque
[**SWR**]{}: Spin-wave resonance
[**TAMR**]{}: Tunneling anisotropic magnetoresistance
[**TAMT**]{}: Tunneling anisotropic magneto-thermopower
[**TBA**]{}: Tight-binding approximation
[**TMR**]{}: Tunneling magnetoresistance
[**TMT**]{}: Tunneling magneto-thermopower
[**UCF**]{}: Universal conductance fluctuations
[**WB**]{}: Walker breakdown
[**WL**]{}: Weak localization
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge support from the ERC Advanced Grant No. 268066, from the Praemium Academiae of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, from the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic Grant No. LM2011026, and from the Czech Science Foundation Grant No. 14-37427G.
[344]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , .
, , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ** ().
, , , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , in **, edited by (), p. , .
, , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , in **, edited by (), p. , .
, and , , .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , .
, , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , ** ().
, , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , and , , **, volume of ** ().
, , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , ** (), .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , and , , .
, , and , , in **, edited by (), volume , p. , .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ** ().
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , ** ().
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , , , , *et al.*, , ****, .
, , , , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , , , , , and , , ****, .
, , , and , , ****, .
, and , , ****, .
, , , , , and , , ****, .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Given a tournament ${{\cal T}}$ and a positive integer $k$, the [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} problem asks if there exists a least $k$ (vertex-)disjoint directed 3-cycles in ${{\cal T}}$. This is the dual problem in tournaments of the classical minimal feedback vertex set problem. Surprisingly [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} did not receive a lot of attention in the literature. We show that it does not admit a [PTAS]{} unless [P]{}=[NP]{}, even if we restrict the considered instances to sparse tournaments, that is tournaments with a feedback arc set (FAS) being a matching. Focusing on sparse tournaments we provide a $(1+\frac{6}{c-1})$ approximation algorithm for sparse tournaments having a linear representation where all the backward arcs have “length” at least $c$. Concerning kernelization, we show that [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} admits a kernel with ${\mathcal{O}}(m)$ vertices, where $m$ is the size of a given feedback arc set. In particular, we derive a ${\mathcal{O}}(k)$ vertices kernel for [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} when restricted to sparse instances. On the negative size, we show that [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} does not admit a kernel of (total bit) size ${\mathcal{O}}(k^{2-\epsilon})$ unless ${\sf NP} \subseteq {\sf coNP / Poly}$. The existence of a kernel in ${\mathcal{O}}(k)$ vertices for [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} remains an open question.'
author:
- Stéphane Bessy
- Marin Bougeret
- Jocelyn Thiebaut
bibliography:
- 'TP-biblio.bib'
title: 'Triangle packing in (sparse) tournaments: approximation and kernelization.'
---
Introduction and related work
=============================
Tournament {#tournament .unnumbered}
----------
A tournament ${{\cal T}}$ on $n$ vertices is an orientation of the edges of the complete undirected graph $K_n$. Thus, given a tournament ${{\cal T}}=(V,A)$, where $V = \{v_i, i\in [n]\}$, for each $i,j \in [n]$, either $v_iv_j \in A$ or $v_jv_i \in A$. A tournament ${{\cal T}}$ can alternatively be defined by an ordering ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})=(v_1,\dots,v_n)$ of its vertices and a set of *backward arcs* ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_{{\sigma}}({{\cal T}})$ (which will be denoted ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ as the considered ordering is not ambiguous), where each arc $a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ is of the form $v_{i_1}v_{i_2}$ with $i_2 < i_1$. Indeed, given ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$ and ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$, we can define $V = \{v_i, i\in [n]\}$ and $A= {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})
\cup {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ -> ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ where ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ -> ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}) = \{v_{i_1}v_{i_2} : (i_1 <
i_2) \mbox{ and } v_{i_2}v_{i_1} \notin {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})\}$ is the set of forward arcs of ${{\cal T}}$ in the given ordering ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$. In the following, $({\sigma}({{\cal T}}), {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}))$ is called a *linear representation* of the tournament ${{\cal T}}$. For a backward arc $e=v_jv_i$ of ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$ the *span value* of $e$ is $j-i-1$. Then $\mathtt{minspan}({\sigma}({{\cal T}}))$ (resp. $\mathtt{maxspan}({\sigma}({{\cal T}}))$) is simply the minimum (resp. maximum) of the span values of the backward arcs of ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$.\
A set $A'\subseteq A$ of arcs of ${{\cal T}}$ is a *feedback arc set* (or *FAS*) of ${{\cal T}}$ if every directed cycle of ${{\cal T}}$ contains at least one arc of $A'$. It is clear that for any linear representation $({\sigma}({{\cal T}}), {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}))$ of ${{\cal T}}$ the set ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ is a FAS of ${{\cal T}}$. A tournament is *sparse* if it admits a FAS which is a matching. We denote by [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} the problem of packing the maximum number of vertex disjoint triangles in a given tournament, where a triangle is a directed 3-cycle. More formally, an input of [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} is a tournament ${{\cal T}}$, an output is a set (called a *triangle packing*) ${S}=\{t_i, i \in
[|S|]\}$ where each $t_i$ is a triangle and for any $i \neq j$ we have $V(t_i) \cap V(t_j) = \emptyset$, and the objective is to maximize $|S|$. We denote by $opt({{\cal T}})$ the optimal value of ${{\cal T}}$. We denote by [[$C_3$-Perfect-Packing-T]{}]{} the decision problem associated to [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} where an input ${{\cal T}}$ is positive iff there is a triangle packing ${S}$ such that $V({S})=V({{\cal T}})$ (which is called a *perfect triangle packing*).
Related work {#related-work .unnumbered}
------------
We refer the reader to Appendix where we recall the definitions of the problems mentioned bellow as well as the standard definitions about parameterized complexity and approximation. A first natural related problem is [3-Set-Packing]{} as we can reduce [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} to [3-Set-Packing]{} by creating an hyperedge for each triangle.
#### Classical complexity / approximation. {#classical-complexity-approximation. .unnumbered}
It is known that [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} is polynomial if the tournament does not contain the three forbidden sub-tournaments described in [@cai2002min]. From the point of view of approximability, the best approximation algorithm is the $\frac{4}{3}+\epsilon$ approximation of [@cygan2013improved] for [3-Set-Packing]{}, implying the same result for [$K_3$-packing]{} and [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}. Concerning negative results, it is known [@guruswami1998vertex] that even [$K_3$-packing]{} is [ MAX SNP]{}-hard on graphs with maximum degree four. We can also mention the related “dual” problem [FAST]{} and [FVST]{} that received a lot of attention with for example the [NP]{}-hardness and [PTAS]{} for [FAS]{} in [@charbit2007minimum] and [@kenyon2007rank] respectively, and the $\frac{7}{3}$ approximation and inapproximability results for [FVST]{} in [@73approx].
#### Kernelization. {#kernelization. .unnumbered}
We precise that the implicitly considered parameter here is the size of the solution. There is a ${\mathcal{O}}(k^2)$ vertex kernel for [ $K_3$-packing]{} in [@moser2009problem], and even a ${\mathcal{O}}(k^2)$ vertex kernel for [3-Set-Packing]{} in [@abu2009quadratic], which is obtained by only removing vertices of the ground set. This remark is important as it directly implies a ${\mathcal{O}}(k^2)$ vertex kernel for [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} (see Section \[sec:kernel\]). Let us now turn to negative results. There is a whole line of research dedicated to finding lower bounds on the size of polynomial kernels. The main tool involved in these bounds is the weak composition introduced in [@hermelin2012weak] (whose definition is recalled in Appendix). Weak composition allowed several almost tight lower bounds, with for example the ${\mathcal{O}}(k^{d-\epsilon})$ for [$d$-Set-Packing]{} and ${\mathcal{O}}(k^{d-4-\epsilon})$ for [ $K_d$-packing]{} of [@hermelin2012weak]. These results where improved in [@dell2014kernelization] to ${\mathcal{O}}(k^{d-\epsilon})$ for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">perfect</span> $d$-<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Set-Packing</span>, ${\mathcal{O}}(k^{d-1-\epsilon})$ for [$K_d$-packing]{}, and leading to ${\mathcal{O}}(k^{2-\epsilon})$ for [perfect $K_3$-packing]{}. Notice that negative results for the “perfect” version of problems (where parameter $k=\frac{n}{d}$, where $d$ is the number of vertices of the packed structure) are stronger than for the classical version where $k$ is arbitrary. Kernel lower bound for these “perfect” versions is sometimes referred as *sparsification lower bounds*.
Our contributions {#our-contributions .unnumbered}
-----------------
Our objective is to study the approximability and kernelization of [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}. On the approximation side, a natural question is a possible improvement of the $\frac{4}{3}+\epsilon$ approximation implied by [3-Set-Packing]{}. We show that, unlike [FAST]{}, [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} does not admit a [PTAS]{} unless [P]{}=[NP]{}, even if the tournament is sparse. We point out that, surprisingly, we were not able to find any reference establishing a negative result for [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}, even for the [ NP]{}-hardness. As these results show that there is not much room for improving the approximation ratio, we focus on sparse tournaments and followed a different approach by looking for a condition that would allow ratio arbitrarily close to $1$. In that spirit, we provide a $(1+\frac{6}{c-1})$ approximation algorithm for sparse tournaments having a linear representation with $\mathtt{minspan}$ at least $c$. Concerning kernelization, we complete the panorama of sparsification lower bounds of [@jansen2015sparsification] by proving that [[$C_3$-Perfect-Packing-T]{}]{} does not admit a kernel of (total bit) size ${\mathcal{O}}(n^{2-\epsilon})$ unless ${\sf NP} \subseteq {\sf coNP / Poly}$. This implies that [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} does not admit a kernel of (total bit) size ${\mathcal{O}}(k^{2-\epsilon})$ unless ${\sf NP} \subseteq {\sf coNP / Poly}$. We also prove that [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} admits a kernel of ${\mathcal{O}}(m)$ vertices, where $m$ is the size of a given FAS of the instance, and that [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} restricted to sparse instances has a kernel in ${\mathcal{O}}(k)$ vertices (and so of total size bit ${\mathcal{O}}(k\log (k))$). The existence of a kernel in ${\mathcal{O}}(k)$ vertices for the general [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} remains our main open question.
Specific notations and observations {#sec:notation}
===================================
Given a linear representation $({\sigma}({{\cal T}}),{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}))$ of a tournament ${{\cal T}}$, a triangle $t$ in ${{\cal T}}$ is a triple $t=(v_{i_1},v_{i_2},v_{i_3})$ with $i_l < i_{l+1}$ such that either $v_{i_3}v_{i_1} \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$, $v_{i_3}v_{i_2} \notin {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ and $v_{i_2}v_{i_1} \notin
{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ (in this case we call $t$ a *triangle with backward arc* $v_{i_3}v_{i_1}$), or $v_{i_3}v_{i_1} \notin {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$, $v_{i_3}v_{i_2} \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ and $v_{i_2}v_{i_1} \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ (in this case we call $t$ a *triangle with two backward arcs* $v_{i_3}v_{i_2}$ and $v_{i_2}v_{i_1}$).
Given two tournaments ${{\cal T}}_1, {{\cal T}}_2$ defined by ${\sigma}({{\cal T}}_l)$ and ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}_l)$ we denote by ${{\cal T}}={{\cal T}}_1{{\cal T}}_2$ the tournament called the concatenation of ${{\cal T}}_1$ and ${{\cal T}}_2$, where ${\sigma}({{\cal T}}) = {\sigma}({{\cal T}}_1){\sigma}({{\cal T}}_2)$ is the concatenation of the two sequences, and ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}) =
{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}_1) \cup {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}_2)$. Given a tournament ${{\cal T}}$ and a subset of vertices $X$, we denote by ${{\cal T}}\setminus X$ the tournament ${{\cal T}}[V({{\cal T}}) \setminus X]$ induced by vertices $V({{\cal T}}) \setminus X$, and we call this operation *removing $X$ from ${{\cal T}}$*. Given an arc $a=uv$ we define $h(a)=v$ as the head of $a$ and $t(a)=u$ as the tail of $a$. Given a linear representation $(V({{\cal T}}),{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}))$ and an arc $a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$, we define $s(a) = \{v : h(a) < v < t(a)\}$ as the *span* of $a$. Notice that the span value of $a$ is then exactly $|s(a)|$.\
Given a linear representation $(V({{\cal T}}),{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}))$ and a vertex $v \in V({{\cal T}})$, we define the degree of $v$ by $d(v)=(a,b)$, where $a = |\{vu \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}) : u < v\}|$ is called the *left degree* of $v$ and $b = |\{uv \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}) : u > v\}|$ is called the *right degree* of $v$. We also define . Given a set of pairwise distinct pairs $D$, we denote by [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}$^D$ the problem [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} restricted to tournaments such that there exists a linear representation where $d(v) \in D$ for all $v$. Notice that when $D_{M}=\{(0,1),(1,0),(0,0)\}$, instances of [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}$^{D_M}$ are the sparse tournaments.\
Finally let us point out that it is easy to decide in polynomial time if a tournament is sparse or not, and if so, to give a linear representation whose FAS is a matching. The corresponding algorithm is detailed in Appendix in Lemma \[lem:faslinear\]. Thus, in the following, when considering a sparse tournament we will assume that a linear ordering of it where backward arcs form a matching is also given.
Approximation for sparse tournaments {#sec:approx}
====================================
[APX]{}-hardness for sparse tournaments
---------------------------------------
In this subsection we prove that [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}$^{D_M}$ is [APX]{}-hard by providing a $L$-reduction (see Definition \[def:L\] in appendix) from Max 2-SAT(3), which is known to be [APX]{}-hard [@ausiello2012complexity; @berman1999some]. Recall that in the [Max 2-SAT(3)]{} problem where each clause contains exactly $2$ variables and each variable appears in at most 3 clauses (and at most twice positively and once negatively).
#### Definition of the reduction {#subsec:reduction2 .unnumbered}
Let $\cal{F}$ be an instance of [Max 2-SAT(3)]{}. In the following, we will denote by $n$ the number of variables in $\cal{F}$ and $m$ the number of clauses. Let $\{x_i, 1 \in [n]\}$ be the set of variables of $\cal{F}$ and $\{C_j, j \in [m]\}$ its set of clauses.
We now define a reduction $f$ which maps an instance ${\cal F}$ of [Max 2-SAT(3)]{} to an instance ${\cal T}$ of [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}$^{D_M}$. For each variable $x_i$ with $i \in [n]$, we create a tournament $L_i$ as follows and we call it *variable gadget*. We refer the reader to Figure \[fig:li\] where an example of variable gadget is depicted. Let ${\sigma}(L_i) = (X_i, X'_i, \overline{X_i}, \overline{X_i}', \{\beta_i\}, \{\beta'_i\}$ $, A_i, B_i, \{\alpha_i\}, A'_i, B'_i)$. We define . All sets of $C$ have size $4$. We denote $X_i = (x_i^1,x_i^2,x_i^3,x_i^4)$, and we extend the notation in a straightforward manner to the other others sets of $C$. Let us now define ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}(L_i)$. For each set of $C$, we add a backward arc whose head is the first element and the tail is the last element (for example for $X_i$ we add the arc $x_i^4x_i^1$). Then, we add to ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}(L_i)$ the set $\{e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4\}$ where $e_1=x_i^3a_i^3$, $e_2 = x_i^{'3}a_i^{'3}$, $e_3 = \overline{x_i^3} b_i^3$, $e_4 = \overline{x_i^{'3}} b_i^{'3}$ and the set $\{m_1,m_2\}$ where $m_1 = a_i^{'2}a_i^2$, $m_2 = b_i^{'2}b_i^2$ called the two *medium arcs* of the variable gadget. This completes the description of tournament $L_i$. Let $L = L_1 \dots L_n$ be the concatenation of the $L_i$.
![Example of a variable gadget $L_i$.[]{data-label="fig:li"}](def_Li.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
For each clause $C_j$ with $j \in [1,m]$, we create a tournament $K_j$ with ordering ${\sigma}(K_i) = (\theta_j, d^1_j,c^1_j,c^2_j,d^2_j)$ and ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}(K_i) = \{d^2_jd^1_j\}$. We also define $K = K_1\dots K_m$. Let us now define ${{\cal T}}= LK$. We add to ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ the following backward arcs from $V(K)$ to $V(L)$. If $C_j = l_{i_1} \vee l_{i_2} $ is a clause in $\cal{F}$ then we add the arcs $c_j^1v_{i_1}, c_j^2v_{i_2}$ where $v_{i_c}$ is the vertex in $\{x_{i_c}^2,x_{i_c}^{'2},\overline{x_{i_c}^2}\}$ corresponding to $l_{i_c}$: if $l_{i_c}$ is a positive occurrence of variable $i_c$ we chose $v_{i_c} \in \{x_{i_c}^2,x_{i_c}^{'2}\}$, otherwise we chose $v_{i_c} = \overline{x_{i_c}^2}$. Moreover, we chose vertices $v_{i_c}$ in such a way that for any $i \in [n]$, for each $v \in \{x_i^2,x_i^{'2},\overline{x_i^2}\}$ there exists a unique arc $a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ such that $h(a)=v$. This is always possible as each variable has at most two positive occurrences and one negative occurrence. Thus, $x_i^2$ represent the first positive occurrence of variable $i$, and $x_i^{'2}$ the second one. We refer the reader to Figure \[fig:LetK\] where an example of the connection between variable and clause gadget is depicted.
![Example showing how a clause gadget is attached to variable gadgets.[]{data-label="fig:LetK"}](def_LetK.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
Notice that vertices of $\overline{X'_i}$ are never linked to the clauses gadget. However, we need this set to keep the variable gadget symmetric so that setting $x_i$ to true or false leads to the same number of triangles inside $L_i$. This completes the description of ${{\cal T}}$. Notice that the degree of any vertex is in $\{(0,1),(1,0),(0,0)\}$, and thus ${{\cal T}}$ is an instance of [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}$^{D_M}$.
Let us now distinguish three different types of triangles in ${{\cal T}}$. A triangle $t=(v_1,v_2,v_3)$ of ${{\cal T}}$ is called an *outer* triangle iff $\exists j \in [m]$ such that $v_2 = \theta_j$ and $v_3 = c^l_j$ (implying that $v_1 \in V(L)$), *variable inner* iff $\exists i \in [n]$ such that $V(t) \subseteq V(L_i)$, and *clause inner* iff $\exists j \in [m]$ such that $V(t) \subseteq V(K_j)$. Notice that a triangle $t=(v_1,v_2,v_3)$ of ${{\cal T}}$ which is neither outer, variable or clause inner has necessarily $v_3 = c^l_j$ for some $j$, and $v_2 \neq \theta_j$ ($v_2$ could be in $V(L)$ or $V(K)$). In the following definition, for any $Y \in C$ (where $C=\{ X_i,X'_i,\overline{X_i},\overline{X_i}',A_i,B_i,A'_i,B'_i\}$) with $Y=(y^1,y^2,y^3,y^4)$, we define $t_Y^2 = (y^1,y^2,y^4)$ and $t_Y^3 = (y^1,y^3,y^4)$. For example, $t_{X'_i}^2 = (x_i^{'1},x_i^{'2},x_i^{'4})$. For any $i\in [n]$, we define $P_i$ and $\overline{P_i}$, two sets of vertex disjoint variable inner triangles of $V(L_i)$, by:
- $P_i = \{t_{X_i}^3, t_{X'_i}^3, t_{\overline{X_i}}^2, t_{\overline{X'_i}}^2, t_{A_i}^3, t_{B_i}^2, t_{A'_i}^3, t_{B'_i}^2, (h(e_3),\beta_i,t(e_3)), (h(e_4),\beta'_i,t(e_4)), (h(m_1),\alpha_i,t(m_1))\}$
- $\overline{P_i} = \{t_{X_i}^2, t_{X'_i}^2, t_{\overline{X_i}}^3, t_{\overline{X'_i}}^3, t_{A_i}^2, t_{B_i}^3, t_{A'_i}^2, t_{B'_i}^3, (h(e_1),\beta_i,t(e_1)), (h(e_2),\beta'_i,t(e_2)), (h(m_2),\alpha_i,t(m_2))\}$
Notice that $P_i$ (resp. $\overline{P_i}$) uses all vertices of $L_i$ except $\{x_i^2,x_i^{'2}\}$ (resp. $\{\overline{x_i^2},\overline{x_i^{'2}}\}$). For any $j \in [m]$, and $x \in [2]$ we define the set of clause inner triangle of $K_j$, that is $Q^x_j = \{(d^1_j,c^x_j,d^2_j)\}$.
Informally, setting variable $x_i$ to true corresponds to create the $11$ triangles of $P_i$ in $L_i$ (as leaving vertices $\{x^2_i,x^{2'}_i\}$ available allows to create outer triangles corresponding to satisfied clauses), and setting it to false corresponds to create the $11$ triangles of $\overline{P_i}$. Satisfying a clause $j$ using its $x^{th}$ literal (represented by a vertex $v \in V(L)$) corresponds to create triangle in $Q^{3-x}_j$ as it leaves $c^x_j$ available to create the triangle $(v,\theta_j,c^x_j)$. Our final objective (in Lemma \[lem:Lreducv2\]) is to prove that satisfying $k$ clauses is equivalent to find $11n+m+k$ vertex disjoint triangles.
#### Restructuration lemmas {#restructuration-lemmas .unnumbered}
Given a solution ${S}$, let $I^{L}_i =\{t \in {S}: V(t) \subseteq V(L_i)\}$, $I^{K}_j =\{t \in {S}: V(t) \subseteq V(K_j)\}$, $I^{L} = \cup_{i \in [n]} I^L_i$ be the set of variable inner triangles of ${S}$, $I^{K} = \cup_{j \in [m]} I^K_j$ be the set of clause inner triangles of ${S}$, and $O = \{t \in {S}\mbox{ $t$ is an outer triangle }\}$ be the set of outer triangles of ${S}$. Notice that *a priori* $I^L,I^K,O$ does not necessarily form a partition of ${S}$. However, we will show in the next lemmas how to restructure ${S}$ such that $I^L,I^K,O$ becomes a partition.
\[lem:intv2\] For any ${S}$ we can compute in polynomial time a solution ${S}' =
\{t'_l, l\in [k]\}$ such that $|{S}'| \ge |{S}|$ and for all $j\in[m]$ there exists $x \in [2]$ such that $I^{'K}_j=Q^x_j$ and
- either ${S}'$ does not use any other vertex of $K_j$ ($V({S}') \cap V(K_j) = V(Q^x_j)$)
- either ${S}'$ contains an outer triangle $t'_l=(v,\theta_j, c^{3-x}_j)$ with $v \in V(L)$ (implying $V({S}') \cap V(K_j) = V(K_j)$)
Consider a solution ${S}= \{t_l,l \in [k]\}$. Let us suppose that ${S}$ does not verify the desired property. We say that $j \in [m]$ satisfies $(\star)$ iff there exists $x \in [2]$ such that $I^{K}_j=Q^x_j$ and either ${S}$ does not use any other vertex of $K_j$, or ${S}$ contains an outer triangle $t_l=(v,\theta_j, c^{3-x}_j)$ with $v \in V(L)$.
Let us restructure ${S}$ to increase the number of $j$ satisfying $(\star)$, which will be sufficient to prove the lemma. Consider the largest $j\in [m]$ which does not satisfy $(\star)$. Let $c = |I^{K}_j|$. Notice that the only possible triangle of $I^{K}_j$ contains $a=d^2_jd^1_j$, implying $c \le 1$.
If $c=1$, let $t \in I^K_j$ and $v_0 = \{c^1_j,c^2_j\} \setminus V(t)$. If $v_0 \notin V({S})$, then let us prove that $\theta_j \notin V({S})$. Indeed, by contradiction if $\theta_j \in V(S)$, let $t' \in {S}$ such that $\theta_j \in V(t')$. As $d(\theta_j)=(0,0)$ we necessarily have $t'=(u,\theta_j,w)$ with $w = c^{x'}_{j'}$ with $j' \ge j$, which contradicts the maximality of $j$. Otherwise ($v_0 \in V({S})$), then denoting by $t'$ the triangle of ${S}$ which contains $v_0$ we must have $t'=(u,v,v_0)$. Indeed, we cannot have (for some $u', v'$) $t'=(v_0,u',v')$ as there is no backward arc $a$ with $h(a)=v_0$ and we cannot have either $t'=(u',v_0,v')$ as this would imply $v'=c^{x'}_{j'}$ for $j' > j$ and again contradict the definition of $j$. As, again, by maximality of $j$ we get $\theta_j \notin V({S})$ (and since $u\theta_j$ and $\theta_jv_0$ are forward arcs), we can replace $t'$ by the triangle $(u,\theta_j,v_0)$ which is disjoint to the other triangles of ${S}$.
If $c=0$. Notice first that by maximality of $j$, $d^2_j \notin V({S})$ as $d^2_j$ could only be used in a triangle $t=(v,d^2_j,c^x_{j'})$ with $j' > j$. Let $Z = V({S}) \cap \{c^1_j,c^2_j\}$. If $|Z|=0$, then by maximality of $j$ we get $d^1_j \notin V({S})$ and $\theta_j \notin V({S})$, and thus we add to ${S}$ triangle $(d^1_j,c^1_j,d^2_j)$. If $|Z|=1$, let $c^x_j \in Z$ and $t \in {S}$ such that $c^x_j \in V(t)$. By maximality of $j$ we necessarily have $t=(u,v,c^x_j)$ for some $u,v$. If $v \neq \theta_j$ then by maximality of $j$ we have $\theta_j \notin V({S})$, and thus we swap $v$ and $\theta_j$ in $t$ and now suppose that $\theta_j \in V(t)$. This implies that $d^1_j \notin V({S})$ (before the swap we could have had $v = d^1_j$, but now by maximality of $j$ we know that $d^1_j$ is unused), and we add $(d^1_j,c^{3-x}_j,d^2_j)$ to ${S}$. It only remains now case where $|Z|=2$. If there exists $t \in {S}$ with $Z \subseteq V(t)$, then $t=(u,c^1_j,c^2_j)$. Using the same arguments as above we get that $\{\theta_j,d^1_j\} \cap V({S}) = \emptyset$, and thus we swap $c^1_j$ by $\theta_j$ in $t$ and add $(d^1_,c^1_j,d^2_j)$ to ${S}$. Otherwise, let $t_x \in {S}$ such that $c^x_j \in V(t_x)$ for $x \in [2]$. This implies that $t_x = (u_x,v_x,c^x_j)$. If $\theta_j \notin V(t_1) \cup V(t_2)$ then $\theta_j \notin V({S})$ and we swap $v_1$ with $\theta_j$. Therefore, from now on we can suppose that $\theta_j \in V(t_x)$ for $x \in [2]$. Then, if $d^1_j \notin V(t_{3-x})$ then $d^1_j \notin V({S})$ and thus we swap $v_{3-x}$ with $d^1_j$ and we now assume that $d^1_j \in V(t_{3-x})$. Finally, we remove $t_{3-x}$ from ${S}$ and add instead $(d^1_j,c^{3-x}_j,d^2_j)$.
\[cor:outerinnerv2\] For any ${S}$ we can compute in polynomial time a solution ${S}'$ such that $|{S}'| \ge |{S}|$, and ${S}'$ only contains outer, variable inner, and clause inner triangles. Indeed, in the solution ${S}'$ of Lemma \[lem:intv2\], given any $t \in {S}'$, either $V(t)$ intersects $V(K_j)$ for some $j$ and then $t$ is an outer or a clause inner triangle, or $V(t) \subseteq V(L_i)$ for $i \in [n]$ as there is no backward arc $uv$ with $u \in V(L_{i_1})$ and $v \in V(L_{i_2})$ with $i_1 \neq i_2$ .
\[lem:goodpatternv2\] For any ${S}$ we can compute in polynomial time a solution ${S}'$ such that $|{S}'| \ge |{S}|$, ${S}'$ satisfies Lemma \[lem:intv2\], and for every $i \in[n]$, $I^{'L}_i = P_i$ or $I^{'L}_i = \overline{P_i}$.
Let ${S}_0$ be an arbitrary solution, and ${S}$ be the solution obtained from ${S}_0$ after applying Lemma \[lem:intv2\]. By Corollary \[cor:outerinnerv2\], we partition ${S}$ into ${S}= I^L \cup I^K \cup O$. Let us say that $i \in [n]$ satisfies $(\star)$ if $I^L_i = P_i$ or $I^L_i = \overline{P_i}$. Let us suppose that ${S}$ does not verify the desired property, and show how to restructure ${S}$ to increase the number of $i$ satisfying $(\star)$ while still satisfying Lemma \[lem:intv2\], which will prove the lemma.
Let ${Lft}_i = X_i \cup X'_i \cup \overline{X_i} \cup \overline{X'_i}$ and ${Rgt}_i = A_i \cup B_i \cup \{\alpha_i\} \cup A'_i \cup B'_i$ be two subset of vertices of $V(L_i)$. Given any solution $\tilde{{S}}$ satisfying Lemma \[lem:intv2\], we define the following sets. Let $\tilde{{S}}^{{Lft}_i} = \{t \in \tilde{I}^L_i : V(t) \subseteq {Lft}_i \}$, $\tilde{{S}}^{{Rgt}_i} = \{t \in \tilde{I}^L_i : V(t) \subseteq {Rgt}_i \}$, and . Observe that these three sets define a partition of $\tilde{I}^L_i$, and that triangles of $\tilde{{S}}^{{Lft}_i}$ are even included in $W$ with $W \in \{X_i, X'_i , \overline{X_i}, \overline{X_i}'\}$. Let $\tilde{{S}}^{O_i} = \{t \in \tilde{O} : V(t) \cap V(L_i) \neq \emptyset\}$ be the set of outer triangles of $\tilde{{S}}$ intersecting $L_i$. We also define $g_i(\tilde{{S}})=(|\tilde{{S}}^{{Lft}_i}|,|\tilde{{S}}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}|,|\tilde{{S}}^{{Rgt}_i}|,|\tilde{{S}}^{O_i}|)$ and $h_i(\tilde{S})=|\tilde{{S}}^{{Lft}_i}|+|\tilde{{S}}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}|+|\tilde{{S}}^{{Rgt}_i}|+|\tilde{{S}}^{O_i}|=|\tilde{I}^L_i \cup \tilde{{S}}^{O_i}|$.
Our objective is to restructure ${S}$ into a solution ${S}'$ with ${S}' = ({S}\setminus (I^L_i \cup {S}^{O_i})) \cup (I^{'L}_i \cup {S}^{'O_i})$. We will define $I^{'L}_i$ and ${S}^{'O_i}$ verifying the following properties $(\triangle)$:
$\triangle_1:$
: $I^{'L}_i = P_i$ or $I^{'L}_i=\overline{P_i}$,
$\triangle_2:$
: ${S}^{'O_i} \subseteq {S}^{O_i}$,
$\triangle_3:$
: $|(I^{'L}_i \cup {S}^{'O_i})| \ge |(I^L_i \cup {S}^{O_i})| $ (which is equivalent to $h_i({S}') \ge h_i({S}) $),
$\triangle_4:$
: triangles of $I^{'L}_i \cup {S}^{'O_i}$ are vertex disjoint.
Notice that $\triangle_2$ and $\triangle_4$ imply that all triangles of ${S}'$ are still vertex disjoint. Indeed, as ${S}$ satisfies Lemma \[lem:intv2\], the only triangles of ${S}$ intersecting $L_i$ are $I^L_i \cup {S}^{O_i}$, and thus replacing them with $I^{'L}_i \cup {S}^{'O_i}$ satisfying the above property implies that all triangles of ${S}'$ are vertex disjoint. Moreover, ${S}'$ will still satisfy Lemma \[lem:intv2\] even with ${S}^{'O_i} \subseteq {S}^{O_i}$ as removing outer triangles cannot violate property of Lemma \[lem:intv2\]. Finally $\triangle_3$ implies that $|{S}'| \ge |{S}|$. Thus, defining $I^{'L}_i$ and ${S}^{'O_i}$ satisfying $(\triangle)$ will be sufficient to prove the lemma. Let us now state some useful properties.
$p_1:$
: $|{S}^{{Lft}_i}| \le 4$
$p_2:$
: $|{S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}| \le 4$ as for any $t \in {S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}$ there exists $l \in [4]$ such that $V(t) \supseteq V(e_l)$.
$p_3:$
: $|{S}^{{Rgt}_i}| \le 5$ (as $|V({S}^{{Rgt}_i})| = 17$). Let $Z = V({S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}) \cap {Rgt}_i$. Let us also prove that if $Z \supseteq \{a^3_i,b^3_i\}$, $Z \supseteq \{a^{'3}_i,b^{'3}_i\}$, $Z \supseteq \{a^3_i,b^{'3}_i\}$ or $Z \supseteq \{a^{'3}_i,b^3_i\}$ then $|{S}^{{Rgt}_i}| \le 4$. For any $W \in \{A_i, B_i, A'_i, B'_i\}$, let $s_W$ be the unique arc $a$ of ${{\cal T}}$ such that $V(a) \subseteq W$ and let $m_W$ be the unique medium arc $a$ such that $V(a) \cap W \neq \emptyset$. Let us call the $\{s_W\}$ the four small arcs of the tournament induced by ${Rgt}_i$. Let ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({S}^{{Rgt}_i}) = \{a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}(L_i) : \exists t \in {S}^{{Rgt}_i}$ $V(a) \subseteq V(t) \}$ be the set of backward arcs used by ${S}^{{Rgt}_i}$. Observe that arcs of ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({S}^{{Rgt}_i})$ are small or medium arcs. Let us bound $|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({S}^{{Rgt}_i})|=|{S}^{{Rgt}_i}|$. Notice that for any $W \in \{A_i, B_i, A'_i, B'_i\},$ $W \cap Z \neq \emptyset$ implies that ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({S}^{{Rgt}_i})$ cannot contain both $s_W$ and $m_W$. If ${S}^{{Rgt}_i}$ contains the $4$ small arcs then by previous remark ${S}^{{Rgt}_i}$ cannot contain any medium arc, and thus $|{S}^{{Rgt}_i}| \le 4$. If ${S}^{{Rgt}_i}$ contains $3$ small arcs then it can only contain one medium arc, implying $|{S}^{{Rgt}_i}| \le 4$. Obviously, if $|{S}^{{Rgt}_i}|$ contains $2$ or less small arcs then $|{S}^{{Rgt}_i}| \le 4$.
$p_4:$
: property $p_3$ implies that if $|{S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}| \ge 3$, or if $|{S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}|=2$ and triangles of ${S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}$ contain $\{e_1,e_3\}$, $\{e_1,e_4\}$, $\{e_2,e_3\}$ or $\{e_2,e_4\}$, then $|{S}^{{Rgt}_i}| \le 4$ (where triangles of ${S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}$ contains $\{e_i,e_j\}$ means that there exist $t_1,t_2$ in ${S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}$ such that $V(t_1) \supseteq V(e_i)$ and $V(t_2) \supseteq V(e_j)$).
$p_5:$
: $|{S}^{O_i}| \le 3$. Moreover, if $|{S}^{{Lft}_i}|=4$ then $|{S}^{O_i}| \le 4 - |{S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}|$, and if $|{S}^{{Lft}_i}|=3$ and $|{S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}|=4$ then $|{S}^{O_i}| \le 1$. The last two inequalities come from the fact that for any $W \in \{X_i, X'_i, \overline{X_i}, \overline{X'_i}\}$, we cannot have both $t_1 \in {S}^{O_i}$, $t_2 \in {S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}$ and $t_3 \in {S}^{{Lft}_i}$ with $V(t_i) \cap W \neq \emptyset$.
Notice that if a solution ${S}'$ satisfies $I^{'L}_i = P_i$ or $I^{'L}_i=\overline{P_i}$ then $g_i({S}')=(4,2,5,z)$ where $z \in [2]$, and $h_i({S}')=11+z$. In the following we write $(u^1_1,u^1_2,u^1_3,u^1_4) \le (u^2_1,u^2_2,u^2_3,u^2_4)$ iff $u^1_i \le u^2_i$ for any $i \in [4]$. Let us describe informally the following argument which will be used several times. Let $z=|{S}^{O_i}|$. If $z \le 1$ or if $z = 2$ but the two corresponding outer triangles do not use one vertex in $X_i \cup X'_i$ and one vertex in $\overline{X_i}$, then we will able to “save” all these outer triangles (while creating the optimal number of variable inner triangles in $L_i$), meaning that ${S}^{'O_i} = {S}^{O_i}$, as either $P_i$ or $\overline{P_i}$ will leave vertices of ${S}^{O_i} \cap {Lft}_i$ available for outer triangles. Let us proceed by case analysis according to the value $|{S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}|$. Remember that $|{S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}| \le 4$ according to $p_2$.
Case 1: $|{S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}| \le 1$. According to $p_1, p_3$ we get $g_i({S}) \le (4,1,5,z)$ where $z \in [3]$. In this case, ${S}^{'O_i} = {S}^{O_i} \setminus \{t \in {S}: V(t) \ni \overline{x^2_i}\}$ and $I^{'L}_i = P_i$ verify $(\triangle)$. In particular, we have $h_i({S}') \ge h_i({S})$ as $g_i({S}') \ge (4,2,5,z-1)$.
Case 2: $|{S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}|=2$. Let $g_i({S}) = (x,2,y,z)$. If $x \le 3$, then $g_i({S}) \le (3,2,5,z)$ by $p_3$ and we set ${S}^{'O_i} = {S}^{O_i} \setminus \{t \in {S}: V(t) \ni \overline{x^2_i}\}$ and $I^{'L}_i = P_i$. This satisfies $(\triangle)$ as in particular we have $h_i({S}') \ge h_i({S})$ as $g_i({S}') \ge (4,2,5,z-1)$. Let us now turn to case where $x=4$. Let ${S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}=\{t_1,t_2\}$. Let us first suppose that triangles of ${S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}$ contain $\{e_i,e_j\}$ with $\{e_i,e_j\} \in \{\{e_1,e_3\},\{e_1,e_4\},\{e_2,e_3\},\{e_2,e_4\}\}$. By $p_4$ we get $y \le 4$, implying $g_i({S}) \leq (4,2,4,z)$. In this case, ${S}^{'O_i} = {S}^{O_i} \setminus \{t \in {S}: V(t) \ni \overline{x^2_i}\}$ and $I^{'L}_i = P_i$ verify $(\triangle)$. In particular, we have $h_i({S}') \ge h_i({S})$ as $g_i({S}')=(4,2,5,z-1)$. Let us suppose now that $t_1$ contains $e_1$ and $t_2$ contains $e_2$ (case (2a)), or $t_1$ contains $e_3$ and $t_2$ contains $e_4$ (case (2b)). In both cases we have $g_i({S}) \le (4,2,5,z)$ where $z \in [2]$ by $p_5$. More precisely, $p_5$ implies that $\{W \in \{X_i, X'_i, \overline{X_i}, \overline{X'_i}\} : W \cap V({S}^{O_i})\} \neq \emptyset$ is included in $\{X_,X'_i\}$ (case 2b) or in $\overline{X_i}$ (case 2a). Thus, in case (2a) we define ${S}^{'O_i} = {S}^{O_i}$ and $I^{'L}_i = \overline{P_i}$. In case (2b) we define ${S}^{'O_i} = {S}^{O_i}$ and $I^{'L}_i = P_i$. In both cases these sets verify $(\triangle)$ as in particular $g_i({S}') = (4,2,5,z)$.
Case 3: $|{S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}|=3$. In this case $g_i({S}) \le (x,3,4,z)$ by $p_4$. If $x \le 3$, the sets and $I^{'L}_i = P_i$ verify $(\triangle)$. In particular, we have as $g_i({S}') \ge (4,2,5,z-1)$. If $x = 4$ then $z \le 1$ by $p_5$. Thus, we define $I^{'L}_i = P_i$ if $V({S}^{O_i}) \cap (X_i \cup X'_i) \neq \emptyset$, and $I^{'L}_i = \overline{P_i}$ otherwise, and ${S}^{'O_i} = {S}^{O_i}$. These sets satisfy $(\triangle)$ as in particular $g_i({S}') = (4,2,5,z)$.
Case 4: $|{S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i}|=4$. Let $g_i({S}) = (x,4,y,z)$. If $x=4$ then $z \le 0$ by $p_5$ and $y \le 3$ as $x+4+y \le \frac{|V(L_i)|}{3}$.
Thus, we set ${S}^{'O_i} = {S}^{O_i} = \emptyset$, $I^{'L}_i = P_i$ (which is arbitrary in this case), and we have property $(\triangle)$ as $g_i({S}') \ge (4,2,5,0)$. If $x=3$ (this case is depicted Figure \[fig:ex\_restruct\_Li\]) then $y \le 4$ by $p_3$ and $z \le 1$ by $p_5$, implying $g_i({S}) = (3,4,4,z)$. Thus, we define $I^{'L}_i = P_i$ if $V({S}^{O_i}) \cap (X_i \cup X'_i) \neq \emptyset$, and $I^{'L}_i = \overline{P_i}$ otherwise, and ${S}^{'O_i} = {S}^{O_i}$. These sets satisfy $(\triangle)$ as in particular $g_i({S}') = (4,2,5,z)$. Finally, if $x \le 2$ then $g_i({S}) \le (2,4,4,z)$ by $p_3$. In this case, ${S}^{'O_i} = {S}^{O_i} \setminus \{t \in {S}: V(t) \ni \overline{x^2_i}\}$ and $I^{'L}_i = P_i$ verify $(\triangle)$. In particular, we have $h_i({S}') \ge h_i({S})$ as $g_i({S}') \ge (4,2,5,z-1)$.
![Example showing a “bad shaped” solution of case $4$ with $g_i({S}) = (3,4,4,1)$. We have ${S}^{{Lft}_i{Rgt}_i} = \{t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4\}$, ${S}^{O_i} = \{t_5\}$, ${S}^{{Lft}_i} = \{t_6,t_7,t_8\}$ and ${S}^{{Rgt}_i} = \{t_9,t_{10},t_{11},t_{12}\}$. The three vertices of triangle $t_l$ are annotated with label $l$.[]{data-label="fig:ex_restruct_Li"}](ex_restruct_Li.pdf){width="80.00000%"}
#### Proof of the L-reduction {#proof-of-the-l-reduction .unnumbered}
We are now ready to prove the main lemma (recall that $f$ is the reduction from [Max 2-SAT(3)]{} to [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}$^{D_M}$ described in Section \[subsec:reduction2\]), and also the main theorem of the section.
\[lem:Lreducv2\] Let $\cal{F}$ be an instance of [Max 2-SAT(3)]{}. For any $k$, there exists an assignment $a$ of $\cal{F}$ satisfying at least $k$ clauses if and only if there exists a solution ${S}$ of $f(\cal{F})$ with $|{S}|
\geq 11n+m+k$, where $n$ and $m$ are respectively is the number of variables and clauses in $\cal{F}$. Moreover, in the $\Leftarrow$ direction, assignment $a$ can be computed from ${S}$ in polynomial time.
For any $i \in [n]$, let $A_i =P_i$ if $x_i$ is set to true in $a$, and $A_i=\overline{P_i}$ otherwise. We first add to ${S}$ the set $\cup_{i \in [n]}A_i$. Then, let $\{C_{j_l}, l \in [k]\}$ be $k$ clauses satisfied by $a$. For any $l \in [k]$, let $i_l$ be the index of a literal satisfying $C_{j_l}$, let $x \in [2]$ such that $c^x_{j_l}$ corresponds to this literal, and let $Z_l =
\{x^2_{i_l},x^{'2}_{i_l}\}$ if literal $i_l$ is positive, and $Z_l =
\{\overline{x^2_{i_l}}\}$ otherwise. For any $j \in [m]$, if $j=i_l$ for some $l$ (meaning that $j$ corresponds to a satisfied clause), we add to ${S}$ the triangle in $Q^{3-x}_j$, and otherwise we arbitrarily add the triangle $Q^1_j$. Finally, for any $l \in [k]$ we add to ${S}$ triangle $t_l =
(y_l,\theta_{j_l},c^x_{j_l})$ where $y_l \in Z_l$ is such that $y_l$ is not already used in another triangle. Notice that such an $y_l$ always exists as triangles of $A_{i}, i \in [n]$ do not intersect $Z_l$ (by definition of the $A_i$), and as there are at most two clauses that are true due to positive literal, and one clause that is true due to a negative literal. Thus, ${S}$ has $11n+m+k$ vertex disjoint triangles.
Conversely, let ${S}$ a solution of $f(\cal{F})$ with $|{S}| \geq
11n+m+k$. By Lemma \[lem:goodpatternv2\] we can construct in polynomial time a solution ${S}'$ from ${S}$ such that $|{S}'| \ge |{S}|$, ${S}'$ only contains outer, variable or clause inner triangles, for each $j \in [m]$ there exists $x \in [2]$ such that $I^{'K}_j=Q^x_j$, and for each $i\in[n], I^{'L}_i = P_i$ or $I^{'L}_i =
\overline{P_i}$. This implies that the $k' \ge k$ remaining triangles must be outer triangles. Let $\{t'_l, l \in [k']\}$ be these $k'$ outer triangles with $t'_l = (y_l,\theta_{j_l},c^{x_l}_{j_l})$ Let us define the following assignation $a$: for each $i\in[n]$, we set $x_i$ to true if $I^{'L}_i = P_i$, and false otherwise. This implies that $a$ satisfies at least clauses $\{C_{j_l}, l \in [k']\}$.
\[thm:apxhv2\] [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}$^{D_M}$ is [APX]{}-hard, and thus does not admit a [PTAS]{} unless $P={\sf NP}$.
Let us check that Lemma \[lem:Lreducv2\] implies a $L$-reduction (whose definition is recalled in Definition \[def:L\] of appendix). Let $OPT_1$ (resp. $OPT_2$) be the optimal value of $\cal{F}$ (resp. $f(\cal{F})$). Notice that Lemma \[lem:Lreducv2\] implies that $OPT_2 = OPT_1+11n+m$. It is known that $OPT_1 \ge \frac{3}{4}m$ (where $m$ is the number of clauses of ${\cal{F}}$). As $n\le m$ (each variable has at least one positive and one negative occurrence), we get $OPT_2 = OPT_1+11n+m \le \alpha OPT_1$ for an appropriate constant $\alpha$, and thus point $(a)$ of the definition is verified. Then, given a solution ${S}'$ of $f(\cal{F})$, according to Lemma \[lem:Lreducv2\] we can construct in polynomial time an assignment $a$ satisfying $c(a)$ clauses with $c(a) \ge {S}' - 11n-m$. Thus, the inequality $(b)$ of Definition \[def:L\] with $\beta=1$ becomes $OPT_1-c(a) \le OPT_2 - {S}' = OPT_1+11n+m - {S}'$, which is true.
Reduction of Theorem \[thm:apxhv2\] does not imply the [ NP]{}-hardness of [[$C_3$-Perfect-Packing-T]{}]{} as there remain some unused vertices. However, it is straightforward to adapt the reduction by adding backward arcs whose head (resp. tail) are before (resp. after) ${{\cal T}}$ to consume the remaining vertices. This leads to the following result.
\[thm:nphperfectv2dm\] [[$C_3$-Perfect-Packing-T]{}]{}$^{D_M}$ is [NP]{}-hard.
Let $({\cal F},k)$ be an instance of the decision problem of $MAX-2-SAT(3)$ and let ${{\cal T}}= f({\cal F})$ be the tournament defined in Section \[subsec:reduction2\]. Recall that we have ${{\cal T}}= LK$. Let $N = |V(T)| = 35n+5m$, $x^* = 33n+3m+3k$ and $n' = N-x^*$. We now define ${{\cal T}}'$ by adding $2n'$ new vertices in ${{\cal T}}$ as follows: $V({{\cal T}}')
= R_1V({{\cal T}})R_2$ with $R_i = \{r_i^l, l \in [n']\}$. We add to ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}')$ the set of arcs $R=\{(r_2^lr_1^l), l \in [n']\}$ which are called the dummy arcs. We say that a triangle $t=(u,v,w)$ is dummy iff $(wu) in R$ and $v \in V({{\cal T}})$. Let us prove that there are at least $k$ clauses satisfiable in $\cal{F}$ iff there exists a perfect packing in ${{\cal T}}'$.
$\Rightarrow$\
Given an assignement satisfying $k$ clause we define a solution ${S}$ with $V({S}) \subseteq V({{\cal T}})$ as in Lemma \[lem:Lreducv2\] (triangles of $P_i$ or $\overline{P_i}$ for each $i \in [n]$, a triangle $Q^x_j$ for each $j \in [m]$, and an outer triangle $t_l$ with $l \in [k]$ for each satisfied clause. We have $|{S}|=11n+m+k$. This implies that $|V({{\cal T}}) \setminus V({S})|=n'$, and thus we use $n'$ remaining vertices of $V({{\cal T}})$ by adding to ${S}$ $n'$ dummy triangles.
$\Leftarrow$\
Let ${S}'$ be a perfect packing of ${{\cal T}}'$. Let ${S}= \{t
\in {S}' : V(t) \subseteq V({{\cal T}})\}$. Let $X = V({{\cal T}}) \setminus
V({S})$. As ${S}'$ is a perfect packing of ${{\cal T}}'$, vertices of $X$ must be used by $|X|$ dummy triangles of ${S}'$, implying $|X| \le n'$ and $|{S}| \ge 11n+m+k$. As ${S}$ is set of vertex disjoint triangles of ${{\cal T}}$ of size at least $11n+m+k$, this implies by Lemma \[lem:Lreducv2\] that at least $k$ clauses are satisfiable in $\cal{F}$.
To establish the kernel lower bound of Section 4, we also need the [NP]{}-hardness of [[$C_3$-Perfect-Packing-T]{}]{} where instances have a slightly simpler structure (to the price of losing the property that there exists a FAS which is a matching).
\[thm:nphperfectv2\] [[$C_3$-Perfect-Packing-T]{}]{} remains [NP]{}-hard even restricted to tournament ${{\cal T}}$ admitting the following linear ordering.
- ${{\cal T}}= LK$ where $L$ and $K$ are two tournaments
- tournaments $L$ and $K$ are “fixed”:
- $K = K_1\dots K_m$ for some $m$, where for each $j \in [m]$ we have $V(K_j) = (\theta_j,c_j)$
- $L=R_1L_1 \dots L_n R_2$, where each $L_i$ has is a copy of the variable gadget of Section \[subsec:reduction2\], $R_i = \{r_i^l, l \in [n']\}$ where $n'=2n-m$, and in addition ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{L}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{L}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$L$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}$ also contains $R =\{(r_2^lr_1^l), l \in [n']\}$ which are called the dummy arcs.
We adapt the reduction of Section \[subsec:reduction2\], reducing now from 3-SAT(3) instead of MAX 2-SAT(3). Given $\cal{F}$ be an instance of [3-SAT(3)]{} with $n$ variables $\{x_i\}$ nd $m$ clauses $\{C_j\}$. For each variable $x_i$ with $i \in [n]$, we create a tournament $L_i$ exactly as in Section \[subsec:reduction2\] and we define $L=L_1 \dots L_n$. For each clause $C_j$ with $j \in [m]$, we create a tournament $K_j$ with $V(K_j) = (\theta_j,c_j)$, and we define $K = K_1\dots K_m$. Let us now define ${{\cal T}}= LK$. Now, we add to ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ the following backward arcs from $V(K)$ to $V(L)$ (again, we follow the construction of Section \[subsec:reduction2\] except that now each $c_j$ has degree $(3,0)$). If $C_j = l_{i_1} \vee l_{i_2} \vee l_{i_3}$ is a clause in $\cal{F}$ then we add the arcs $c_jv_{i_1}, c_jv_{i_2}, c_jv_{i_3}$ where $v_{i_c}$ is the vertex in $\{x_{i_c}^2,x_{i_c}^{'2},\overline{x_{i_c}^2}\}$ corresponding to $l_{i_c}$: if $l_{i_c}$ is a positive occurrence of variable $i_c$ we chose $v_{i_c} \in \{x_{i_c}^2,x_{i_c}^{'2}\}$, otherwise we chose $v_{i_c} = \overline{x_{i_c}^2}$. Moreover, we chose vertices $v_{i_c}$ in such a way that for any $i \in [n]$, for each $v \in \{x_i^2,x_i^{'2},\overline{x_i^2}\}$ there exists a unique arc $a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ such that $h(a)=v$. This is always possible as each variable has at most $2$ positive occurrences and $1$ negative one.
Finally, we add $2n'$ new vertices in ${{\cal T}}$ as follows: $V(T) = R_1V(L)R_2V(K)$, $R_i = \{r_i^l, l \in [n']\}$ where $n'=2n-m$. We add to ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ the set of arcs $R =\{(r_2^lr_1^l), l \in [n']\}$ which are called the dummy arcs. Notice that ${{\cal T}}$ satisfies the claimed structure (defining the left part as $R_1LR_2$ and not only $L$). We define an outer and variable inner triangle as in Section \[sec:approx\] (there are no more clause inner triangle), and in addition we say that a triangle $t=(u,v,w)$ is dummy iff $(wu) \in R$ and $v \in V(L)$. Let us prove that there is an assignment satisfying the $m$ clauses of $\cal{F}$ iff ${{\cal T}}$ has a perfect packing.
$\Rightarrow$\
Given an assignment satisfying the $m$ clauses we define a solution ${S}$ containing only outer, variable inner and dummy triangles. The variable inner triangle are defined as in Lemma \[lem:Lreducv2\] (triangles of $P_i$ or $\overline{P_i}$ for each $i \in [n]$). For each clause $j \in [m]$ satisfied by a literal $l_{i_x}$ we create an outer triangle $(v_{i_x},\theta_j,c_j)$. It remains now $2n-m=n'$ vertices of $L$, that we use by adding $n'$ dummy triangles to ${S}$.
$\Leftarrow$\
Let ${S}$ be a perfect packing of ${{\cal T}}'$. Notice that restructuration lemmas of Section \[sec:approx\] do not directly remain true because of the dummy arcs. However, we can adapt in a straightforward manner arguments of these lemmas, using the fact that ${S}$ is even a perfect packing. Given a solution ${S}$, we define as in Section \[sec:approx\] set $I^{L}_i =\{t \in {S}: V(t) \subseteq V(L_i)$, $I^{L} = \cup_{i \in [n]} I^L_i$, $O = \{t \in {S}\mbox{ $t$ is an outer triangle }\}$, and $D = \{t \in {S}\mbox{ $t$ is a dummy triangle }\}$. Again, we do not claim (at this point) that ${S}$ does not contain other triangles. Given any perfect packing ${S}$ of ${{\cal T}}$, we can prove the following properties.
- ${S}$ must contain exactly $m$ outer triangles ($|O| =m$). Indeed, for any $j$ from $m$ to $1$, the only way to use $\theta_j$ is to create an outer triangle $(u_j,\theta_j,c_j)$. This implies that triangles of $O$ consume exactly $m$ disjoint vertices in $L$.
- for any $i \in [n]$, we must have $|I^L_i|=11$. Indeed, let $x$ be the number of vertices of $L$ used in ${S}$ (as ${S}$ is a perfect packing we know that $x=|L|=35n$). The only triangles of ${S}$ that can use a vertex of $L$ are the outer, the variable inner and the dummy triangles, implying $x \le (\sum_{i \in [n]}|I^L_i|)+m+n'$ as $|D| \le n'$. As $|V(L_i)| = 35$ we have $|I^L_i| \le 11$ and thus we must have $|I^L_i|=11$ for any $i$.
Let us now consider the tournament ${{\cal T}}_0 = {{\cal T}}[V({{\cal T}}) \setminus V(R)]$ without the dummy arcs, and ${S}_0 = \{t \in {S}: V(t) \subseteq V({{\cal T}}_0)\}$. We adapt in a straightforward way the notion of variable inner and outer triangle in ${{\cal T}}_0$. Observe that the variable inner and outer triangles of ${S}$ and ${S}_0$ are the same, and thus are both denoted respectively $I^L_i$ and ${S}^{O_i}$. In particular, ${S}_0$ still contains $m$ outer triangle of ${{\cal T}}_0$. Now we simply apply proof of Lemma \[lem:goodpatternv2\] on ${S}_0$. More precisely, Lemma \[lem:goodpatternv2\] restructures ${S}_0$ into a solution ${S}_0'$ with ${S}_0' = ({S}_0 \setminus (I^L_i \cup {S}^{O_i})) \cup (I^{'L}_i \cup {S}^{'O_i})$, where $I^{'L}_i$ and ${S}^{'O_i}$ satisfy properties $(\triangle)$. In particular, as $|I^L_i|=|I^{'L}_i|=11$, $ \triangle_3$ implies that $|{S}_0^{'O_i}| \ge |{S}_0^{O_i}|$, and thus that $|{S}_0^{'O}| \ge |{S}_0^{O}| = m$. Thus, ${S}'_0$ satisfies $I^L_i = P_i$ or $I^L_i = \overline{P_i}$ for any $i$, and has $m$ outer triangles. We can now define as in Lemma \[lem:Lreducv2\] from ${S}'_0$ an assignment satisfying the $m$ clauses.
$(1+\frac{6}{c-1})$-approximation when backward arcs have large minspan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Given a set of pairwise distinct pairs $D$ and an integer $c$, we denote by [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}$^D_{\ge c}$ the problem [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}$^D$ restricted to tournaments such that there exists a linear representation of minspan at least $c$ and where $d(v) \in D$ for all $v$. In all this section we consider an instance ${{\cal T}}$ of [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}$^{D_M}_{\ge c}$ with a given linear ordering $(V({{\cal T}}),{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}))$ of minspan at least $c$ and whose degrees belong to $D_M$. The motivation for studying the approximability of this special case comes from the situation of MAX-SAT(c) where the approximability becomes easier as $c$ grows, as the derandomized uniform assignment provides a $\frac{2^c}{2^c-1}$ approximation algorithm. Somehow, one could claim that MAX-SAT(c) becomes easy to approximate for large $c$ as there many ways to satisfy a given clause. As the same intuition applies for tournament admitting an ordering with large minspan (as there are $c-1$ different ways to use a given backward in a triangle), our objective was to find a polynomial approximation algorithm whose ratio tends to $1$ when $c$ increases.
Let us now define algorithm ${\Phi}$. We define a bipartite graph $G = (V_1,V_2,E)$ with $V_1 = \{v^1_{a} : a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})\}$ and $V_2 =\{v^2_l : v_l \in V_{(0,0)}\}$. Thus, to each backward arc we associate a vertex in $V_1$ and to each vertex $v_l$ with $d(v_l) = (0,0)$ we associate a vertex in $V_2$. Then, $\{v^1_{a},v^2_l\} \in E$ iff $(h(a),v_l,t(a))$ is a triangle in ${{\cal T}}$.
In phase $1$, ${\Phi}$ computes a maximum matching $M = \{e_l, l \in [|M|]\}$ in $G$. For every $e_l = \{v^1_{ij},v^2_l\} \in M$ create a triangle $t^1_l = (v_j,v_l,v_i)$. Let $S^1 = \{t^1_l, l \in [|M|]\}$. Notice that triangles of $S^1$ are vertex disjoint. Let us now turn to phase $2$. Let ${{\cal T}}^2$ be the tournament ${{\cal T}}$ where we removed all vertices $V(S^1)$. Let $(V({{\cal T}}^2),{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}^2))$ be the linear ordering of ${{\cal T}}^2$ obtained by removing $V(S^1)$ in $(V({{\cal T}}),{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}))$. We say that three distinct backward edges $\{a_1,a_2,a_3\} \subseteq {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}^2)$ can be packed into triangles $t_1$ and $t_2$ iff $V(\{t_1,t_2\}) = V(\{a_1,a_2,a_3\})$ and the $t_i$ are vertex disjoint. For example, if $h(a_1) < h(a_2) < t(a_1) < h(a_3) < t(a_2) < t(a_3)$, then $\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}$ can be packed into $(h(a_1),h(a_2),t(a_1))$ and $(h(a_3),t(a_2),t(a_3))$ (recall that when ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ form a matching, $(u,v,w)$ is triangle iff $wu \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ and $u<v<w$), and if $h(a_1) < h(a_2) < t(a_2) < h(a_3) < t(a_3) < t(a_1)$, then $\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}$ cannot be packed into two triangles. In phase $2$, while it is possible, ${\Phi}$ finds a triplet of arcs of $Y \subseteq {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}^2)$ that can be packed into triangles, create the two corresponding triangles, and remove $V(Y)$. Let $S^2$ be the triangle created in phase $2$ and let $S = S^1 \cup S^2$.
\[obs:arc\] For any $a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$, either $V(a) \subseteq V(S)$ or $V(a) \cap V(S) = \emptyset$. Equivalently, no backward arc has one endpoint in $V(S)$ and the other outside $V(S)$.
According to Observation \[obs:arc\], we can partition ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}) = {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_0 \cup {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_1 \cup {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_2$, where for $i \in \{1,2\}, $ ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^i = \{a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}) : V(a) \subseteq V(S^i)$ is the set of arcs used in phase $i$, and ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_0 =_{def} \{b_i, i \in [x] \}$ are the remaining unused arcs. Let ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_{\Phi}= {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_1 \cup {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_2$, $m_i = |{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_i|$, $m = m_0+m_1+m_2$ and $m_{{\Phi}} = m_1+m_2$ the number of arcs (entirely) consumed by ${\Phi}$. To prove the $1+f(\frac{6}{c-1})$ desired approximation ratio, we will first prove in Lemma \[lemma:numberarcs\] that ${\Phi}$ uses at most all the arcs ($m_A \ge (1-\epsilon(c))m$), and in Theorem \[thm:approxc\] that the number of triangles made with these arcs is “optimal”. Notice that the latter condition is mandatory as if ${\Phi}$ used its $m_{\Phi}$ arcs to only create $\frac{2}{3}(m_{\Phi})$ triangles in phase 2 instead of creating $m' \approx m_{\Phi}$ triangle with $m'$ backward arcs and $m'$ vertices of degree $(0,0)$, we would have a $\frac{3}{2}$ approximation ratio.
\[lemma:numberarcs\] For any $c\ge 2$, $m_{\Phi}\ge (1-\frac{6}{c+5})m$
In all this proof, the span $s(a)$ is always considered in the initial input ${{\cal T}}$, and not in ${{\cal T}}^2$. For any $i \in [x]$, let us associate to each $b_i \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_0$ a set $B_i \subseteq {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_{\Phi}$ defined as follows (see Figure \[fig:B\_i\] for an example). Let $b_j \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_0$ such that $s(b_j) \subseteq s(b_i)$ and there does not exist a $b_k \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_0$ such that $s(b_k)$ included in $s(b_j)$ (we may have $b_j = b_i$). Let $Z = V({\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_0) \cap s(b_j)$. Notice that $|Z| \le 1$, meaning that there is at most one endpoint of a $b_l, l\neq j$ in $s(b_j)$, as otherwise we would be three arcs in ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_0$ that could be packed in two triangles. If there exists $a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_{{\Phi}}$ with $s(a) \subseteq s(b_j)$ we define $a_0 = a$, and otherwise we define $a_0 = b_j$. Now, let $v \in s(a_0) \setminus Z$. Observe that $V({{\cal T}})$ is partitioned into $V({\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_0) \cup V({\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_{{\Phi}}) \cup V_{(0,0)}$. If $v \in V_{(0,0)}$, then there exists $t^1_l = (u,v,w)$ with $wu \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_1$ (as otherwise the matching in phase 1 would not be maximal and we could add $b_j$ and $v$), and we add $wu$ to $B_i$. Otherwise, $v \in V(a)$ with $a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_{{\Phi}}$ (this arcs could have been used in phase $1$ or phase $2$), and we add $a$ to $B_i$. Notice that as $a_0$ does not properly contains another arc of ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_{{\Phi}}$, all the added arcs are pairwise distinct, and thus $|B_i| = |s(a_0) \setminus Z| \ge c-1$.
![On this example white vertices represent $V({{\cal T}}) \setminus V(S)$ (vertices not used by ${\Phi}$), and black ones represent $V(S)$. In this case we have $B_i = \{a_l, l \in [3]\}$. Indeed, each $v_l \in s(a_0) \setminus Z$, for $l \in [3]$, brings $a_l$ in $B_i$. In particular $v_2 \in V_{(0,0)}$ and was used with $a_2$ to create a triangle in phase 1.[]{data-label="fig:B_i"}](def_Bi.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
![Example where $|B(a)|=6$ for $a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_{\Phi}$, where $B(a)=\{b_l, l \in [6]\}$.[]{data-label="fig:B_i_tight"}](ex_Bi_tight.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
Given $a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_{{\Phi}}$, let $B(a) = \{B_i, a \in B_i\}$. Let us prove that $|B(a)| \le 6$ for any $a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_{{\Phi}}$. For any $v
\in V(S)$, let $d_B(v) = |\{b_i : v \in s(b_i)\}|$. Observe that $d_B(v) \le 2$, as otherwise any triplet of arcs containing $v$ in their span could be packed into two triangles (there are only $6$ cases to check according to the $3!$ possible ordering of the tail of these $3$ arcs). For any $a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_1$, let $V'(a) = V(t^a)$ where $t^a \in S$ is the triangle containing $a$, and for any $a \in A_2$, let $V'(a) = V(a)$. Observe that by definition of the $B_i$, $a \in B_i$ implies that $b_i$ contributes to the degree $d_B(v)$ for a $v \in V'(a)$. As in particular $d_B(v)$ for any $v \in V'(a)$, this implies by pigeonhole principle that $|B(a)| \le 6$ (notice that this bound is tight as depicted Figure \[fig:B\_i\_tight\]). Thus, if we consider the bipartite graph with vertex set $({\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_0,{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_{{\Phi}})$ and an edge between $b_i \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_0$ and $a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_{{\Phi}}$ iff $a \in B_i$, the number of edges $x$ of this graph satisfies $|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_0|(c-1) \le x \le 6|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_{{\Phi}}|$, implying the desired inequality as $m_{\Phi}= m - m_0$.
\[thm:approxc\] For any $c \ge 2$, ${\Phi}$ is a polynomial $(1+\frac{6}{c-1})$ approximation algorithm for [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}$^{D_M}_{\ge c}$.
Let $OPT$ be an optimal solution. Let us define set $OPT_i \subseteq OPT$ and ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_i \subseteq {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ as follows. Let $t=(u,v,w) \in OPT$. As the FAS of the instance is a matching, we know that $wu \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ as we cannot have a triangle with two backward arcs. If $d(v)=(0,0)$ then we add $t$ to $OPT_1$ and $wu$ to ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_1$. Otherwise, let $v'$ be the other endpoint of the unique arc $a$ containing $v$. If $v' \notin V(OPT)$, then we add $t$ to $OPT_3$ and $\{wu,a\}$ to ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_3$. Otherwise, let $t' \in OPT$ such that $v' \in V(t')$. As the FAS of the instance is a matching we know that $v'$ is the middle point of $t'$, or more formally that $t' = (u',v',w')$ with $u'w' \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$. We add $\{t,t'\}$ to $OPT_2$ and $\{wu,a,w'u'\}$ to ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_2$. Notice that the $OPT_i$ form a partition of $OPT$, and that the ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_i$ have pairwise empty intersection, implying $|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_1|+|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_2|+|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_3| \le m$. Notice also that as triangles of $OPT_1$ correspond to a matching of size $|OPT_1|$ in the bipartite graph defined in phase $1$ of algorithm ${\Phi}$, we have $|OPT_1|=|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_1| \le |{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_1|$.
Putting pieces together we get (recall that $S$ is the solution computed by ${\Phi}$): $|OPT| = |OPT_1|+|OPT_2|+|OPT_3| = |{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_1|+\frac{2}{3}|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_2|+\frac{1}{2}|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_3|
\le |{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_1|+\frac{2}{3}(|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_2|+|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_3|) \le |{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_1|+\frac{2}{3}(m-|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}^*_1|) \le \frac{1}{3}|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_1|+\frac{2}{3}m $ and $|S| = |S^1|+|S^2|
= |{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_1|+\frac{2}{3}|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_2|
\ge |{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_1|+\frac{2}{3}((1-\frac{6}{c+5})m - |{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_1|)
= \frac{1}{3}|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}_1|+\frac{2}{3}(1-\frac{6}{c+5})m $ which implies the desired ratio.
Kernelization {#sec:kernel}
=============
In all this section we consider the decision problem [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} parameterized by the size of the solution. Thus, an input is a pair $I=({{\cal T}},k)$ and we say that $I$ is positive iff there exists a set of $k$ vertex disjoint triangles in ${{\cal T}}$.
Positive results for sparse instances
-------------------------------------
Observe first that the kernel in ${\mathcal{O}}(k^2)$ vertices for $3$-[Set Packing]{} of [@abu2009quadratic] directly implies a kernel in ${\mathcal{O}}(k^2)$ vertices for [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}. Indeed, given an instance $({{\cal T}}=(V,A),k)$ of [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}, we create an instance $(I'=(V,C),k)$ of $3$-[Set Packing]{} by creating an hyperedge $c \in C$ for each triangle of ${{\cal T}}$. Then, as the kernel of [@abu2009quadratic] only removes vertices, it outputs an induced instance $(\overline{I'}=I'[V'],k')$ of $I$ with $V' \subseteq V$, and thus this induced instance can be interpreted as a subtournament, and the corresponding instance $({{\cal T}}[V'],k')$ is an equivalent tournament with ${\mathcal{O}}(k^2)$ vertices.
As shown in the next theorem, as we could expect it is also possible to have kernel bounded by the number of backward arcs.
\[thm:kernelm\] [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} admits a polynomial kernel with ${\mathcal{O}}(m)$ vertices, where $m$ is the number of arcs in a given FAS of the input.
Let $I=({{\cal T}},k)$ be an input of the decision problem associated to [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}. Observe first that we can build in polynomial time a linear ordering ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$ whose backward arcs ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ correspond to the given FAS. We will obtain the kernel by removing useless vertices of degree $(0,0)$. Let us define a bipartite graph $G = (V_1,V_2,E)$ with $V_1 = \{v^1_{a} : a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})\}$ and $V_2 =\{v^2_l : v_l \in V_{(0,0)}\}$. Thus, to each backward arc we associate a vertex in $V_1$ and to each vertex $v_l$ with $d(v_l) = (0,0)$ we associate a vertex in $V_2$. Then, $\{v^1_{a},v^2_l\} \in E$ iff $(h(a),v_l,t(a))$ is a triangle in ${{\cal T}}$. By Hall’s theorem, we can in polynomial time partition $V_1$ and $V_2$ into $V_1=A_1 \cup A_2$, $V_2=B_0 \cup B_1 \cup B_2$ such that $N(A_2) \subseteq B_2$, $|B_2| \le |A_2|$, and there is a perfect matching between vertices of $A_1$ and $B_1$ ($B_0$ is simply defined by $B_0 = V_2 \setminus (B_1 \cup B_2)$).
For any $i, 0 \le i \le 2$, let $X_i = \{v_l \in V_{(0,0)} : v^2_l \in B_i\}$ be the vertices of ${{\cal T}}$ corresponding to $B_i$. Let $V_{\neq(0,0)} = V({{\cal T}}) \setminus V_{(0,0)}$. Notice that $|V_{\neq(0,0)}| \le 2m$. We define ${{\cal T}}' = {{\cal T}}[V_{\neq(0,0)} \cup X_1 \cup X_2]$ the sub-tournament obtained from ${{\cal T}}$ by removing vertices of $X_0$, and $I' = ({{\cal T}}',k)$. We point out that this definition of ${{\cal T}}'$ is similar to the final step of the kernel of [@abu2009quadratic] as our partition of $V_1$ and $V_2$ (more precisely $(A_1,B_0 \cup B_1)$) corresponds in fact to the crown decomposition of [@abu2009quadratic]. Observe that $|V({{\cal T}}')| \le 2m+|A_1|+|A_2| \le 3m$, implying the desired bound of the number of vertices of the kernel.
It remains to prove that $I$ and $I'$ are equivalent. Let $k \in \mathbb{N}$, and let us prove that there exists a solution ${S}$ of ${{\cal T}}$ with $|{S}| \ge k$ iff there exists a solution ${S}'$ of ${{\cal T}}'$ with $|{S}'| \ge k$. Observe that the $\Leftarrow$ direction is obvious as ${{\cal T}}'$ is a subtournament of ${{\cal T}}$. Let us now prove the $\Rightarrow$ direction. Let ${S}$ be a solution of ${{\cal T}}$ with $|{S}| \ge k$. Let ${S}= {S}_{(0,0)} \cup {S}_1$ with ${S}_{(0,0)} = \{t \in {S}: t=(h(a),v,t(a))\mbox{ with } v \in V_{(0,0)}, a \in {\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})\}$ and ${S}_1 = {S}\setminus {S}_{(0,0)}$. Observe that $V({S}_1) \cap V_{(0,0)} = \emptyset$, implying $V({S}_1) \subseteq V_{\neq(0,0)}$. For any $i \in [2]$, let ${S}^i_{(0,0)} = \{t \in {S}_{(0,0)} : t=(h(a),v,t(a))\mbox{ with } v \in V_{(0,0)}, v^1_a \in A_i\}$ be a partition of ${S}_{(0,0)}$. We define ${S}' = {S}_1 \cup {S}^2_{(0,0)} \cup {S}^{'1}_{(0,0)}$, where ${S}^{'1}_{(0,0)}$ is defined as follows. For any $v^1_a \in A_1$, let $v^2_{\mu(a)} \in B_1$ be the vertex associated to $v^1_a$ in the $(A_1,B_1)$ matching. To any triangle $t=(h(a),v,t(a)) \in {S}^1_{(0,0)}$ we associate a triangle $f(t)=(h(a),v_{\mu(a)},t(a)) \in {S}^{'1}_{(0,0)}$, where by definition $v_{\mu(a)} \in X_1$. For the sake of uniformity we also say that any $t \in {S}_1 \cup {S}^2_{(0,0)}$ is associated to $f(t)=t$.
Let us now verify that triangles of ${S}'$ are vertex disjoint by verifying that triangles of ${S}^{'1}_{(0,0)}$ do not intersect another triangle of ${S}'$. Let $f(t)=(h(a),v_{\mu(a)},t(a)) \in {S}^{'1}_{(0,0)}$. Observe that $h(a)$ and $t(a)$ cannot belong to any other triangle $f(t')$ of ${S}'$ as for any $f(t'') \in {S}'$, $V(f(t'')) \cap V_{\neq(0,0)} = V(t'') \cap V_{\neq(0,0)}$ (remember that we use the same notation $V_{\neq(0,0)}$ to denote vertices of degree $(0,0)$ in ${{\cal T}}$ and ${{\cal T}}'$). Let us now consider $v_{\mu(a)}$. For any $f(t') \in {S}_1$, as $V(f(t')) \cap V_{(0,0)} = \emptyset$ we have $v_{\mu(a)} \notin V(f(t'))$. For any $f(t')=(h(a'),v_l,t(a')) \in {S}^{2}_{(0,0)}$, we know by definition that $v^1_{a'} \in A_2$, implying that $v^2_l \in B_2$ (and $v_l \in X_2$) as $N(A_2) \subseteq B_2$ and thus that $v_l \neq v_{\mu(a)}$. Finally, for any $f(t')=(h(a'),v_l,t(a')) \in {S}^{'1}_{(0,0)}$, we know that $v_l = v_{\mu(a')}$, where $a \neq a'$, leading to $v_l \neq v_{\mu(a)}$ as $\mu$ is a matching.
Using the previous result we can provide a ${\mathcal{O}}(k)$ vertices kernel for [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} restricted to sparse tournaments.
\[thm:kernel-for-sparse\] [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} restricted to sparse tournaments admits a polynomial kernel with ${\mathcal{O}}(k)$ vertices, where $k$ is the size of the solution.
Let $I=({{\cal T}},k)$ be an input of the decision problem associated to [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} such that ${{\cal T}}$ is a sparse tournament. We say that an arc $a$ is a *consecutive backward arc* of ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$ if it is a backward arc of ${{\cal T}}$ and $a=v_{i+1}v_i$ with $v_i$ and $v_{i+1}$ being consecutive in ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$. If ${{\cal T}}$ admits a consecutive backward arc $v_iv_{i+1}$ then we can exchange $v_i$ and $v_{i+1}$ in ${{\cal T}}$. The backward arcs of the new linear ordering is exactly ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})\setminus v_{i+1}v_i$ and so is still a matching. Hence we can assume that ${{\cal T}}$ does not contain any consecutive backward arc. Now if $|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})|< 5k$ then by Theorem \[thm:kernelm\] we have a kernel with ${\mathcal{O}}(k)$ vertices. Otherwise, if $|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})|\ge 5k$ we will prove that $T$ is a [yes]{} instance of [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}. Indeed we can greedily produce a family of $k$ vertex disjoint triangles in $T$. For that consider a backward arc $v_jv_i$ of ${{\cal T}}$, with $i<j$. As $v_jv_i$ is not consecutive there exists $l$ with $i<l<j$ and we select the triangle $v_iv_jv_l$ and remove the vertices $v_i$, $v_l$ and $v_j$ from ${{\cal T}}$. Denote by ${{\cal T}}'$ the resulting tournament and let ${\sigma}({{\cal T}}')$ be the order induced by ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$ on ${{\cal T}}'$. So we loose at most 2 backward arcs in ${\sigma}({{\cal T}}')$ ($v_jv_i$ and a possible backward arc containing $v_l$) and create at most 3 consecutive backward arcs by the removing of $v_i$, $v_l$ and $v_j$. Reducing these consecutive backward arcs as previously, we can assume that ${\sigma}({{\cal T}}')$ does not contain any consecutive backward arc and satisfies $|{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}')|\ge |{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})|-5 \ge 5(k-1)$. Finally repeating inductively this arguments, we obtain the desired family of $k$ vertex-disjoint triangles in ${{\cal T}}$, and ${{\cal T}}$ is a [yes]{} instance of [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{}.
No (generalised) kernel in ${\cal O}(k^{2-\epsilon})$
-----------------------------------------------------
In this section we provide an OR-cross composition (see Definition \[def:orcompo\] in Appendix) from [[$C_3$-Perfect-Packing-T]{}]{} restricted to instances of Theorem \[thm:nphperfectv2\] to [[$C_3$-Perfect-Packing-T]{}]{} parameterized by the total number of vertices.
#### Definition of the instance selector {#definition-of-the-instance-selector .unnumbered}
The next lemma build a special tournament, called an *instance selector* that will be useful to design the cross composition.
\[lem:path\] For any ${\gamma}=2^{{{\gamma}'}}$ and ${\omega}$ we can construct in polynomial time (in ${\gamma}$ and ${\omega}$) a tournament ${P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$ such that
- there exists ${\gamma}$ subsets of ${\omega}$ vertices ${ \ifthenelse{\equal{i}{}}{X}{X^{i}}}=\{x^i_j : j
\in [{\omega}] \}$, that we call the distinguished set of vertices, such that
- the ${ \ifthenelse{\equal{i}{}}{X}{X^{i}}}$ have pairwise empty intersection
- for any $i \in [{\gamma}]$, there exists a packing ${S}$ of triangles of ${P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$ such that $V({P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}) \setminus V({S}) = { \ifthenelse{\equal{i}{}}{X}{X^{i}}}$ (using this packing of ${P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$ corresponds to select instance $i$)
- for any packing ${S}$ of triangles of ${P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$ with $|V({S})|=|V({P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}})|-{\omega}$ there exists $i \in [{\gamma}]$ such that $V({P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}})
\setminus V({S}) \subseteq { \ifthenelse{\equal{i}{}}{X}{X^{i}}}$
- $|V({P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}})|={\mathcal{O}}({\omega}{\gamma})$.
Let us first describe vertices of ${P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$. For any $i \in [{\gamma}-1]_0$ (where $[x]_0$ denotes $\{0,\dots,x\}$) let ${ \ifthenelse{\equal{i}{}}{X}{X^{i}}}=\{x^i_j : j \in
[{\omega}] \}$, and let $X = \cup_{i\in [{\gamma}-1]_0}{ \ifthenelse{\equal{i}{}}{X}{X^{i}}}$. For any $l \in
[{{\gamma}'}-1]_0$, let ${V^{l}}=\{v^l_k,k \in [|{V^{l}}|]\}$ be the vertices of level $l$ with $|{V^{l}}|= {\omega}{\gamma}/2^{l} +2$, and $V=\cup_{l \in
[{{\gamma}'}-1]_0}{V^{l}}$. Finally, we add a set ${\alpha^{}}=\{{\alpha^{l}} :
l\in[{{\gamma}'}-1]_0\}$ containing one dummy vertex for each level and finally set $V({P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}})= X\cup V\cup {\alpha^{}}$. Observe that $|V({P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}})|={\omega}{\gamma}+\sum_{l \in [{{\gamma}'}-1]_0}(|{V^{l}}|+1)={\mathcal{O}}({\omega}{\gamma})$. Let us now describe ${\sigma}({P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}})$ and ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}})$ recursively. Let ${P^{0}_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$ be the tournament such that ${\sigma}({P^{0}_{{\omega},{\gamma}}})=(v^0_1, x^0_1, v^0_2, x^1_1,
\dots , v^0_{\gamma}, x^{{\gamma}-1}_1)$ $(v^0_{{\gamma}+1}, x^0_2, \dots, v^0_{2{\gamma}},
x^{{\gamma}-1}_2)$ $\dots$ $(v^0_{({\omega}-1){\gamma}+1}$ $,x^0_{\omega},\dots,
v^0_{{\omega}{\gamma}},x^{{\gamma}-1}_{\omega})$ $(v^0_{{\omega}{\gamma}+1}, {\alpha^{1}}, v^0_{{\omega}{\gamma}+2})$ and ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({P^{0}_{{\omega},{\gamma}}})=Z^0_P$ where $Z^0_P=A^0_P \cup A^{'0}_P$ with $A^0_P=\{v^0_{k+1}v^0_{k} : k \in [|{V^{0}}|-2]\}$ and $A^{'0}_P =
\{v^0_{|{V^{0}}|}v^0_{|{V^{0}}|-1},v^0_{|{V^{0}}|}v^0_1\}$.
Then, given a tournament ${P^{l}_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$ with $0 \leq l <{{\gamma}'}-1$, we construct the tournament ${P^{l+1}_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$ such that the vertices of ${P^{l+1}_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$ are those of ${P^{l}_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$ to which are added the set ${V^{l+1}}$. For $j \in [|{V^{l+1}}|-2]$, we add the vertex $v^{l+1}_j$ of ${V^{l+1}}$ just after the vertex $v^l_{2j-1}$ in the order of ${P^{l+1}_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$, and we for $i \in \{0,1\}$ we add vertex $v^{l+1}_{|{V^{l+1}}|-i}$ just after $v^{l}_{|{V^{l}}|-i}$. Similarly, we add the vertex ${\alpha^{l+1}}$ just after the vertex ${\alpha^{l}}$. The backward arcs of ${P^{l+1}_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$ are defined by: ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({P^{l+1}_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}) =
{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({P^{l}_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}) \cup Z^{l+1}_P$ where $Z^{l+1}_P=A^{l+1}_P \cup
A^{'l+1}_P$ are called the *arcs of level $l$*, with $A^{l+1}_P=\{v^{l+1}_{k+1}v^{l+1}_{k} : k \in [|{V^{l+1}}|-2]]\}$ and $A^{'l+1}_P=\{v^{l+1}_{|{V^{l+1}}|}v^{l+1}_{|{V^{l+1}}|-1},v^{l+1}_{|{V^{l+1}}|}v^{l+1}_1\}$. We can now define our gadget tournament ${P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$ as the tournament corresponding to ${P^{{{\gamma}'}-1}_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$. We refer the reader to Figure \[fig:Pathgadget\] where an example of the gadget is depicted, where ${\omega}= 3$ and ${\gamma}=4$.
![An example of the instance selector, where ${\omega}= 3$ and ${\gamma}=4$. All depicted arcs are backward arcs.[]{data-label="fig:Pathgadget"}](Pathgadget.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
In all the following given $i \in [{\gamma}-1]_0$ we call the last $x$ bits (resp. the $x^{th}$ bit) $i$ its $x$ right most (resp. the $x^{th}$, starting from the right) bits in the binary representation of $i$. Let us now state the following observations.
- The vertices of $X$ have degree $(0,0)$ in ${P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$.
- For any $l \in [{{\gamma}'}-1]_0$, the extremities of the arcs of level $l$ are exactly $V^l$ ($V(Z^l_P) = V^l$) and the arcs of $Z^l_P$ induce an even circuit on $V^l$.
- For any $a \in A^l_P$, the span of $a$ contains $2^l$ consecutive vertices of $X$, more precisely $s(a) \cap X =
\{x^i_j,\dots,x^{i+2^l-1}_j\}$ for $j \in [m]$ and $i$ such that the $l-1$ last bits of $i$ are equal to $0$.
- There is a unique partition $Z^l_P = Z^{l,0}_P
\cup Z^{l,1}_P$ such that $|Z^{l,0}_P|=|Z^{l,1}_P|={\mu^{l}}$, the size of a maximum matching of backward arcs in ${P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}[{V^{l}}]$, such that each $Z^{l,x}_P$ is a matching (for any $a,a' \in Z^{l,x}_P, V(a)
\cap V(a') = \emptyset$), and such that $\cup_{a \in Z^{l,x}_P
\setminus A^{'l}_P} s(a) \cap X$ is the set of all vertices $x^i_j$ of $X$ whose $l^{th}$ bit of $i$ is $x$.
Now let us first prove that for any $i \in [{\gamma}-1]_0$, there exists an packing ${S}$ of ${P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$ such that $V({P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}) \setminus V({S}) = { \ifthenelse{\equal{i}{}}{X}{X^{i}}}$. Let $(x_{{{\gamma}'}-1} \dots x_0)$ be the binary representation of $i$. Let us define recursively ${S}=\cup_{l \in [{{\gamma}'}-1]_0}{S}_l$ in the following way. We maintain the invariant that for any $l$, the remaining vertices of $X$ after defining $\cup_{z \in [l]_0}{S}_z$ are all the vertices of $X$ having their $l$ last bits equal to $(x_{l-1},\dots,x_0)$. We define ${S}_l$ as the ${\mu^{l}}-1$ triangles $\{(h(a),x_a,t(a), a \in Z^{l,1-x_l}_P) \setminus A^{'l}_P \}$ such that $x_a$ is the unique remaining vertex of $X$ in $s(a)$ (by $\triangle_3$ and our invariant of the ${S}_{\le l}$, there remains exactly one vertex in $s(a)$, and by $\triangle_4$ these ${\mu^{l}}-1$ triangles consume all remaining vertices of $X$ whose $l^{th}$ bit is $1-x_l$), and a last triangle using an arc in $A^{'l}_P$ with $t=(v^l_{|{V^{0}}|},{\alpha^{l}},v^l_{|{V^{0}}|-1})$ if $x_l = 1$ and $t=(v^l_{0},{\alpha^{l}},v^0_{|{V^{0}}|})$ otherwise. Thus, by our invariant, the remaining vertices of $X$ after defining ${S}$ are exactly ${ \ifthenelse{\equal{i}{}}{X}{X^{i}}}$. As ${S}$ also consumes $\alpha$ and $V$ we have $V({P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}) \setminus V({S}) = { \ifthenelse{\equal{i}{}}{X}{X^{i}}}$. Notice that this definition of ${S}$ shows that $|V({P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}})|-m = |V({S})| = 3\sum_{l \in [{{\gamma}'}-1]_0}{\mu^{l}}$
Let us now prove that for any packing ${S}$ of ${P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}$ with $|V(S)|=|V({P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}})|-m=3\sum_{l \in [{{\gamma}'}-1]_0}{\mu^{l}}$, there exists $i \in
[{\gamma}]$ such that $V({P_{{\omega},{\gamma}}}) \setminus V({S}) \subseteq { \ifthenelse{\equal{i}{}}{X}{X^{i}}}$. Let $t_1,
\dots, t_{\mu^{}}$ be the triangles of ${S}$. For any $t_k$ of ${S}$, we associate one backward arc $a_k$ of $t_k$ (if there are two backward arcs, we pick one arbitrarily). Let $Z=\{a_k : k \in [|{S}|]\}$ and for every $l \in |{{\gamma}'}-1]_0$ let $Z^l=\{a_k\in A : V(a_k) \subset
{V^{l}}\}$ the set of the backward arcs which are between two vertices of level $l$. Notice that the $Z^l$ ’s form a partition of $Z$. For any $l \in [{{\gamma}'}-1]_0$, we have $|Z^l| \leq {\mu^{l}}$ as two arcs of $Z^l$ correspond to two different triangles of ${S}$, implying that $Z^l$ is a matching. Furthermore, as $|{S}|=|Z|=\sum_{l \in [{{\gamma}'}-1]_0}|Z^l|={\mu^{}} =
\sum_{l\in[{{\gamma}'}]}{{\mu^{l}}}$, we get the equality $|Z^l| = {\mu^{l}}$ for any $l \in [{{\gamma}'}-1]_0$. This implies that for each $Z^l$ there exists $x$ such that $Z^l=Z^{l,x}_P$, implying also that $V(Z^l)={V^{l}}$, and $V(Z)={V^{}}$.
Let $A^l = Z^l \setminus A^{'l}_P$, ${S}^{l} = \{t_k \in {S}: a_k \in
A^l\}$. We can now prove by induction that all the remaining vertices $R_l=X
\setminus V(\cup_{x \in [l]_0} {S}^{l})$ have the same $l$ last bits. Notice that since all vertices of ${V^{}}$ are already used, and as triangles of ${S}^l$ cannot use a dummy vertex in $\alpha$, all triangles of ${S}^l$ must be of the from $(h(a_k),x,t(a_k))$ with $x
\in X$. As $A^l= Z^{l,x}_P \setminus A^{'l}_P$, by $\triangle_4$ we know that $\cup_{a \in A^l} s(a) \cap X$ contains all the remaining vertices of $X$, and thus of $R_{l-1}$, whose $l^{th}$ bit is $x$. Moreover, by $\triangle_3$ we know that for any $a \in A^l$ we have $|R_{l-1} \cap s(a)| \le 1$ because as $a \in A^l_P$ we know exactly the structure of $s(a) \cap X$, and if there remain two vertices in $s(a) \cap X$ then their last $l-1$ last bits would be different. Thus, as triangles of ${S}^l$ remove on vertex in the span of each $a \in A^l$, they remove all vertices of $R_{l-1}$ whose $l^{th}$ bit is $x$, implying the desired result.
#### Definition of the reduction {#definition-of-the-reduction .unnumbered}
We suppose given a family of $t$ instances $F=\{{{\cal I}}_l, l \in [t]\}$ of [[$C_3$-Perfect-Packing-T]{}]{} restricted to instances of Theorem \[thm:nphperfectv2\] where ${{\cal I}}_l$ asks if there is a perfect packing in ${{\cal T}}_l=L_lK_l$. We chose our equivalence relation in Definition \[def:orcompo\] such that there exist $n$ and $m$ such that for any $l \in [t]$ we have $|V(L_l)|=n$ and $|V(K_l)|=m$. We can also copy some of the $t$ instances such that $t$ is a square number and $g = \sqrt{t}$ is a power of two. We reorganize our instances into $F=\{ {{\cal I}}_{(p,q)} : 1
\leq p,q \leq g \}$ where ${{\cal I}}_{(p,q)}$ asks if there is a perfect packing in ${{\cal T}}_{(p,q)}=L_pK_q$. Remember that according to Theorem \[thm:nphperfectv2\], all the $L_p$ are equals, and all the $K_q$ are equals. We point out that the idea of using a problem on “bipartite” instances to allow encoding $t$ instances on a “meta” bipartite graph $G=(A,B)$ (with $A=\{A_i, i \in \sqrt{t}\}$, $B=\{B_i,
i \in \sqrt{t}\}$) such that each instance $p,q$ is encoded in the graph induced by $G[A_i \cup B_i]$ comes from [@dell2014kernelization]. We refer the reader to Figure \[fig:Reduc2\] which represents the different parts of the tournament. We define a tournament $G={L}{M}_G {\tilde{L}}{\tilde{M}}_G P_{(n,g)}$, where ${L}= {L}_1 \dots {L}_g$, ${\tilde{M}}_G$ is a set of $n$ vertices of degree $(0,0)$, ${M}_G$ is a set of $(g-1)n$ vertices of degree $(0,0)$, ${\tilde{L}}= {\tilde{L}}_1 \dots {\tilde{L}}_g$ where each ${\tilde{L}}_p$ is a set of $n$ vertices, and $P_{(n,g)}$ is a copy of the instance selector of Lemma \[lem:path\]. Then, for every $p
\in [g]$ we add to $G$ all the possible $n^2$ backward arcs going from ${\tilde{L}}_p$ to ${L}_p$. Finally, for every distinguished set $X^p$ of $P_{(n,g)}$ (see in Lemma \[lem:path\]), we add all the possible $n^2$ backward arcs from $X^p$ to ${\tilde{L}}_p$.
Now, in a symmetric way we define a tournament $D={K}{M}_D {\tilde{K}}{\tilde{M}}_D
P'_{(m,g)}$, where ${K}= {K}_1 \dots {K}_g$, ${\tilde{M}}_D$ is a set of $m$ vertices of degree $(0,0)$, ${M}_D$ is a set of $(g-1)m$ vertices of degree $(0,0)$, ${\tilde{K}}= {\tilde{K}}_1 \dots {\tilde{K}}_g$ where each ${\tilde{K}}_q$ is a set of $m$ vertices, and $P'_{(m,g)}$ is a copy of the instance selector of Lemma \[lem:path\]. Then, for every $q \in [g]$ we add to $G$ all the $m^2$ possible backward arcs going from ${\tilde{K}}_p$ to ${K}_p$. Finally, for every distinguished set $X^{'q}$ of $P'_{(m,g)}$ we add all the possible $m^2$ backward arcs from $X^{'q}$ to ${\tilde{K}}_q$. Finally, we define ${{\cal T}}= GD$. Let us add some backward arcs from $D$ to $G$. For any $p$ and $q$ with $1\leq p, q \leq g$, we add backward arcs from ${K}_q$ to ${L}_p$ such that ${{\cal T}}[{K}_q{L}_p]$ corresponds to ${{\cal T}}_{(p,q)}$. Notice that this is possible as for any fixed $p$, all the ${{\cal T}}_{(p,q)}, q \in [g]$ have the same left part ${L}_p$, and the same goes for any fixed right part.
![A example of the weak composition. All depicted arcs are backward arcs. Bold arcs represents the $n^2$ (or $m^2$) possible arcs between the two groups.[]{data-label="fig:Reduc2"}](def_compo.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
#### Restructuration lemmas {#restructuration-lemmas-1 .unnumbered}
Given a set of triangles ${S}$ we define ${S}_{\subseteq P'}=\{t \in {S}| V(t) \subseteq P'_{(m,g)}\}$, ${S}_{\subseteq P}=\{t \in {S}: V(t)
\subseteq P_{(n,g)}\}$, ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D}= \{t \in {S}: V(t) \mbox{
intersects ${\tilde{K}}$, ${\tilde{M}}_D$ and $P'_{m,g}$}\}$, ${S}_{{M}_D}= \{t \in
{S}: V(t) \mbox{ intersects ${K}$, ${M}_D$ and ${\tilde{K}}$}\}$, ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G}=
\{t \in {S}: V(t) $ intersects ${\tilde{L}}$, ${\tilde{M}}_G$ and $P_{n,g}\}$, ${S}_{{M}_G}= \{t \in {S}: V(t) \mbox{ intersects ${L}$, ${M}_G$ and
${\tilde{L}}$}\}$, ${S}_D = \{t \in {S}: V(t) \subseteq V(D)\}$, ${S}_G = \{t
\in {S}: V(t) \subseteq V(G)\}$, and ${S}_{GD} = \{t \in {S}: V(t)
\mbox{ intersects}$ $V(G)$ and $V(D)\}$. Notice that ${S}_G, {S}_{GD},
{S}_D$ is a partition of ${S}$.
\[cl:D2goodtriangles\] If there exists a perfect packing ${S}$ of ${{\cal T}}$, then $|{S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D}| =
m$ and $|{S}_{{M}_D}| = (g-1)m$. This implies that $V({S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D} \cup
S_{{M}_D}) \cap V({\tilde{K}}) = V({\tilde{K}})$, meaning that the vertices of ${\tilde{K}}$ are entirely used by ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D} \cup S_{{M}_D}$.
We have $|{S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D}| \leq m$ since $|{\tilde{M}}_D|= m$. We obtain the equality since the vertices of ${\tilde{M}}_D$ only lie in the span of backward arcs from $P'_{m,g}$ to ${\tilde{K}}$, and they are not the head or the tail of a backward arc in ${{\cal T}}$. Thus, the only way to use vertices of ${\tilde{M}}_D$ is to create triangles in ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D}$, implying $|{S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D}| \ge m$. Using the same kind of arguments we also get $|{S}_{{M}_D}| = (g-1)m$. As $|V({\tilde{K}})|=gm$ we get the last part of the claim.
\[cl:tildeKgoodtriangle\] If there exists a perfect packing ${S}$ of ${{\cal T}}$, then there exists $q_0
\in [g]$ such that ${\tilde{K}}_{S}={\tilde{K}}_{q_0}$, where ${\tilde{K}}_{S}={\tilde{K}}\cap
V({S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D})$.
Let ${S}_{P'}$ be the triangles of ${S}$ with at least one vertex in $P'_{m,g}$. As according to Claim \[cl:D2goodtriangles\] vertices of ${\tilde{K}}$ are entirely used by ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D} \cup S_{{M}_D}$, the only way to consume vertices of $P'_{m,g}$ is by creating local triangles in $P'_{m,g}$ or triangles in ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D}$. In particular, we cannot have a triangle $(u,v,w)$ with $\{u,v\} \subseteq {\tilde{K}}$ and $w \in
P'_{m,g}$, or with $u \in {\tilde{K}}$ and $\{v,w\} \subseteq P'_{m,g}$. More formally, we get the partition ${S}_{P'}={S}_{\subseteq P'} \cup
{S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D}$. As ${S}$ is a perfect packing and uses in particular all vertices of $P'_{m,g}$ we get $|V({S}_{P'})|=|V(P'_{m,g})|$, implying $|V({S}_{\subseteq P'})|=|V(P'_{m,g})|-m$ by Claim \[cl:D2goodtriangles\]. By Lemma \[lem:path\], this implies that there exists $q_0 \in [g]$ such that $X' \subseteq X^{'q_0}$ where $X'=V(P'_{m,g}) \setminus V({S}_{\subseteq P'})$. As $X'$ are the only remaining vertices that can be used by triangles of ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D}$, we get that the $m$ triangles of ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D}$ are of the form $(u,v,w)$ with $u \in {\tilde{K}}_{q_0}$, $v \in {\tilde{M}}_D$, and $w \in X'$.
\[cl:Dgoodremainingtriangles\] If there exists a perfect packing ${S}$ of ${{\cal T}}$, then there exists $q_0
\in [g]$ such that $V({S}_{P'} \cup {S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D} \cup {S}_{{M}_D}) = V(D)
\setminus {K}_{q_0}$.
By Claim \[cl:D2goodtriangles\] we know that $|{S}_{{M}_D}| =
(g-1)m$. As by Claim \[cl:tildeKgoodtriangle\] there exists $q_0 \in
[g]$ such that ${\tilde{K}}_{S}={\tilde{K}}_{q_0}$, we get that the $(g-1)m$ triangles of ${S}_{{M}_D}$ are of the form $(u,v,w)$ with $u \in {K}\setminus
{K}_{q_0}$, $v \in {M}_D$, and $w \in {\tilde{K}}\setminus {\tilde{K}}_{q_0}$.
\[cl:gd\] If there exists a perfect packing ${S}$ of ${{\cal T}}$, then $V({S}_{GD}) \cap
V(G) \subseteq V({L})$. Informally, triangles of ${S}_{GD}$ do not use any vertex of ${M}_G, {\tilde{L}}, {\tilde{M}}_T$ and $P_{n,g}$.
By Claim \[cl:Dgoodremainingtriangles\], there exists $q_0 \in [g]$ such that $V({S}_{P'} \cup {S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D} \cup {S}_{{M}_D}) = V(D) \setminus
{K}_{q_0}$. By Theorem \[thm:nphperfectv2\] we know that ${K}_{q_0}
= K_{(q_0,1)}\dots K_{(q_0,m')}$ for some $m'$ (we even have $m' =
\frac{m}{2}$), where for each $j \in [m']$ we have $V(K_{(q_0,j)}) =
(\theta_j,c_j)$. Moreover, for any $p \in [g]$, the last property of Theorem \[thm:nphperfectv2\] ensures that for any $a \in
{\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}_{(p,q_0)})$, $V(a) \cap V({K}_{q_0}) \neq \emptyset$ implies $a=vc_j$ for $v \in {L}_p$. So no arc of ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}}_{(p,q_0)})$, and thus no arc of ${{\cal T}}$ is entirely included in ${K}_{q_0}$. This implies that ${S}$ cannot cover the vertices of ${K}_{q_0}$ using triangles $t$ with $V(t) \subseteq V({K}_{q_0})$, and thus that all these vertices must be used by triangles of ${S}_{GD}$, implying that $V({S}_{GD}) \cap
V(D) = {K}_{q_0}$. The last property of Theorem \[thm:nphperfectv2\] also implies that all the $\theta_j$ have a left degree equal to $0$ in ${{\cal T}}$, or equivalently that there is no arc $a$ of ${{\cal T}}$ such that $t(a)=\theta_j$ and $h(a) < \theta_j$. Thus, by induction for any $j$ from $m'$ to $1$, we can prove that the only way for triangles of ${S}_{GD}$ to use $\theta_j$ is to create a triangle $t_j=(v,\theta_j,c_j)$ with necessarily $v \in V({L})$.
Lemma \[cl:gd\] will allow us to prove Claims \[cl:G2goodtriangles\], \[cl:tildeLgoodtriangle\] and \[cl:Ggoodremainingtriangles\] using the same arguments as in the right part ($D$) of the tournament as all vertices of ${M}_G, {\tilde{L}},
{\tilde{M}}_T$ and $P_{n,g}$ must be used by triangles in ${S}_G$.
\[cl:G2goodtriangles\] If there exists a perfect packing ${S}$ of ${{\cal T}}$, then $|{S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G}| =
n$ and $|{S}_{{M}_G}| = (g-1)n$. This implies that $V({S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G} \cup
S_{{M}_G}) \cap V({\tilde{L}}) = V({\tilde{L}})$, meaning that vertices of ${\tilde{L}}$ are entirely used by ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G} \cup S_{{M}_G}$.
We have $|{S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G}| \leq n$ since $|{\tilde{M}}_G|= n$. Lemma \[cl:gd\] implies that all vertices of ${\tilde{M}}_G$ must be used by triangles of ${S}_G$, and thus using arcs whose both endpoints lie in $V(G)$. As vertices of ${\tilde{M}}_G$ are not the head or the tail of a backward arc in ${{\cal T}}$, we get that the only way for ${S}_G$ to use vertices of ${\tilde{M}}_G$ is to create triangles in ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G}$, implying $|{S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G}| \ge n$. Using the same kind of arguments (and as all vertices of ${M}_G$ must also be used by triangles of ${S}_G$) we also get $|{S}_{{M}_G}| = (g-1)n$. As $|V({\tilde{L}})|=gn$ we get the last part of the claim.
\[cl:tildeLgoodtriangle\] If there exists a perfect packing ${S}$ of ${{\cal T}}$, then there exists $p_0
\in [g]$ such that ${\tilde{L}}_{S}={\tilde{L}}_{p_0}$, where ${\tilde{L}}_{S}={\tilde{L}}\cap
V({S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G})$.
Lemma \[cl:gd\] implies that all vertices of ${\tilde{M}}_G$ and $P_{(n,g)}$ must be used by triangles in ${S}_G$. Let ${S}_{P}$ be the triangles of ${S}_G$ with at least one vertex in $P_{n,g}$. As according to Claim \[cl:G2goodtriangles\] vertices of ${\tilde{L}}$ are entirely used by ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G} \cup S_{{M}_G}$, the only way for ${S}_G$ to consume vertices of $P_{n,g}$ is by creating local triangles in $P_{n,g}$ or triangles in ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G}$. In particular, we cannot have a triangle $(u,v,w)$ with $\{u,v\} \subseteq {\tilde{L}}$ and $w \in P_{n,g}$, or with $u \in {\tilde{L}}$ and $\{v,w\} \subseteq P_{n,g}$. More formally, we get the partition ${S}_{P}={S}_{\subseteq P} \cup {S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G}$. As ${S}_G$ uses in particular all vertices of $P_{n,g}$ we get $|V({S}_{P})|=|V(P_{n,g})|$, implying $|V({S}_{\subseteq P})|=|V(P_{n,g})|-n$ by Claim \[cl:G2goodtriangles\]. By Lemma \[lem:path\], this implies that there exists $p_0 \in [g]$ such that $X \subseteq X^{p_0}$ where $X=V(P_{n,g}) \setminus V({S}_{\subseteq P})$. As $X$ are the only remaining vertices that can be used by triangles of ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G}$, we get that the $n$ triangles of ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G}$ are of the form $(u,v,w)$ with $u \in {\tilde{L}}_{p_0}$, $v \in {\tilde{M}}_G$, and $w \in X$.
\[cl:Ggoodremainingtriangles\] If there exists a perfect packing ${S}$ of ${{\cal T}}$, then there exists $p_0
\in [g]$ such that $V({S}_{P} \cup {S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G} \cup {S}_{{M}_G}) = V(G)
\setminus {L}_{p_0}$.
By Claim \[cl:D2goodtriangles\] we know that $|{S}_{{M}_G}| = (g-1)n$. As by Claim \[cl:tildeLgoodtriangle\] there exists $p_0 \in [g]$ such that ${\tilde{L}}_{S}={\tilde{L}}_{p_0}$, we get that the $(g-1)n$ triangles of ${S}_{{M}_G}$ are of the form $(u,v,w)$ with $u \in {L}\setminus {L}_{p_0}$, $v \in {M}_G$, and $w \in {\tilde{L}}\setminus {\tilde{L}}_{p_0}$.
We are now ready to state our final claim is now straightforward as according Claim \[cl:Dgoodremainingtriangles\] and \[cl:Ggoodremainingtriangles\] we can define ${S}_{(p_0,q_0)}={S}\setminus (({S}_{P'} \cup {S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D} \cup {S}_{{M}_D}) \cup ({S}_{P} \cup
{S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G} \cup {S}_{{M}_G}))$.
\[cl:mainclaim\] If there exists a perfect packing ${S}$ of ${{\cal T}}$, there exists $p_0, q_0
\in [g]$ and ${S}_{(p_0,q_0)} \subseteq {S}$ such that $V({S}_{(p_0,q_0)}) = V({{\cal T}}_{(p_0,q_0)})$ (or equivalently such that ${S}_{(p_0,q_0)}$ is a perfect packing of ${{\cal T}}_{(p_0,q_0)}$).
#### Proof of the weak composition {#proof-of-the-weak-composition .unnumbered}
For any $\epsilon>0$, [[$C_3$-Perfect-Packing-T]{}]{} (parameterized by the total number of vertices $N$) does not admit a polynomial (generalized) kernelization with size bound ${\mathcal{O}}(N^{2-\epsilon})$ unless ${\sf NP} \subseteq {\sf coNP / Poly}$.
Given $t$ instances $\{{{\cal I}}_l\}$ of [[$C_3$-Perfect-Packing-T]{}]{} restricted to instances of Theorem \[thm:nphperfectv2\], we define an instance ${{\cal T}}$ of [[$C_3$-Perfect-Packing-T]{}]{} as defined in Section \[sec:kernel\]. We recall that $g = \sqrt{t}$, and that for any $l \in [t]$, $|V(L_l)|=n$ and $|V(K_l)|=m$. Let $N = |V({{\cal T}})|$. As $N=|V(P'_{(m,g)})|+m+(g-1)m+2mg+|V(P_{(n,g)})|+n+(g-1)n+2ng$ and $|V(P_{({\omega},{\gamma})})| = O({\omega}{\gamma})$ by Lemma \[lem:path\], we get $N =
{\mathcal{O}}(g(n+m))={\mathcal{O}}(t^{\frac{1}{2+o(1)}} \max(|{{\cal I}}_l|))$. Let us now verify that there exists $l \in [t]$ such that ${{\cal I}}_l$ admits a perfect packing iff ${{\cal T}}$ admits a perfect packing. First assume that there exist $p_0,q_0 \in [g]$ such that ${{\cal I}}_{(p_0,q_0)}$ admits a perfect packing. By Lemma \[cl:mainclaim\], there is a packing ${S}_{P'}$ of $P'_{(m,g)}$ such that $V({S}_{p'})= V(P'_{(m,g)})
\setminus X^{'q_0}$. We define a set ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D}$ of $m$ vertex disjoint triangles of the form $(u,v,w)$ with $u \in {\tilde{L}}_{q_0}, v \in
{\tilde{M}}_D, w \in X^{'q_0}$. Then, we define a set ${S}_{{M}_D}$ of $(g-1)m$ vertex disjoint triangles of the form $(u,v,w)$ with $u \in
{L}\setminus {L}_{q_0}, v \in {M}_D, w \in {\tilde{L}}\setminus {\tilde{L}}_{q_0}$. In the same way we define ${S}_{P}$, ${S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G}$ and ${S}_{{M}_G}$. Observe that $V({{\cal T}}) \setminus (({S}_{P'} \cup {S}_{{\tilde{M}}_D}
\cup {S}_{{M}_D}) \cup ({S}_{P} \cup {S}_{{\tilde{M}}_G} \cup
{S}_{{M}_G}))={K}_{q_0} \cup {L}_{p_0}$, and thus we can complete our packing into a perfect packing of ${{\cal T}}$ as ${{\cal I}}_{(p_0,q_0)}$ admits a perfect packing. Conversely if there exists a perfect packing ${S}$ of ${{\cal T}}$, then by Claim \[cl:mainclaim\] there exists $p_0, q_0 \in [g]$ and ${S}_{(p_0,q_0)} \subseteq {S}$ such that $V({S}_{(p_0,q_0)}) =
V({{\cal T}}_{(p_0,q_0)})$, implying that ${{\cal I}}_{(p_0,q_0)}$ admits a perfect packing.
\[theo:noKernel\] For any $\epsilon>0$, [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} (parameterized by the size $k$ of the solution) does not admit a polynomial kernel with size ${\mathcal{O}}(k^{2-\epsilon})$ unless ${\sf NP} \subseteq {\sf coNP / Poly}$.
Conclusion and open questions
=============================
Concerning approximation algorithms for [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} restricted to sparse instances, we have provided a $(1+\frac{6}{c+5})$-approximation algorithm where $c$ is a lower bound of the ${\mathtt minspan}$ of the instance. On the other hand, it is not hard to solve by dynamic programming [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} for instances where ${\mathtt maxspan}$ is bounded above. Using these two opposite approaches it could be interesting to derive an approximation algorithm for [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} with factor better than $4/3$ even for sparse tournaments.
Concerning [FPT]{} algorithms, the approach we used for sparse tournament (reducing to the case where $m={\mathcal{O}}(k)$ and apply the ${\mathcal{O}}(m)$ vertices kernel) cannot work the general case. Indeed, if we were able to sparsify the initial input such that $m'={\mathcal{O}}(k^{2-\epsilon})$, applying the kernel in ${\mathcal{O}}(m')$ would lead to a tournament of total bit size (by encoding the two endpoint of each arc) ${\mathcal{O}}(m'log(m'))={\mathcal{O}}(k^{2-\epsilon})$, contradicting Corollary \[theo:noKernel\]. Thus the situation for [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} could be as in vertex cover where there exists a kernel in ${\mathcal{O}}(k)$ vertices, derived from [@linearVc74], but the resulting instance cannot have ${\mathcal{O}}(k^{2-\epsilon})$ edges [@dell2014kernelization]. So it is challenging question to provide a kernel in ${\mathcal{O}}(k)$ vertices for the general [[$C_3$-Packing-T]{}]{} problem.
Definitions {#appendix-def}
===========
#### Approximation {#approximation .unnumbered}
\[def:L\] Let $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ be two optimization (maximization or minimization) problems. We say that $\Pi$ $L$-reduces to $\Pi'$ if there are two polynomial-time algorithms $f$, $g$, and constants $\alpha, \beta > 0$ such that for each instance $I$ of $\Pi$
- Algorithm $f$ produces an instance $I' = f(I)$ of $\Pi'$ such that the optima of $I$ and $I'$, $OPT(I)$ and $OPT(I')$, respectively, satisfy $OPT(I') \le \alpha OPT(I)$
- Given any solution of $I'$ with cost $c$, algorithm $g$ produces a solution of $I$ with cost $c$ such that $|c - OPT(I)| \le \beta |c'- OPT(I')|$.
Let $A$ be an algorithm of a maximization (resp. minimization) problem $\Pi$. For $\rho \geq 1$, we say that $A$ is a $\rho$-approximation of $\Pi$ iff for any instance $I$ of $\Pi$, $A_I \geq OPT(I)/\rho$ (resp. $A_I \leq \rho OPT(I)$) where $A_I$ is the value of the solution $A(I)$ and $OPT(I)$ the value of a optimal solution of $I$.
\[def:apx\] Let $\Pi$ be a [NP]{}-optimization problem. The problem $\Pi$ is in [APX]{} if there exists a constant $\rho >1$ such that $\Pi$ admits a $\rho$-approximation algorithm.
\[def:ptas\] Let $\Pi$ be a [NP]{}-optimization problem. The problem $\Pi$ admits a [PTAS]{} if for any $\epsilon >0$, there exists a polynomial $(1 + \epsilon)$-approximation of $\Pi$.
#### Parameterized complexity {#parameterized-complexity .unnumbered}
We refer the reader to [@downey2013fundamentals] for more details on parameterized complexity and kernelization, and we recall here only some basic definitions. A *parameterized problem* is a language $L \subseteq
\Sigma^* \times \mathbb{N}$. For an instance $I=(x,k) \in \Sigma^*
\times \mathbb{N}$, the integer $k$ is called the *parameter*.
A parameterized problem is *fixed-parameter tractable* ([ FPT]{}) if there exists an algorithm $A$, a computable function $f$, and a constant $c$ such that given an instance $I=(x,k)$, $A$ (called an [FPT]{} algorithm) correctly decides whether $I \in L$ in time bounded by $f(k) \cdot |I|^c$, where $|I|$ denotes the size of $I$. Given a computable function $g$, a *kernelization algorithm* (or simply a *kernel*) for a parameterized problem $L$ of *size* $g$ is an algorithm $A$ that given any instance $I=(x,k)$ of $L$, runs in polynomial time and returns an equivalent instance $I'=(x',k')$ with $|I'|+k' \le g(k)$. It is well-known that the existence of an [FPT]{} algorithm is equivalent to the existence of a kernel (whose size may be exponential), implying that problems admitting a polynomial kernel form a natural subclass of [FPT]{}. Among the wide literature on polynomial kernelization, we only recall in the notion of weak composition used to lower bound the size of a kernel.
\[def:orcompo\] Let $L \subseteq \Sigma^*$ be a language, $R$ be a polynomial equivalence relation on $\Sigma^*$, let $Q \subseteq \Sigma^* \times \mathbb{N}$ be a parameterized problem, and let $f : \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ be a function. An or-cross-composition of $L$ into $Q$ (with respect to $R$) of cost $f(t)$ is an algorithm that, given $t$ instances $x_i \in \Sigma^*$ of $L$ belonging to the same equivalence class of $R$, takes time polynomial in $\sum_{i \in [t]}|x_i|$ and outputs an instance $(y, k) \in \Sigma^* \times \mathbb{N}$ such that:
1. the parameter $k$ is bounded by ${\mathcal{O}}(f(t)\max_i|x_i|^c)$, where $c$ is some constant independent of $t$, and
2. $(y, k) \in Q$ if and only if there is an $i \in [t]$ such that $x_i \in L$.
\[thm:orcompo\] Let $L \subseteq \Sigma^*$ be a language, let $Q \subseteq \Sigma^* \times \mathbb{N}$ be a parameterized problem, and let $d, \epsilon$ be positive reals. If $L$ is [NP]{}-hard under Karp reductions, has an or-cross-composition into $Q$ with cost $f(t) = t^{1/d+o(1)}$ , where $t$ denotes the number of instances, and $Q$ has a polynomial (generalized) kernelization with size bound ${\mathcal{O}}(k^{d-\epsilon})$, then ${\sf NP} \subseteq {\sf coNP / Poly}$.
Problems {#app:prbl}
========
\[def:fvs\](FVS) \
**Input:** A directed graph $D=(V,A)$. \
**Output:** A set of vertices $X\subseteq V$ such that $D[V\setminus X]$ is acyclic. \
**Optimisation:** Minimise $|X|$. \
The problem is called FVST if the input is a tournament.
\[def:dsp\]($d$-[Set Packing]{}) \
**Input:** An integer $d \geq 3$ and a $d$-uniform hypergraph . \
**Output:** A subset of hyperedges $X = \{X_i, i\in [k] $ with $X_i \in H\}$ such that for every $i \neq j$, $X_i \cap X_j = \emptyset$. \
**Optimisation:** Maximise $k$.
\[def:pdsp\]([Perfect]{} $d$-[Set Packing]{}) \
**Input:** An integer $d \geq 3$ and a $d$-uniform hypergraph . \
**Question:** Is there a subset of hyperedges $X = \{X_i, i\in [k] $ with $X_i \in H\}$ such that for every $i \neq j$, $X_i \cap X_j = \emptyset$ and $\bigcup_{i\in[k]}X_i = V$?
\[def:hp\]($H$-[Packing]{}) \
**Input:** A graph and a subgraph $H$. \
**Output:** A collection of subgraphs $X=\{H_i, i\in [k]\}$ such that for every $i$, $H_i$ is isomorphic to $H$ and for every $j \neq i$, $V(H_i) \cap V(H_j) = \emptyset$. \
**Optimisation:** Maximise $k$.
\[def:php\]([Perfect]{} $H$-[Packing]{}) \
**Input:** A graph and a subgraph $H$. \
**Question:** Is there a collection of subgraphs $X=\{H_i, i\in [k]\}$ such that for every $i$, $H_i$ is isomorphic to $H$, for every $j \neq i$, $V(H_i) \cap V(H_j) = \emptyset$ and $\bigcup_{i\in[k]}H_i = V$?
Polynomial detection of sparse tournaments {#app:proof}
==========================================
\[lem:faslinear\] In polynomial time, we can decide if a tournament is sparse or not, and if so, to give a linear representation whose FAS is a matching
Indeed if a tournament ${{\cal T}}$ is sparse we can detect the first vertex (or vertices) of a linear representation ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$ of ${{\cal T}}$ where ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ is a matching. If $T$ has a vertex $x$ of indegree 0 then $x$ must be the first or the second vertex of ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$, and we can always suppose that x is the first vertex of ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$. Otherwise, we look at $Z$ the set of vertices of ${{\cal T}}$ with indegree 1. As ${{\cal T}}$ is a tournament we have $|Z|\le 3$ and if $Z=\emptyset$ then $T$ is not a sparse tournament. If $|Z|=1$, then the only element of $Z$ must be the first vertex of ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$. If $|Z|=2$ with $Z=\{x,y\}$ such that $xy$ is an arc of ${{\cal T}}$, then $x$ must be the first element of ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$ and $y$ its second element. Finally, if $|Z|=3$ with $Z=\{x,y,z\}$ then $xyz$ must be a triangle of ${{\cal T}}$ and must be placed at the beginning of ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$. So repeating inductively these arguments we obtain in polynomial time in $|{{\cal T}}|$ either ${\sigma}({{\cal T}})$ such that ${\settowidth{\mylfA}{A}
\def\sizefB{\the\mylfA}
\settoheight{\myhfA}{A}
\def\heightfB{\the\myhfA}
\hspace{-0.35em}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(O.base)]
\draw[ <- ](0,\heightfB) -- ( \sizefB, \heightfB);
\node (O) at (\sizefB/2,\heightfB/7-0.01ex) {$A$};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{-0.35em}
}({{\cal T}})$ is a matching or a certificate that ${{\cal T}}$ is not sparse.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Tatiana Odzijewicz and Delfim F. M. Torres'
title: The Generalized Fractional Calculus of Variations
---
Introduction
============
Fractional differentiation means “differentiation of arbitrary order”. Its origin goes back more than 300 years, when in 1695 L’Hopital asked Leibniz the meaning of $\frac{d^{n}y}{dx^{n}}$ for $n=\frac{1}{2}$. After that, many famous mathematicians, like J. Fourier, N. H. Abel, J. Liouville, B. Riemann, among others, contributed to the development of Fractional Calculus [@hilfer; @Podlubny; @book:Samko]. The theory of derivatives and integrals of arbitrary order took more or less finished form by the end of the XIX century, being very rich: fractional differentiation may be introduced in several different ways, e.g., fractional derivatives of Riemann–Liouville, Grünwald–Letnikov, Caputo, Miller–Ross, …During three centuries, the theory of fractional derivatives developed as a pure theoretical field of mathematics, useful only for mathematicians. In the last few decades, however, fractional differentiation proved very useful in various fields: physics (classic and quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, etc.), chemistry, biology, economics, engineering, signal and image processing, and control theory [@book:Baleanu; @TM; @livro:ortigueira]. Let $${_aI_t^1}x(t) := \int_a^t x(\tau) d\tau.$$ It is easy to prove, by induction, that $${_aI_t^n}x(t) = \frac{1}{(n-1)!}\int_a^t (t-\tau)^{n-1}x(\tau) d\tau$$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$: if it is true for the $n$-fold integral, then $$\begin{split}
{_aI_t^{n+1}}x(t)
&= {_aI_t^1} \left(\frac{1}{(n-1)!}\int_a^t (t-\tau)^{n-1}x(\tau) d\tau\right)\\
&= \int_a^t \left(\frac{1}{(n-1)!}\int_a^\xi (\xi-\tau)^{n-1}x(\tau) d\tau\right)d\xi.
\end{split}$$ Interchanging the order of integration gives $${_aI_t^{n+1}}x(t) = \frac{1}{n!}\int_a^t (t-\tau)^{n}x(\tau) d\tau.$$ The (left Riemann–Liouville) fractional integral of $x(t)$ of order $\alpha > 0$, is then defined with the help of Euler’s Gamma function $\Gamma$: $$\label{eq:FI}
{_aI_t^{\alpha}}x(t) := \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int_a^t (t-\tau)^{\alpha-1}x(\tau) d\tau .$$ Let $\alpha > 0$ and denote the fractional integral of $f$ of order $\alpha$ by $${_aD_x^{-\alpha}} f(x) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)} \int_a^x f(t) (x - t)^{\alpha-1} dt.$$ If $m$ is the smallest integer exceeding $\alpha$, then we define the *fractional Riemann–Liouville derivative of $f$* of order $\alpha$ as $$\label{eq:FD:RL}
\begin{split}
{_aD_x^{\alpha}} f(x) &= \frac{d^m}{d x^m} \left[
{_aD_x^{-(m-\alpha)}} f(x) \right]\\
&=\frac{1}{\Gamma(m - \alpha)} \frac{d^m}{d x^m} \int_a^x f(t) (x - t)^{m-\alpha-1} dt.
\end{split}$$ Another definition of fractional derivatives was introduced by M. Caputo in 1967, interchanging the order of the operators $ \frac{d^m}{d x^m}$ and ${_aD_x^{-(m-\alpha)}}$ in : $$\label{eq:FD:C}
{_a^CD_x^\alpha} := {_aD_x^{-(m-\alpha)}} \circ \frac{d^m}{dx^m}.$$ Here we consider generalizations of operators , and by considering more general kernels (see Section \[sec:GFO\]).
The classical fundamental problem of the calculus of variations is formulated as follows: minimize (or maximize) the functional $$\mathcal{J}(x)=\int_a^b L(t,x(t), x'(t)) \, dt$$ on $\mathcal{D}=\{x\in C^1([a,b]) : x(a)=x_a,\, x(b)=x_b\}$, where $L:[a,b]\times\mathbb{R}^{2n}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is twice continuously differentiable. In Mechanics, function $L$ is called the *Lagrangian*; functional $\mathcal{J}$ is called the *Action*. If $x$ gives a (local) minimum (or maximum) to $\mathcal{J}$ on $\mathcal{D}$, then $$\frac{d}{dt} \partial_3 L\left(t,x(t), x'(t)\right)
= \partial_2 L\left(t,x(t),x'(t)\right)$$ holds for all $t\in[a,b]$, where we are using the notation $\partial_i F$ for the partial derivative of a function $F$ with respect to its $i$th argument. This is the celebrated Euler–Lagrange equation, which is a first-order necessary optimality condition. In Mechanics, if Lagrangian $L$ does not depend explicitly on $t$, then the *energy* $$\label{eq:energ}
\mathcal{E}(x) := -L(x,x') + \frac{\partial L}{\partial x'}(x,x') \cdot x'$$ is constant along physical trajectories $x$ (that is, along the solutions of the Euler–Lagrange equations). Consider a particle of mass $m$, and let $x:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$ denote the trajectory of this particle. Define the Lagrangian to be the difference between the kinetic and potential energies, $$L(t,x,x') := T(x)-V(x) = \frac{1}{2} m\|x'\|^2-V(x),$$ and the action of the trajectory from time $a$ to $b$ to be the integral $$\mathcal{J}(x)=\int_a^b L(t,x(t), x'(t)) \, dt .$$ Hamilton’s Principle of Least Action asserts that particles follow trajectories which minimize the action. Therefore, the solutions of the Euler–Lagrange equations give the physical trajectories. In this case the Euler–Lagrange equations give Newton’s second law: $$m\frac{d^2x^i}{dt^2}=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial x^i}.$$ Let us consider the usual discretization of a function $f: t\in [a,b]\subset {\mathbb{R}}\mapsto f(t) \in {\mathbb{R}}$: denote by $h=(b-a)/N$ the step of discretization; consider the partition $t_k = a+ k h$, $k=0,\ldots ,N$, of $[a,b]$; let $\mathbf{F} =\{ f_k :=f(t_k)\}_{k=0,\dots ,N}$; and substitute the differential operator $\frac{d}{dt} $ by $\Delta_+$ or $\Delta_-$: $$\begin{split}
\Delta_+ (\mathbf{F} ) &=\left\{ \frac{f_{k+1} -f_k}{h}
,\, 0\leq k\leq N-1\, ,\ 0 \right\}, \\
\Delta_- (\mathbf{F} )&=\left \{ 0, \frac{f_k - f_{k-1}}{h} ,
\ 1\leq k \leq N \right \} .
\end{split}$$ The discrete version of the Euler–Lagrange equation obtained by the direct embedding is $$\label{eq:NS}
\frac{x_{k+2}-2 x_{k+1}+x_k}{h^2}m + \frac{\partial V}{\partial x}(x_k) = 0,
\quad k = 0, \ldots, N-2,$$ where $N = \frac{b-a}{h}$ and $x_k = x(a+k h)$. This numerical scheme is of order one: we make an error of order $h$ at each step, which is of course not good. We can do better by considering the variational structure of the problem. All Lagrangian systems possess a variational structure, , their solutions correspond to critical points of a functional and this characterization does not depend on the system coordinates. This induces strong constraints on solutions. For the example we are considering, which is autonomous, the *conservation of energy* asserts that $$\mathcal{E}(x)=T(x)+V(x) = const.$$ Using such conservation law we can easily improve the numerical scheme into a new one with an error of order $h^2$ at each step, which is of course better. Unfortunately, in real systems friction corrupts conservation of energy, and the usefulness of variational principles is lost: “forces of a frictional nature are outside the realm of variational principles”. For conservative systems, variational methods are equivalent to the original method used by Newton. However, while Newton’s equations allow nonconservative forces, the later techniques of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics have no direct way to dealing with them. Let us recall the classical problem of linear friction: $$\label{eq:L:fric}
m\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}+\gamma\frac{dx}{dt} -\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}=0, \quad \gamma>0.$$ In 1931, Bauer proved that it is impossible to use a variational principle to derive a single linear dissipative equation of motion with constant coefficients like . Bauer’s theorem expresses the well-known belief that there is no direct method of applying variational principles to nonconservative systems, which are characterized by friction or other dissipative processes. Fractional derivatives provide an elegant solution to the problem. Indeed, the proof of Bauer’s theorem relies on the tacit assumption that all derivatives are of integer order. If a Lagrangian is constructed using fractional (noninteger order) derivatives, then the resulting equation of motion can be nonconservative! This was first proved by F. Riewe in 1996/97 [@CD:Riewe:1996; @CD:Riewe:1997], marking the beginning of the *Fractional Calculus of Variations* (FCV). Because most processes observed in the physical world are nonconservative, FCV constitutes an important research area, allowing to apply the power of variational methods to real systems. The first book on the subject is [@book:AD], which provides a gentle introduction to the FCV. The model problem considered in [@book:AD] is to find an admissible function giving a minimum value to an integral functional that depends on an unknown function (or functions), of one or several variables, and its fractional derivatives and/or fractional integrals. Here we explain how the main results presented in [@book:AD] can be extended by considering generalized fractional operators [@Odz:PhD].
The text is organized as follows. Section \[sec:Prelim\] recalls the definitions of generalized fractional operators, for functions of one (Section \[sec:GFO\]) and several variables (Section \[sub:sec:PO\]). Main results are then given in Section \[sec:MR\]. Section \[sec:fund\] considers the one-dimensional fundamental problem of the calculus of variations with generalized fractional operators, providing an appropriate Euler–Lagrange equation. Next, in Section \[sec:nat\], we study variational problems with free end points and, besides Euler–Lagrange equations, we prove the so called natural boundary conditions (transversality conditions). As particular cases, we obtain natural boundary conditions for problems with standard fractional operators –. Section \[sec:iso\] is devoted to generalized fractional isoperimetric problems. We aim to find functions that minimize an integral functional subject to given boundary conditions and isoperimetric constraints. We prove necessary optimality conditions and, as corollaries, we obtain Euler–Lagrange equations for isoperimetric problems with standard fractional operators –. Furthermore, we illustrate our results through an example. In Section \[sec:NTH:sing\] we prove a generalized fractional counterpart of Noether’s theorem. Assuming invariance of the functional, we prove that any extremal must satisfy a certain generalized fractional equation. Finally, in Section \[sec:SEV\] we study multidimensional fractional variational problems with generalized partial operators. We end with Section \[sec:conc\] of conclusions.
Preliminaries {#sec:Prelim}
=============
This section presents definitions of generalized fractional operators. In special cases, these operators simplify to the classical Riemann–Liouville fractional integrals , and Riemann–Liouville and Caputo fractional derivatives .
Generalized fractional operators {#sec:GFO}
--------------------------------
Let us define the following triangle: $$\Delta:=\left\{(t,\tau)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2:~a\leq \tau<t\leq b\right\}.$$
Let us consider a function $k:\Delta\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$. For any function $f:(a,b)\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$, the generalized fractional integral operator $K_P$ is defined for almost all $t \in (a,b)$ by $$K_{P}[f](t) = \lambda \int_a^t k(t,\tau) f(\tau)d\tau
+ \mu \int_t^b k(\tau,t) f(\tau) d\tau$$ with $P=\langle a,t,b,\lambda,\mu \rangle$, $\lambda$, $\mu\in {\mathbb{R}}$.
In particular, for suitably chosen kernels $k(t,\tau)$ and sets $P$, kernel operators ${K_P}$ reduce to the classical or variable order fractional integrals of Riemann–Liouville type, and classical fractional integrals of Hadamard type.
1. Let $k^{\alpha}(t-\tau)
=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}(t-\tau)^{\alpha-1}$ and $0<\alpha<1$. If $P=\langle a,t,b,1,0\rangle$, then $$K_{P}[f](t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}
\int\limits_a^t(t-\tau)^{\alpha-1}f(\tau)d\tau
=: {_{a}}\textsl{I}^{\alpha}_{t} [f](t)$$ gives the left Riemann–Liouville fractional integral of order $\alpha$. Now let $P=\langle a,t,b,0,1\rangle$. Then, $$K_{P}[f](t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}
\int\limits_t^b(\tau-t)^{\alpha-1}f(\tau)d\tau
=: {_{t}}\textsl{I}^{\alpha}_{b} [f](t)$$ is the right Riemann–Liouville fractional integral of order $\alpha$.
2. For $k^{\alpha}(t,\tau)
=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha(t,\tau))}(t-\tau)^{\alpha(t,\tau)-1}$ and $P=\langle a,t,b,1,0\rangle$, $$K_{P}[f](t)=
\int\limits_a^t\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha(t,\tau)}(t-\tau)^{\alpha(t,\tau)-1}f(\tau)d\tau
=: {_{a}}\textsl{I}^{\alpha(\cdot,\cdot)}_{t} [f](t)$$ is the left Riemann–Liouville fractional integral of variable order $\alpha(\cdot,\cdot)$, and for $P=\langle a,t,b,0,1\rangle$ $$K_{P}[f](t)=
\int\limits_t^b\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha(\tau,t))}(\tau-t)^{\alpha(t,\tau)-1}f(\tau)d\tau
=: {_{t}}\textsl{I}^{\alpha(\cdot,\cdot)}_{b} [f](t)$$ is the right Riemann–Liouville fractional integral of variable order $\alpha(\cdot,\cdot)$.
3. If $0<\alpha<1$, kernel $k^{\alpha}(t,\tau)
=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\left(\log\frac{t}{\tau}\right)^{\alpha-1}\frac{1}{\tau}$ and $P=\langle a,t,b,1,0\rangle$, then the general operator $K_{P}$ reduces to the left Hadamard fractional integral: $$K_{P}[f](t)=
\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int_a^t
\left(\log\frac{t}{\tau}\right)^{\alpha-1}\frac{f(\tau)d\tau}{\tau}
=: {{_{a}}\textsl{J}_t^\alpha}[f](t);$$ while for $P=\langle a,t,b,0,1\rangle$ operator $K_{P}$ reduces to the right Hadamard fractional integral: $$K_{P}[f](t)=
\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}\int_t^b
\left(\log\frac{\tau}{t}\right)^{\alpha-1}\frac{f(\tau)d\tau}{\tau}
=:{{_{t}}\textsl{J}_b^\alpha}[f](t).$$
4. Generalized fractional integrals can be also reduced to other fractional operators, e.g., Riesz, Katugampola or Kilbas operators. Their definitions can be found in [@Katugampola; @Kilbas; @book:Kilbas].
The generalized differential operators $A_P$ and $B_P$ are defined with the help of operator $K_P$.
The generalized fractional derivative of Riemann–Liouville type, denoted by $A_P$, is defined by $$A_P = \frac{d}{dt}\circ K_P.$$
The next differential operator is obtained by interchanging the order of the operators in the composition that defines $A_P$.
The general kernel differential operator of Caputo type, denoted by $B_P$, is given by $$B_P =K_P \circ\frac{d}{dt}.$$
The standard Riemann–Liouville and Caputo fractional derivatives (see, , [@book:Kilbas; @book:Klimek]) are easily obtained from the general kernel operators $A_P $ and $B_P$, respectively. Let $k^{\alpha}(t-\tau)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(1-\alpha)}(t-\tau)^{-\alpha}$, $\alpha \in (0,1)$. If $P=\langle a,t,b,1,0\rangle$, then $$A_{P} [f](t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(1-\alpha)}
\frac{d}{dt} \int\limits_a^t(t-\tau)^{-\alpha}f(\tau)d\tau
=: {_{a}}\textsl{D}^{\alpha}_{t} [f](t)$$ is the standard left Riemann–Liouville fractional derivative of order $\alpha$, while $$B_{P} [f](t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(1-\alpha)}
\int\limits_a^t(t-\tau)^{-\alpha} f'(\tau)d\tau
=: {^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}^{\alpha}_{t} [f](t)$$ is the standard left Caputo fractional derivative of order $\alpha$; if $P=\langle a,t,b,0,1\rangle$, then $$- A_{P} [f](t)
=- \frac{1}{\Gamma(1-\alpha)} \frac{d}{dt}
\int\limits_t^b(\tau-t)^{-\alpha}f(\tau)d\tau
=: {_{t}}\textsl{D}^{\alpha}_{b} [f](t)$$ is the standard right Riemann–Liouville fractional derivative of order $\alpha$, while $$- B_{P} [f](t) = - \frac{1}{\Gamma(1-\alpha)}
\int\limits_t^b(\tau-t)^{-\alpha} f'(\tau)d\tau
=: {^{C}_{t}}\textsl{D}^{\alpha}_{b} [f](t)$$ is the standard right Caputo fractional derivative of order $\alpha$.
Generalized partial fractional operators {#sub:sec:PO}
----------------------------------------
In this section, we introduce notions of generalized partial fractional integrals and derivatives, in a multidimensional finite domain. They are natural generalizations of the corresponding fractional operators in the single variable case. Furthermore, similarly as in the integer order case, computation of partial fractional derivatives and integrals is reduced to the computation of one-variable fractional operators. Along the work, for $i=1,\dots,n$, let $a_i,b_i$ and $\alpha_i$ be numbers in ${\mathbb{R}}$ and $t=(t_1,\dots,t_n)$ be such that $t\in \Omega_n$, where $\Omega_n=(a_1,b_1)\times\dots\times(a_n,b_n)$ is a subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Moreover, let us define the following sets: $$\Delta_i:=\left\{(t_i,\tau)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2:~a_i
\leq \tau <t_i\leq b_i\right\},~i=1\dots,n.$$ Let us assume that $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)$ and $\mu=(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_n)$ are in $\mathbb{R}^n$. We shall present definitions of generalized partial fractional integrals and derivatives. Let $k_i:\Delta_i\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$, $i=1\dots,n$, and $t\in\Omega_n$.
For any function $f:\Omega_n\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$, the generalized partial integral $K_{P_i}$ is defined, for almost all $t_i \in (a_i,b_i)$, by $$\begin{gathered}
K_{P_{i}}[f](t):=\lambda_i\int\limits_{a_i}^{t_i}
k_i(t_i,\tau)f(t_1,\dots,t_{i-1},\tau,t_{i+1},\dots,t_n)d\tau \\
+\mu_i\int\limits_{t_i}^{b_i}k_i(\tau,t_i)f(t_1,\dots,t_{i-1},\tau,t_{i+1},
\dots,t_n)d\tau,\end{gathered}$$ where $P_{i}=\langle a_i,t_i,b_i,\lambda_i,\mu_i \rangle $.
The generalized partial fractional derivative of Riemann–Liouville type with respect to the $i$th variable $t_i$ is given by $$A_{P_{i}}:=\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i}\circ K_{P_{i}}.$$
The generalized partial fractional derivative of Caputo type with respect to the $i$th variable $t_i$ is given by $$B_{P_{i}}:=K_{P_{i}}\circ\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i}.$$
Similarly as in the one-dimensional case, partial operators $K$, $A$ and $B$ reduce to the standard partial fractional integrals and derivatives. The left- or right-sided Riemann–Liouville partial fractional integral with respect to the $i$th variable $t_i$ is obtained by choosing the kernel $k_i^{\alpha}(t_i,\tau)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha_i)}(t_i-\tau)^{\alpha_i-1}$: $$K_{P_{i}}[f](t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha_i)}\int\limits_{a_i}^{t_i}(t_i-\tau)^{\alpha_i-1}
f(t_1,\dots,t_{i-1},\tau,t_{i+1},\dots,t_n)d\tau \\
=: {_{a_i}}\textsl{I}^{\alpha_i}_{t_i} [f](t)$$ for $P_{i}=\langle a_i,t_i,b_i,1,0\rangle$, and $$K_{P_{i}}[f](t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha_i)}\int\limits_{t_i}^{b_i}
(\tau-t_i)^{\alpha_i-1}f(t_1,\dots,t_{i-1},\tau,t_{i+1},\dots,t_n)d\tau\\
=: {_{t_i}}\textsl{I}^{\alpha_i}_{b_i} [f](t)$$ for $P_{i}=\langle a_i,t_i,b_i,0,1\rangle$. The standard left- and right-sided Riemann–Liouville and Caputo partial fractional derivatives with respect to $i$th variable $t_i$ are obtained by choosing $k_i^{\alpha}(t_i,\tau)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(1-\alpha_i)}(t_i-\tau)^{-\alpha_i}$. If $P_{i}=\langle a_i,t_i,b_i,1,0\rangle$, then $$\begin{split}
A_{P_{i}}[f](t)&=\frac{1}{\Gamma(1-\alpha_i)}\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i}
\int\limits_{a_i}^{t_i}(t_i-\tau)^{-\alpha_i}f(t_1,\dots,t_{i-1},\tau,t_{i+1},
\dots,t_n)d\tau\\
&=:{_{a_i}}\textsl{D}^{\alpha_i}_{t_i} [f](t),
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
B_{P_{i}}[f](t)&=\frac{1}{\Gamma(1-\alpha_i)}\int\limits_{a_i}^{t_i}
(t_i-\tau)^{-\alpha_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}
f(t_1,\dots,t_{i-1},\tau,t_{i+1},\dots,t_n)d\tau\\
&=:{^{C}_{a_i}}\textsl{D}^{\alpha_i}_{t_i} [f](t).
\end{split}$$ If $P_{i}=\langle a_i,t_i,b_i,0,1\rangle$, then $$\begin{split}
-A_{P_{i}}[f](t)&=\frac{-1}{\Gamma(1-\alpha_i)}\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i}
\int\limits_{t_i}^{b_i}(\tau-t_i)^{-\alpha_i}f(t_1,
\dots,t_{i-1},\tau,t_{i+1},\dots,t_n)d\tau\\
&=:{_{t_i}}\textsl{D}^{\alpha_i}_{b_i} [f](t),
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
-B_{P_{i}}[f](t)&=\frac{-1}{\Gamma(1-\alpha_i)}\int\limits_{t_i}^{b_i}
(\tau-t_i)^{-\alpha_i}\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}
f(t_1,\dots,t_{i-1},\tau,t_{i+1},\dots,t_n)d\tau \\
&=:{^{C}_{t_i}}\textsl{D}^{\alpha_i}_{b_i} [f](t).
\end{split}$$ Moreover, one can easily check that variable order partial fractional integrals and derivatives are also particular cases of operators ${K_{P_{i}}}$, ${A_{P_{i}}}$ and ${B_{P_{i}}}$. Definitions of variable order partial fractional operators can be found in [@Ja].
The general fractional calculus of variations {#sec:MR}
=============================================
Fractional Variational Calculus (FVC) was first introduced in 1996, by Fred Riewe [@CD:Riewe:1996], and the reason is well explained by Lanczos, who wrote: “Forces of a frictional nature are outside the realm of variational principles”. The idea of FVC is to unify the calculus of variations and the fractional calculus by inserting fractional derivatives (and/or integrals) into the variational functionals. With less than twenty years of existence, FVC was developed through several different approaches — results include problems depending on Caputo fractional derivatives, Riemann–Liouville fractional derivatives, Riesz fractional derivatives, Hadamard fractional derivatives, and variable order fractional derivatives [@book:AD]. The Generalized Fractional Calculus of Variations (GFCV) concerns operators depending on general kernels, unifying different perspectives to the FVC. As particular cases, such operators reduce to the standard fractional integrals and derivatives (see, e.g., [@OmPrakashAgrawal; @Lupa; @MyID:226; @FVC_Gen_Int; @FVC_Sev; @GreenThm; @NoetherGen]). Before presenting the GFCV, we define the concept of minimizer. Let $(X,\left\|\cdot\right\|)$ be a normed linear space and $\mathcal{I}$ be a functional defined on a nonempty subset $\mathcal{A}$ of $X$. Moreover, let us introduce the following set: if ${\bar{y}}\in\mathcal{A}$ and $\delta>0$, then $$\mathcal{N}_{\delta}({\bar{y}}):=\left\{y\in\mathcal{A}:\left\|y-{\bar{y}}\right\|<\delta\right\}$$ is called a neighborhood of ${\bar{y}}$ in $\mathcal{A}$.
Function ${\bar{y}}\in\mathcal{A}$ is called a minimizer of $\mathcal{I}$ if there exists a neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_{\delta}({\bar{y}})$ of ${\bar{y}}$ such that $\mathcal{I}({\bar{y}})\leq\mathcal{I}(y)$ for all $y\in \mathcal{N}_{\delta}({\bar{y}})$.
Note that any function $y\in\mathcal{N}_{\delta}({\bar{y}})$ can be represented, in a convenient way, as a perturbation of ${\bar{y}}$. Precisely, $$\forall y\in\mathcal{N}_{\delta}({\bar{y}}),~~\exists\eta
\in\mathcal{A}_0,~~ y={\bar{y}}+h\eta,~~\left|h\right|\leq\varepsilon,$$ where $0<\varepsilon<\frac{\delta}{\left\|\eta\right\|}$ and $\mathcal{A}_0$ is a suitable set of functions $\eta$ such that $$\mathcal{A}_0=\left\{\eta\in X:{\bar{y}}+h\eta\in\mathcal{A},
~~\left|h\right|\leq\varepsilon\right\}.$$
Fundamental problem {#sec:fund}
-------------------
For $P=\langle a,t,b,\lambda,\mu\rangle$, let us consider the following functional: $$\label{eq:F:1}
{
\begin{array}[t]{lrcl}
\mathcal{I} :&\mathcal{A}(y_a,y_b) & \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{R}}\\
& y & \longmapsto &
\displaystyle\int\limits_a^b
F(y(t),K_P[y](t),\dot{y}(t),B_P[y](t),t) \; dt ,
\end{array}
}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{A}(y_a,y_b):=\left\{y\in C^1([a,b];{\mathbb{R}}):\;
y(a)=y_a,~y(b)=y_b,\; \right.\\
\left. \textnormal{and}\;
K_P[y],B_P[y]\in C([a,b];{\mathbb{R}})\right\},\end{gathered}$$ $\dot{y}$ denotes the classical derivative of $y$, $K_P$ is the generalized fractional integral operator with kernel belonging to $L^q(\Delta;{\mathbb{R}})$, $B_P=K_P\circ\frac{d}{dt}$, and $F$ is the Lagrangian function $${
\begin{array}[t]{lrcl}
F :&{\mathbb{R}}^4 \times [a,b] & \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{R}}\\
& (x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,t) & \longmapsto & F(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,t)
\end{array}
}$$ of class $C^1$. Moreover, we assume that
- $K_{P^*}\left[\tau\mapsto\partial_2
F(y(\tau),K_P[y](\tau),\dot{y}(\tau),B_P[y](\tau),\tau)\right]\in C([a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$,
- $t\mapsto\partial_3 F (y(t),K_P[y](t),\dot{y}(t),B_P[y](t),t)\in C^1([a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$,
- $K_{P^*}\left[\tau\mapsto\partial_4
F(y(\tau),K_P[y](\tau),\dot{y}(\tau),B_P[y](\tau),\tau)\right]\in C^1([a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$,
where $P^*$ is the dual set of $P$, that is, $P^*=\langle a,t,b,\mu,\lambda\rangle$.
The next result gives a necessary optimality condition of Euler–Lagrange type for the problem of finding a function minimizing functional .
[(cf. [@MyID:226])]{} Let $\bar{y}\in\mathcal{A}(y_a,y_b)$ be a minimizer of functional . Then, $\bar{y}$ satisfies the following Euler–Lagrange equation: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:EL:OCM}
\frac{d}{dt}\left[\partial_3 F\left(\star_{\bar{y}}\right)(t)\right]
+A_{P^*}\left[\tau\mapsto\partial_4 F\left(\star_{\bar{y}}\right)(\tau)\right](t)\\
=\partial_1 F\left(\star_{\bar{y}}\right)(t)
+K_{P^*}\left[\tau\mapsto\partial_2 F\left(\star_{\bar{y}}\right)(\tau)\right](t),\end{gathered}$$ where $\left(\star_{\bar{y}}\right)(t)
=\left({\bar{y}}(t),K_P[{\bar{y}}](t),\dot{{\bar{y}}}(t),B_P[{\bar{y}}](t),t\right)$, $t\in (a,b)$.
From now on, in order to simplify the notation, for $T$ and $S$ being fractional operators, we write shortly $$T\left[\partial_i F(y(\tau),T[y](\tau),\dot{y}(\tau),S[y](\tau),\tau)\right]$$ instead of $$T\left[\tau\mapsto\partial_i
F(y(\tau),T[y](\tau),\dot{y}(\tau),S[y](\tau),\tau)\right],$$ $i=1,\dots,5$.
Let $P=\langle 0,t,1,1,0 \rangle$. Consider minimizing $$\mathcal{I}(y)=\int\limits_0^1 \left(K_P[y](t)+t\right)^2\; dt$$ subject to given boundary conditions $$y(0)=-1~~\textnormal{and}~~y(1)=-1-\int\limits_0^1u(1-\tau)\;d\tau,$$ where the kernel $k$ of $K_P$ is such that $k(t,\tau)=h(t-\tau)$ with $h\in C^1([0,1];{\mathbb{R}})$ and $h(0)=1$. Here the resolvent $u$ is related to the kernel $h$ by $$u(t)=\mathcal{L}^{-1}\left[\frac{1}{s\tilde{h}(s)}-1\right](t),
\quad \tilde{h}(s)=\mathcal{L}[h](s),$$ where $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}^{-1}$ are the direct and the inverse Laplace operators, respectively. We apply Theorem 3.2 with Lagrangian $F$ given by $$F(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,t)=(x_2+t)^2.$$ Because $$y(t)=-1-\int\limits_0^t u(t-\tau)\;d\tau$$ is the solution to the Volterra integral equation $$K_P[y](t)+t=0$$ of the first kind (see, e.g., Eq. 16, p. 114 of [@book:Polyanin]), it satisfies our generalized Euler–Lagrange equation , that is, $$K_{P^*}\left[K_P[y](\tau)+\tau\right](t)=0,
\quad t\in (a,b).$$ In particular, for kernel $h(t-\tau)=e^{-(t-\tau)}$ and boundary conditions $y(0)=-1$ and $y(1)=-2$, the solution is $y(t)=-1-t$.
Let $0<\alpha<\frac{1}{q}$ and let $\bar{y}\in C^1([a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$ be a solution to the problem of minimizing the functional $$\mathcal{I}(y)=\int\limits_a^b\;
F\left(y(t),{{_{a}}\textsl{I}_t^{1-\alpha}}[y](t),\dot{y}(t),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha}[y](t),t\right)\; dt$$ subject to the boundary conditions $y(a)=y_a$ and $y(b)=y_b$, where
- $F\in C^1({\mathbb{R}}^4\times [a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$,
- functions $t\mapsto\partial_1 F\left(y(t),{{_{a}}\textsl{I}_t^{1-\alpha}}[y](t),\dot{y}(t),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha}[y](t),t\right)$ and $${{_{t}}\textsl{I}_b^{1-\alpha}}\left[\partial_2 F(y(\tau),{{_{a}}\textsl{I}_{\tau}^{1-\alpha}}[y](\tau),\dot{y}(\tau),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_{\tau}^\alpha}[y](\tau),\tau)\right]$$ are continuous on $[a,b]$,
- functions $t\mapsto\partial_3 F\left(y(t),{{_{a}}\textsl{I}_t^{1-\alpha}}[y](t),\dot{y}(t),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha}[y](t),t\right)$ and $${{_{t}}\textsl{I}_b^{1-\alpha}}\left[\partial_4 F(y(\tau),{{_{a}}\textsl{I}_{\tau}^{1-\alpha}}[y](\tau),\dot{y}(\tau),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_{\tau}^\alpha}[y](\tau),\tau)\right]$$ are continuously differentiable on $[a,b]$.
Then, the Euler–Lagrange equation $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{d}{dt}\left(\partial_3 F(\bar{y}(t),{{_{a}}\textsl{I}_t^{1-\alpha}}[\bar{y}](t),
\dot{\bar{y}}(t),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha}[\bar{y}](t),t)\right)\\
-{{_{t}}\textsl{D}_b^\alpha}\left[\partial_4 F(\bar{y}(\tau),{{_{a}}\textsl{I}_{\tau}^{1-\alpha}}[\bar{y}](\tau),
\dot{\bar{y}}(\tau),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_{\tau}^\alpha}[\bar{y}](\tau),\tau)\right](t)\\
=\partial_1 F(\bar{y}(t),{{_{a}}\textsl{I}_t^{1-\alpha}}[\bar{y}](t),
\dot{\bar{y}}(t),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha}[\bar{y}](t),t)\\
+{{_{t}}\textsl{I}_b^\alpha}\left[\partial_2 F(\bar{y}(\tau),{{_{a}}\textsl{I}_{\tau}^{1-\alpha}}[\bar{y}](\tau),
\dot{\bar{y}}(\tau),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_{\tau}^\alpha}[\bar{y}](\tau),\tau)\right](t)\end{gathered}$$ holds for $t\in (a,b)$.
Free initial boundary {#sec:nat}
---------------------
Let us define the set $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{A}(y_b):=\left\{y\in C^1 ([a,b];{\mathbb{R}}):\; y(a)\;\textnormal{is free},
~y(b)=y_b,\; \right.\\
\left. \textnormal{and}\; K_P[y],B_P[y]\in C([a,b];{\mathbb{R}})\right\},\end{gathered}$$ and let ${\bar{y}}$ be a minimizer of functional on $\mathcal{A}(y_b)$, i.e., ${\bar{y}}$ minimizes $$\label{eq:F:2}
{
\begin{array}[t]{lrcl}
\mathcal{I} :&\mathcal{A}(y_b) & \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{R}}\\
& y & \longmapsto & \displaystyle\int\limits_a^b
F(y(t),K_P[y](t),\dot{y}(t),B_P[y](t),t) \; dt .
\end{array}
}$$
The next result shows that if in the generalized fractional variational problem one initial boundary is not preassigned, then a certain natural boundary condition can be determined.
[(cf. [@MyID:226])]{} If ${\bar{y}}\in\mathcal{A}(y_b)$ is a solution to the problem of minimizing functional on the set $\mathcal{A}(y_b)$, then ${\bar{y}}$ satisfies the Euler–Lagrange equation . Moreover, the extra boundary condition $$\left.\partial_3 F(\star_{\bar{y}})(t)\right|_a
+\left.K_{P^*}\left[\partial_4 F(\star_{{\bar{y}}})(\tau)\right](t)\right|_a=0$$ holds with $(\star_{\bar{y}})(t)=(\bar{y}(t),K_P[\bar{y}](t),\dot{\bar{y}}(t),B_P[\bar{y}](t),t)$.
[(cf. [@OmPrakashAgrawal3])]{} Let $0<\alpha<\frac{1}{q}$ and $\mathcal{I}$ be the functional given by $$\mathcal{I}(y)=\int\limits_a^b
F\left(y(t),_{a}^{C}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha [y](t),t\right)dt,$$ where $F\in C^1({\mathbb{R}}^2\times [a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$ and ${{_{a}}\textsl{I}_t^{1-\alpha}}\left[\partial_2 F\left(y(\tau),_{a}^{C}\textsl{D}_{\tau}^\alpha [y](\tau),\tau\right)\right]$ is continuously differentiable on $[a,b]$. If ${\bar{y}}\in C^1([a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$ is a minimizer of $\mathcal{I}$ among all functions satisfying the boundary condition $y(b)=y_b$, then ${\bar{y}}$ satisfies the Euler–Lagrange equation $$\partial_1 F\left({\bar{y}}(t),_{a}^{C}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha [{\bar{y}}](t),t\right)
+_{t}\textsl{D}_b^\alpha\left[\partial_2 F\left({\bar{y}}(\tau),
_{a}^{C}\textsl{D}_{\tau}^\alpha [{\bar{y}}](\tau),\tau\right)\right](t)=0$$ for all $t\in (a,b)$ and the fractional natural boundary condition $$\left._{t}\textsl{I}_b^{1-\alpha}\left[\partial_2
F\left({\bar{y}}(\tau),_{a}^{C}\textsl{D}_{\tau}^\alpha [{\bar{y}}](\tau),
\tau\right)\right](t)\right|_{a}=0.$$
Isoperimetric problem {#sec:iso}
---------------------
Let $P=\langle a,t,b,\lambda,\mu\rangle$. We now define the following functional: $$\label{eq:F:3}
{
\begin{array}[t]{lrcl}
\mathcal{J} :&\mathcal{A}(y_a,y_b) & \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{R}}\\
& y & \longmapsto & \displaystyle \int\limits_a^b
G\left(y(t),K_P[y](t),\dot{y}(t),B_P[y](t),t\right) \; dt ,
\end{array}
}$$ where by $\dot{y}$ we understand the classical derivative of $y$, $K_P$ is the generalized fractional integral operator with kernel belonging to $L^q(\Delta;{\mathbb{R}})$, $B_P=K_P\circ\frac{d}{dt}$, and $G$ is a Lagrangian $${
\begin{array}[t]{lrcl}
G :&{\mathbb{R}}^4 \times [a,b] & \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{R}}\\
& (x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,t) & \longmapsto & G(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,t)
\end{array}
}$$ of class $C^1$. Moreover, we assume that
- $K_{P^*}\left[\partial_2 G (y(\tau),K_P[y](\tau),\dot{y}(\tau),B_P[y](\tau),\tau)\right]
\in C([a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$,
- $t\mapsto\partial_3 G (y(t),K_P[y](t),\dot{y}(t),B_P[y](t),t)
\in C^1([a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$,
- $K_{P^*}\left[\partial_4 G (y(\tau),K_P[y](\tau),\dot{y}(\tau),B_P[y](\tau),\tau)\right]
\in C^1([a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$.
The main problem considered in this section consists to find a minimizer of functional subject to the isoperimetric constraint $\mathcal{J}(y)=\xi$. In order to deal with this type of problems, in the next theorem we provide a necessary optimality condition.
[(cf. [@MyID:226])]{} Suppose that ${\bar{y}}$ is a minimizer of functional $\mathcal{I}$ in the class $$\mathcal{A}_{\xi}(y_a,y_b):=\left\{y\in\mathcal{A}(y_a,y_b):\mathcal{J}(y)=\xi\right\}.$$ Then there exists a real constant $\lambda_0$ such that, for $H=F-\lambda_0 G$, equation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:EL:ISO1}
\frac{d}{dt}\left[\partial_3 H(\star_{\bar{y}})(t)\right]
+A_{P^*}\left[\partial_4 H(\star_{\bar{y}})(\tau)\right](t)\\
=\partial_1 H(\star_{\bar{y}})(t)+K_{P^*}\left[\partial_2
H(\star_{\bar{y}})(\tau)\right](t)\end{gathered}$$ holds for $t\in (a,b)$, provided $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{d}{dt}\left[\partial_3 G(\star_{\bar{y}})(t)\right]
+A_{P^*}\left[\partial_4 G(\star_{\bar{y}})(\tau)\right](t)\\
\neq\partial_1 G(\star_{\bar{y}})(t)+K_{P^*}\left[\partial_2
G(\star_{\bar{y}})(\tau)\right](t),~t\in (a,b),\end{gathered}$$ where $(\star_{\bar{y}})(t)=(\bar{y}(t),
K_P[\bar{y}](t),\dot{\bar{y}}(t),B_P[\bar{y}](t),t)$.
Let $P=\langle 0,t,1,1,0\rangle$. Consider the problem $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{I}(y)=\int\limits_0^1\left({\textsl{K}_P} [y](t)
+t\right)^2dt \longrightarrow \min,\\
\mathcal{J}(y)=\int\limits_0^1 t{\textsl{K}_P} [y](t)\;dt = \xi,\\
y(0)=\xi-1, \quad y(1)=(\xi-1)\left(1
+\int\limits_0^1 u(1-\tau) d\tau\right),
\end{gathered}$$ where the kernel $k$ is such that $k(t,\tau)=h(t-\tau)$ with $h\in C^1([0,1];{\mathbb{R}})$, $h(0)=1$ and $\textsl{K}_{P^*}[id](t)\neq 0$ ($id$ stands for the identity transformation, i.e., $id(t)=t$). Here the resolvent $u$ is related to the kernel $h$ in the same way as in Example 3.3. Since $\textsl{K}_{P^*}[id](t)\neq 0$, there is no solution to the Euler–Lagrange equation for functional $\mathcal{J}$. The augmented Lagrangian $H$ of Theorem 3.7 is given by $H(x_1,x_2,t) =(x_2+t)^2 -\lambda_0 tx_2$. Function $$y(t) = \left(\xi-1\right) \left( 1 +\int\limits_0^t u(t-\tau)d\tau \right)$$ is the solution to the Volterra integral equation $\textsl{K}_{P}[y](t)=(\xi-1)t$ of the first kind (see, e.g., Eq. 16, p. 114 of [@book:Polyanin]) and for $\lambda_0=2\xi$ satisfies our optimality condition : $$\label{eq:noc:ex2}
\textsl{K}_{P^*}\left[2\left(\textsl{K}_P[y](\tau)+\tau\right)
-2\xi \tau\right](t)=0.$$ The solution of subject to the given boundary conditions depends on the particular choice for the kernel. For example, let $h^{\alpha}(t-\tau)=e^{\alpha(t-\tau)}$. Then the solution of subject to the boundary conditions $y(0)=\xi-1$ and $y(1)=(\xi-1)(1-\alpha)$ is $y(t)=(\xi-1)(1-\alpha t)$ (cf. p. 15 of [@book:Polyanin]). If $h^{\alpha}(t-\tau)=\cos\left(\alpha(t-\tau)\right)$, then the boundary conditions are $y(0)=\xi-1$ and $y(1)=(\xi-1)\left(1+\alpha^2/2\right)$, and the extremal is $y(t)=(\xi-1)\left(1+\alpha^2 t^2/2\right)$ (cf. p. 46 of [@book:Polyanin]).
Borrowing different kernels from book [@book:Polyanin], many other examples of dynamic optimization problems can be explicitly solved by application of the results of this section.
As particular cases of our generalized problem , , one obtains previously studied fractional isoperimetric problems with Caputo derivatives.
[(cf. [@MyID:207])]{} Let ${\bar{y}}\in C^1([a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$ be a minimizer to the functional $$\mathcal{I}(y)=\int\limits_a^b F\left(y(t),\dot{y}(t),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha}[y](t),t\right) dt$$ subject to an isoperimetric constraint of the form $$\mathcal{J}(y)=\int\limits_a^b
G\left(y(t),\dot{y}(t),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha}[y](t),t\right)dt=\xi$$ and boundary conditions $$y(a)=y_a,~~y(b)=y_b,$$ where $0<\alpha<\frac{1}{q}$ and functions $F$ and $G$ are such that
- $F,G\in C^1({\mathbb{R}}^3\times [a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$,
- $t\mapsto\partial_2 F\left(y(t),\dot{y}(t),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha}[y](t),t\right)$, $t\mapsto\partial_2 G\left(y(t),\dot{y}(t),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha}[y](t),t\right)$, $${{_{t}}\textsl{I}_b^{1-\alpha}}\left[\partial_3 F\left(y(\tau),\dot{y}(\tau),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_{\tau}^\alpha}[y](\tau),\tau\right)\right],$$ and $${{_{t}}\textsl{I}_b^{1-\alpha}}\left[\partial_3 G\left(y(\tau),\dot{y}(\tau),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_{\tau}^\alpha}[y](\tau),\tau\right)\right]$$ are continuously differentiable on $[a,b]$.
If ${\bar{y}}$ is such that $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_1 G\left({\bar{y}}(t),\dot{{\bar{y}}}(t),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha}[{\bar{y}}](t),t\right)
-\frac{d}{dt}\left(\partial_2 G\left({\bar{y}}(t),\dot{{\bar{y}}}(t),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha}[{\bar{y}}](t),t\right)\right)\\
+{{_{t}}\textsl{D}_b^\alpha}\left[
\partial_3 G\left({\bar{y}}(\tau),\dot{{\bar{y}}}(\tau),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_{\tau}^\alpha}[{\bar{y}}](\tau),\tau\right)\right](t)\neq 0,\end{gathered}$$ then there exists a constant $\lambda_0$ such that ${\bar{y}}$ satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_1 H\left({\bar{y}}(t),\dot{{\bar{y}}}(t),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha}[{\bar{y}}](t),t\right)-\frac{d}{dt}\left(
\partial_2 H\left({\bar{y}}(t),\dot{{\bar{y}}}(t),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_t^\alpha}[{\bar{y}}](t),t\right)\right)\\
+{{_{t}}\textsl{D}_b^\alpha}\left[
\partial_3 H\left({\bar{y}}(\tau),\dot{{\bar{y}}}(\tau),{{^{C}_{a}}\textsl{D}_{\tau}^\alpha}[{\bar{y}}](\tau),
\tau\right)\right](t) = 0\end{gathered}$$ with $H=F-\lambda_0 G$.
Theorem 3.7 can be easily extended to $r$ subsidiary conditions of integral type. Let $G_k$, $k=1,\dots, r$, be Lagrangians $${
\begin{array}[t]{lrcl}
G_k :&{\mathbb{R}}^4 \times [a,b] & \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{R}}\\
& (x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,t) & \longmapsto & G_k(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,t)
\end{array}
}$$ of class $C^1$, and let $${
\begin{array}[t]{lrcl}
\mathcal{J}_k :&\mathcal{A}(y_a,y_b) & \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{R}}\\
& y & \longmapsto & \displaystyle \int\limits_a^b
G_k(y(t),K_P[y](t),\dot{y}(t),B_P[y](t),t) \; dt,
\end{array}
}$$ where $\dot{y}$ denotes the classical derivative of $y$, $K_P$ the generalized fractional integral operator with a kernel belonging to $L^q(\Delta;{\mathbb{R}})$, and $B_P=K_P\circ\frac{d}{dt}$. Moreover, we assume that
- $K_{P^*}\left[\partial_2 G_k (y(\tau),K_P[y](\tau),
\dot{y}(\tau),B_P[y](\tau),\tau)\right]\in C([a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$,
- $t\mapsto\partial_3 G_k (y(t),K_P[y](t),
\dot{y}(t),B_P[y](t),t)\in C^1([a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$,
- $K_{P^*}\left[\partial_4 G_k (y(\tau),K_P[y](\tau),
\dot{y}(\tau),B_P[y](\tau),\tau)\right]\in C^1([a,b];{\mathbb{R}})$.
Suppose that $\xi=(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_r)$ and define $$\mathcal{A}_{\xi}(y_a,y_b):=\left\{y\in\mathcal{A}(y_a,y_b):
\mathcal{J}_k[y]=\xi_k,\; k=1\dots,r\right\}.$$ Next theorem gives necessary optimality condition for a minimizer of functional $\mathcal{I}$ subject to $r$ isoperimetric constraints.
Let ${\bar{y}}$ be a minimizer of $\mathcal{I}$ in the class $\mathcal{A}_{\xi}(y_a,y_b)$. If one can find functions $\eta_1,\dots,\eta_r\in\mathcal{A}(0,0)$ such that the matrix $A=\left(a_{kl}\right)$, $$\begin{gathered}
a_{kl}:=\int\limits_a^b\; \left(\partial_1 G_k(\star_{\bar{y}})(t)
+K_{P^*}\left[\partial_2 G_k(\star_{\bar{y}})(\tau)\right](t)\right)\cdot\eta_l(\tau)\\
+\left(\partial_3 G_k(\star_{\bar{y}})(t)+K_{P^*}\left[
\partial_4 G_k(\star_{\bar{y}})(\tau)\right](t)\right)\cdot\dot{\eta_l}(t)\; dt,\end{gathered}$$ has rank equal to $r$, then there exist $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_r\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that ${\bar{y}}$ satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:EL:ISO2}
\frac{d}{dt}\left[\partial_3 H(\star_{\bar{y}})(t)\right]
+A_{P^*}\left[\partial_4 H(\star_{\bar{y}})(\tau)\right](t)\\
=\partial_1 H(\star_{\bar{y}})(t)+K_{P^*}\left[\partial_2
H(\star_{\bar{y}})(\tau)\right](t),
\quad t\in (a,b),\end{gathered}$$ where $(\star_{\bar{y}})(t)
=(\bar{y}(t),K_P[\bar{y}](t),\dot{\bar{y}}(t),B_P[\bar{y}](t),t)$ and $H=F-\sum\limits_{k=1}^r\lambda_kG_k$.
Let us define $${
\begin{array}[t]{lrcl}
\phi :&[-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0]
\times\dots\times [-\varepsilon_r,\varepsilon_r] & \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{R}}\\
& (h_0,h_1,
\dots,h_r) & \longmapsto & \mathcal{I}(\bar{y}+h_0\eta_0+h_1\eta_1+\dots+h_r\eta_r)
\end{array}
}$$ and $${
\begin{array}[t]{lrcl}
\psi_k :&[-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0]
\times\dots\times [-\varepsilon_r,\varepsilon_r] & \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{R}}\\
& (h_0,h_1,\dots,h_r) & \longmapsto & \mathcal{J}_k(\bar{y}
+h_0\eta_0+h_1\eta_1+\dots+h_r\eta_r)-\xi_k.
\end{array}
}$$ Observe that $\phi$ and $\psi_k$ are functions of class $C^1\left([-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0]
\times\dots\times[-\varepsilon_r,\varepsilon_r];{\mathbb{R}}\right)$, $A=\left(\left.\frac{\partial\psi_k}{\partial h_l}\right|_{0}\right)$ and that $\psi_k (0,0,\dots,0)=0$. Moreover, because ${\bar{y}}$ is a minimizer of functional $\mathcal{I}$, we have $$\phi(0,\dots,0)\leq\phi(h_0,h_1,\dots,h_r).$$ From the classical multiplier theorem, there exist $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_r\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$\label{eq:ISOpf:1}
\nabla\phi_l(0,\dots,0)
+\sum\limits_{k=1}^r \lambda_k\nabla\psi_{k}(0,\dots,0)=0.$$ From we can compute $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_r$, independently of the choice of $\eta_0\in\mathcal{A}(0,0)$. Finally, we arrive to by the fundamental lemma of the calculus of variations.
Noether’s theorem {#sec:NTH:sing}
-----------------
Emmy Noether’s classical work [@Noether] from 1918 states that a conservation law in variational mechanics follow whenever the Lagrangian function is invariant under a one-parameter continuous group of transformations, that transform dependent and/or independent variables. For instance, conservation of energy follows from invariance of the Lagrangian with respect to time-translations. Noether’s theorem not only unifies conservation laws but also suggests a way to discover new ones. In this section we consider variational problems that depend on generalized fractional integrals and derivatives. Following the methods used in [@Cresson; @MR2338631; @book:Jost], we apply Euler–Lagrange equations to formulate a generalized fractional version of Noether’s theorem without transformation of time. We start by introducing the notions of generalized fractional extremal and one-parameter family of infinitesimal transformations.
A function $y\in C^1\left([a,b];{\mathbb{R}}\right)$ with $K_P[y]$ and $B_P[y]$ in $C\left([a,b];{\mathbb{R}}\right)$ that is a solution to equation is said to be a generalized fractional extremal.
We consider a one-parameter family of transformations of the form $\hat{y}(t)=\phi(\theta,t,y(t))$, where $\phi$ is a map $${
\begin{array}[t]{lrcl}
\phi :&[-\varepsilon,\varepsilon]\times [a,b]
\times{\mathbb{R}}& \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{R}}\\
& (\theta,t,x) & \longmapsto & \phi(\theta,t,x)
\end{array}
}$$ of class $C^2$ such that $\phi(0,t,x)=x$. Note that, using Taylor’s expansion of $\phi(\theta,t,y(t))$ in a neighborhood of $0$, one has $$\hat{y}(t)=\phi(0,t,y(t))+\theta\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}\phi(0,t,y(t))+o(\theta),$$ provided $\theta\in [-\varepsilon,\varepsilon]$. Moreover, having in mind that $\phi(0,t,y(t))=y(t)$ and denoting $\xi(t,y(t))=\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}\phi(0,t,y(t))$, one has $$\label{eq:Tr}
\hat{y}(t)=y(t)+\theta\xi(t,y(t))+o(\theta),$$ so that the linear approximation to the transformation is $$\hat{y}(t)\approx y(t)+\theta\xi(t,y(t))$$ for $\theta\in [-\varepsilon,\varepsilon]$. Now, let us introduce the notion of invariance.
We say that a Lagrangian $F$ is invariant under the one-parameter family of infinitesimal transformations , where $\xi$ is such that $t\mapsto\xi(t,y(t))\in C^1\left([a,b];{\mathbb{R}}\right)$ with $K_P\left[\tau\mapsto\xi(\tau,y(\tau))\right],
B_P\left[\tau\mapsto\xi(\tau,y(\tau))\right]\in C\left([a,b];{\mathbb{R}}\right)$, if $$\label{eq:CI:1}
F\left(y(t),K_P[y](t),\dot{y}(t),B_P[y](t),t\right)
= F\left(\hat{y}(t),K_P[\hat{y}](t),\dot{\hat{y}}(t),B_P[\hat{y}](t),t\right)$$ for all $\theta\in [-\varepsilon,\varepsilon]$ and all $y\in C^1\left([a,b];{\mathbb{R}}\right)$ with $K_P[y],B_P[y]\in C\left([a,b];{\mathbb{R}}\right)$.
In order to state Noether’s theorem in a compact form, we introduce the following two bilinear operators: $$\label{eq:BD:1}
\mathbf{D}[f,g]:=f\cdot A_{P^*}[g]+g\cdot B_P[f],$$ $$\label{eq:BI:1}
\mathbf{I}[f,g]:=-f\cdot K_{P^*}[g]+g\cdot K_P[f].$$
[(Generalized Fractional Noether’s Theorem)]{} Let $F$ be invariant under the one-parameter family of infinitesimal transformations . Then, for every generalized fractional extremal $y$, the following equality holds: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:NTH:1}
\frac{d}{dt}\left(\xi(t,y(t))\cdot\partial_3 F(\star_y)(t)\right)
+\mathbf{D}\left[\xi(t,y(t)),\partial_4 F(\star_y)(t)\right]\\
+\mathbf{I}\left[\xi(t,y(t)),\partial_2 F(\star_y)(t)\right]=0,\end{gathered}$$ $t\in (a,b)$, where $(\star_y)(t)=\left(y(t),K_P[y](t),\dot{y}(t),B_P[y](t),t\right)$.
By equation one has $$\left.\frac{d}{d\theta}\left[F\left(\hat{y}(t),K_P[\hat{y}](t),
\dot{\hat{y}}(t),B_P[\hat{y}](t),t\right)\right]\right|_{\theta=0}=0.$$ The usual chain rule implies that $$\begin{gathered}
\Biggl.\partial_1 F(\star_{\hat{y}})(t)\cdot\frac{d}{d \theta}\hat{y}(t)
+\partial_2 F(\star_{\hat{y}})(t)\cdot\frac{d}{d \theta}K_P[\hat{y}](t)\\
+\partial_3 F(\star_{\hat{y}})(t)\cdot\frac{d}{d\theta}\dot{\hat{y}}(t)
+\partial_4 F(\star_{\hat{y}})(t)\cdot
\frac{d}{d\theta}B_P[\hat{y}](t)\Biggr|_{\theta=0}=0.\end{gathered}$$ By linearity of $K_P$ and $B_P$, differentiating with respect to $\theta$, and putting $\theta=0$, $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_1 F(\star_y)(t)\cdot\xi(t,y(t))
+\partial_2 F(\star_y)(t)\cdot K_P[\tau\mapsto\xi(\tau,y(\tau))](t)\\
+\partial_3 F(\star_y)(t)\cdot\frac{d}{dt}\xi(t,y(t))
+\partial_4 F(\star_y)(t)\cdot B_P[\tau\mapsto\xi(\tau,y(\tau))](t)=0.\end{gathered}$$ We obtain using the generalized Euler–Lagrange equation and –.
Let $P=\langle a,t,b,\lambda,\mu\rangle$, $y\in C^1\left([a,b];{\mathbb{R}}\right)$, $B_P[y]\in C\left([a,b];{\mathbb{R}}\right)$. Consider Lagrangian $F\left(B_P[y](t),t\right)$ and transformations $$\label{eq:Tr:2}
\hat{y}(t)=y(t)+\varepsilon c+o(\varepsilon),$$ where $c$ is a constant. Then, we have $$F\left(B_P[y](t),t\right)=
F\left(B_P[\hat{y}](t),t\right).$$ Therefore, $F$ is invariant under and the generalized fractional Noether’s theorem asserts that $$\label{eq:ex:NTH}
A_{P^*}[\partial_1 F\left(B_P[y](\tau),\tau\right)](t)=0,
\quad t\in (a,b),$$ along any generalized fractional extremal $y$. Notice that equation can be written in the form $$\frac{d}{dt}\left(K_{P^*}[\partial_1
F\left(B_P[y](\tau),\tau\right)](t)\right)=0,$$ that is, quantity $K_{P^*}[\partial_1 F\left(B_P[y](\tau),\tau\right)]$ is conserved along all generalized fractional extremals and this quantity, following the classical approach, can be called a generalized fractional constant of motion.
The multidimensional fractional calculus of variations {#sec:SEV}
------------------------------------------------------
One can generalize results from Section \[sec:fund\] to the case of several variables. In order to define the multidimensional generalized fractional variational problem, we introduce the notion of generalized fractional gradient.
Let $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $P=(P_1,\dots,P_n)$, $P_i=\langle a_i,t_,b_i,\lambda_i,\mu_i\rangle$. The generalized fractional gradient of a function $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ with respect to the generalized fractional operator $T$ is defined by $$\nabla_{T_P}[f]:=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n e_i\cdot T_{P_i}[f],$$ where $\left\{e_i:i=1,\dots,n\right\}$ denotes the standard basis in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
For $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ let us assume that $P_i=\langle a_i,t_i,b_i,\lambda_i,\mu_i \rangle$ and $P=(P_1,\dots,P_n)$, $y:{\mathbb{R}}^n\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$, and $\zeta:\partial\Omega_n\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ is a given function. Consider the following functional: $$\label{eq:F:SEV}
{
\begin{array}[t]{lrcl}
\mathcal{I} :&\mathcal{A}(\zeta) & \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{R}}\\
& y & \longmapsto & \displaystyle \int\limits_{\Omega_n}
F(y(t),\nabla_{K_P}[y](t),\nabla[y](t),\nabla_{B_P}[y](t),t)\;dt,
\end{array}
}$$ where $$\mathcal{A}(\zeta):=\left\{y\in C^1(\bar{\Omega}_n;{\mathbb{R}}):\left.y\right|_{\partial\Omega_n}
=\zeta,~K_{P_i}[y],B_{P_i}[y]\in C(\bar{\Omega}_n;{\mathbb{R}}),i=1,\dots,n\right\},$$ $\nabla$ denotes the classical gradient operator, and $\nabla_{K_P}$ and $\nabla_{B_P}$ are generalized fractional gradient operators such that $K_{P_i}$ is the generalized partial fractional integral with kernel $k_i=k_i(t_i-\tau)$, $k_i\in L^1(0,b_i-a_i;{\mathbb{R}})$, and $B_{P_i}$ is the generalized partial fractional derivative of Caputo type satisfying $B_{P_i}=K_{P_i}\circ\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i}$, $i=1,\dots,n$. Moreover, we assume that $F$ is a Lagrangian $${
\begin{array}[t]{lrcl}
F :&{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{3n}\times
\bar{\Omega}_n & \longrightarrow & {\mathbb{R}}\\
& (x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,t) & \longmapsto & F(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,t)
\end{array}
}$$ of class $C^1$ and
- $K_{P_i^*}\left[\partial_{1+i}
F(y(\tau),\nabla_{K_P}[y](\tau),\nabla[y](\tau),\nabla_{B_P}[y](\tau),\tau)\right]
\in C(\bar{\Omega}_n;{\mathbb{R}})$,
- $t\mapsto\partial_{1+n+i} F(y(t),\nabla_{K_P}[y](t),
\nabla[y](t),\nabla_{B_P}[y](t),t)\in C^1(\bar{\Omega}_n;{\mathbb{R}})$,
- $K_{P_i^*}\left[\partial_{1+2n+i}
F(y(\tau),\nabla_{K_P}[y](\tau),\nabla[y](\tau),
\nabla_{B_P}[y](\tau),\tau)\right]\in C^1(\bar{\Omega}_n;{\mathbb{R}})$,
$i=1,\ldots,n$.
The following theorem states that if a function minimizes functional , then it necessarily must satisfy . This means that equation determines candidates to solve the problem of minimizing functional .
[(cf. [@FVC_Sev])]{} Suppose that ${\bar{y}}\in\mathcal{A}(\zeta)$ is a minimizer of . Then, ${\bar{y}}$ satisfies the following generalized Euler–Lagrange equation: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:EL:SEV}
\partial_1 F(\star_{{\bar{y}}})(t)+\sum\limits_{i=1}^n
\Biggl(K_{P_i^*}[\partial_{1+i}F(\star_{{\bar{y}}})(\tau)](t)\\
-\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i}\left(\partial_{1+n+i}F(\star_{{\bar{y}}})(t)\right)
-A_{P_i^*}[\partial_{1+2n+i}F(\star_{{\bar{y}}})(\tau)](t)\Biggr)=0,\end{gathered}$$ $t\in\Omega_n$, where $(\star_{{\bar{y}}})(t)=({\bar{y}}(t),\nabla_{K_P}[{\bar{y}}](t),\nabla[{\bar{y}}](t),\nabla_{B_P}[{\bar{y}}](t),t)$.
Consider a medium motion whose displacement may be described as a scalar function $y(t,x)$, where $x=(x^1,x^2)$. For example, this function may represent the transverse displacement of a membrane. Suppose that the kinetic energy $T$ and the potential energy $V$ of the medium are given by $$T\left(\frac{\partial y(t,x)}{\partial t}\right)
=\frac{1}{2}\int\rho(x)\left(\frac{\partial y(t,x)}{\partial t}\right)^2\;dx,$$ $$V(y)=\frac{1}{2}\int k(x)\left|\nabla [y](t,x)\right|^2\;dx,$$ where $\rho(x)$ is the mass density and $k(x)$ is the stiffness, both assumed positive. Then, the classical action functional is $$\mathcal{I}(y)=\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_{\Omega}\left(\rho(x)\left(
\frac{\partial y(t,x)}{\partial t}\right)^2
-k(x)\left|\nabla [y](t,x)\right|^2\right)\;dxdt.$$ We shall illustrate what are the Euler–Lagrange equations when the Lagrangian density depends on generalized fractional derivatives. When we have the Lagrangian with the kinetic term depending on the operator $B_{P_1}$, with $P_1=\langle a_1,t,b_1,\lambda,\mu\rangle$, then the fractional action functional has the form $$\label{eq:F:SEVex}
\mathcal{I}(y)=\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_{\Omega_3}\left[\rho(x)\left(
B_{P_1}[y](t,x)\right)^2-k(x)\left|\nabla [y](t,x)\right|^2\right]\;dxdt.$$ The fractional Euler–Lagrange equation satisfied by an extremal of is $$-\rho(x) A_{P_1^*}\left[B_{P_1}[y](\tau,s)\right](t,x)
-\nabla\left[k(s)\nabla[y](\tau,s)\right](t,x)=0.$$ If $\rho$ and $k$ are constants, then $\rho A_{P_1^*}\left[B_{P_1}[y](\tau,s)\right](t,x)
+c^2\Delta[y](t,x)=0$, where $c^2=k/\rho$, can be called *the generalized time-fractional wave equation*. Now, assume that the kinetic energy and the potential energy depend on $B_{P_1}$ and $\nabla_{B_P}$ operators, respectively, where $P=(P_{2},P_{3})$. Then, the action functional for the system has the form $$\label{eq:F:SEVex2}
\mathcal{I}(y)=\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_{\Omega_3}\left[
\rho\left(B_{P_1}[y](t,x)\right)^2
-k\left|\nabla_{B_P}[y](t,x)\right|^2\right]\;dxdt.$$ The fractional Euler–Lagrange equation satisfied by an extremal of is $$-\rho A_{P_1^*}\left[B_{P_1}[y](\tau,s)\right](t,x)
+\sum\limits_{i=2}^3 A_{P_{i}^*}\left[B_{P_{i}}[y](\tau,s)\right](t,x)=0.$$ If $\rho$ and $k$ are constants, then $$A_{P_1^*}\left[B_{P_1}[y](\tau,s)\right](t,x)-c^2\left(
\sum\limits_{i=2}^3 A_{P_{i}^*}\left[kB_{P_{i}}[y](\tau,s)\right](t,x)\right)=0$$ can be called *the generalized space- and time-fractional wave equation*.
Let $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n)\in(0,1)^n$ and let ${\bar{y}}\in C^1(\bar{\Omega}_n;{\mathbb{R}})$ be a minimizer of the functional $$\mathcal{I}(y)=\int\limits_{\Omega_n} F(y(t),
\nabla_{I^{1-\alpha}}[y](t),\nabla[y](t),\nabla_{D^\alpha}[y](t),t)\;dt$$ satisfying $\left.y(t)\right|_{\partial \Omega_n}=\zeta(t)$, where $\zeta:\partial\Omega_n\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ is a given function, $$\nabla_{I^{1-\alpha}}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n e_i\cdot{{_{a_i}}\textsl{I}_{t_i}^{1-\alpha_i}},
~~\nabla_{D^\alpha}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n e_i\cdot{{^{C}_{a_i}}\textsl{D}_{t_i}^{\alpha_i}},$$ $F$is of class $C^1$, and
- ${{_{t}}\textsl{I}_{b_i}^{1-\alpha_i}}\left[\partial_{1+i} F(y(\tau),\nabla_{I^{1-\alpha}}[y](\tau),
\nabla[y](\tau),\nabla_{D^\alpha}[y](\tau),\tau)\right]$ is continuous on $\bar{\Omega}_n$,
- $t\mapsto\partial_{1+n+i} F(y(t),\nabla_{I^{1-\alpha}}[y](t),
\nabla[y](t),\nabla_{D^\alpha}[y](t),t)$ is continuously differentiable on $\bar{\Omega}_n$,
- ${{_{t}}\textsl{I}_{b_i}^{1-\alpha_i}}\left[\partial_{1+2n+i} F(y(\tau),\nabla_{I^{1-\alpha}}[y](\tau),
\nabla[y](\tau),\nabla_{D^\alpha}[y](\tau),\tau)\right]$ is continuously differentiable on $\bar{\Omega}_n$.
Then, ${\bar{y}}$ satisfies the following fractional Euler–Lagrange equation: $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_1 F({\bar{y}}(t),\nabla_{I^{1-\alpha}}[{\bar{y}}](t),\nabla[{\bar{y}}](t),\nabla_{D^\alpha}[{\bar{y}}](t),t)\\
+\sum\limits_{i=1}^n\Biggl({{_{t}}\textsl{I}_{b_i}^{1-\alpha_i}}\left[\partial_{1+i}F({\bar{y}}(\tau),
\nabla_{I^{1-\alpha}}[{\bar{y}}](\tau),\nabla[{\bar{y}}](\tau),\nabla_{D^\alpha}[{\bar{y}}](\tau),\tau)\right](t)\\
-\frac{\partial}{\partial t_i}\left(\partial_{1+n+i}F({\bar{y}}(t),
\nabla_{I^{1-\alpha}}[{\bar{y}}](t),\nabla[{\bar{y}}](t),\nabla_{D^\alpha}[{\bar{y}}](t),t)\right)\\
+{{_{t_i}}\textsl{D}_{b_i}^{\alpha_i}}\left[\partial_{1+2n+i}F({\bar{y}}(\tau),\nabla_{I^{1-\alpha}}[{\bar{y}}](\tau),
\nabla[{\bar{y}}](\tau),\nabla_{D^\alpha}[{\bar{y}}](\tau),\tau)\right](t)\Biggr)=0,\end{gathered}$$ $t\in\Omega_n$.
Conclusion {#sec:conc}
==========
During the last two decades, fractional differential equations have increasingly attracted the attention of many researchers: many mathematical problems in science and engineering are represented by these kinds of equations. Fractional calculus is a useful tool for modeling complex behaviors of physical systems from diverse domains such as mechanics, electricity, chemistry, biology, economics, and many others. Science Watch of Thomson Reuters identified this area as an Emerging Research Front. The Fractional Calculus of Variations (FCV) consider a new class of variational functionals that depend on fractional derivatives and/or fractional integrals [@book:AD]. Here we reviewed necessary conditions of optimality for problems of the FCV with generalized operators [@Odz:PhD; @MyID:226; @FVC_Gen_Int; @FVC_Sev; @GreenThm; @NoetherGen]. The study of such variational problems is a subject of strong current study because of its numerous applications. The FCV is a fascinating and beautiful subject, still in its childhood. It was created in 1996 in order to better describe nonconservative systems in mechanics. The inclusion of nonconservatism is extremely important from the point of view of applications. Forces that do not store energy are always present in real systems. They remove energy from the systems and, as a consequence, Noether’s conservation laws cease to be valid. However, as we have proved here, it is still possible to obtain the validity of Noether’s principle using FCV. The new theory provides a more realistic approach to physics, allowing us to consider nonconservative systems in a natural way. To go further into the subject, we refer the reader to [@book:AD; @Odz:PhD] and references therein.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was partially supported by Portuguese funds through the *Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications* (CIDMA), and *The Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology* (FCT), within project PEst-OE/MAT/UI4106/2014. The authors were also supported by EU funding under the 7th Framework Programme FP7-PEOPLE-2010-ITN, grant agreement number 264735-SADCO, and project OCHERA, PTDC/EEI-AUT/1450/2012, co-financed by FEDER under POFC-QREN with COMPETE reference FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-028894.
[99]{}
O. P. Agrawal, Fractional variational calculus and the transversality conditions, [J. Phys. A]{} [39]{} (33) (2006) 10375–10384.
O. P. Agrawal, Generalized variational problems and Euler-Lagrange equations, [Comput. Math. Appl.]{} [59]{} (5) (2010) 1852–1864.
D. Baleanu, K. Diethelm, E. Scalas and J. J. Trujillo, [Fractional calculus]{}, Series on Complexity, Nonlinearity and Chaos, 3, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2012.
J. Cresson, Fractional embedding of differential operators and Lagrangian systems, [J. Math. Phys.]{} [48]{} (3) (2007) 033504, 34 pp.
G. S. F. Frederico and D. F. M. Torres, A formulation of Noether’s theorem for fractional problems of the calculus of variations, [J. Math. Anal. Appl.]{} [334]{} (2) (2007) 834–846. [arXiv:math/0701187]{}
R. Hilfer, [Applications of fractional calculus in physics]{}, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 2000.
J. Jost and X. Li-Jost, [Calculus of variations]{}, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 64, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1998.
U. N. Katugampola, New approach to a generalized fractional integral, [Appl. Math. Comput.]{} [218]{} (3) (2011) 860–865.
A. A. Kilbas, M. Saigo and R. K. Saxena, Generalized Mittag-Leffler function and generalized fractional calculus operators, [Integral Transforms Spec. Funct.]{} [15]{} (1) (2004) 31–49.
A. A. Kilbas, H. M. Srivastava and J. J. Trujillo, [Theory and applications of fractional differential equations]{}, North-Holland Mathematics Studies, 204, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006.
M. Klimek, [On solutions of linear fractional differential equations of a variational type]{}, The Publishing Office of Czestochowa University of Technology, Czestochowa, 2009.
M. Klimek and M. Lupa, Reflection symmetric formulation of generalized fractional variational calculus, [Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal.]{} [16]{} (1) (2013) 243–261.
J. T. Machado, V. Kiryakova and F. Mainardi, Recent history of fractional calculus, [Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul.]{} [16]{} (3) (2011) 1140–1153.
A. B. Malinowska and D. F. M. Torres, [Introduction to the fractional calculus of variations]{}, Imp. Coll. Press, London, 2012.
E. Noether, Invariante variationsprobleme, [Nachr. v. d. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen]{} (1918) 235–257.
T. Odzijewicz, [Generalized fractional calculus of variations]{}, PhD Thesis, University of Aveiro, 2013.
T. Odzijewicz, [Variable order fractional isoperimetric problem of several variables]{}, Advances in the Theory and Applications of Non-integer Order Systems, Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering 257, Springer, 2013, 133–139.
T. Odzijewicz, A. B. Malinowska and D. F. M. Torres, Fractional variational calculus with classical and combined Caputo derivatives, [Nonlinear Anal.]{} [75]{} (3) (2012) 1507–1515. [arXiv:1101.2932]{}
T. Odzijewicz, A. B. Malinowska and D. F. M. Torres, Generalized fractional calculus with applications to the calculus of variations, [Comput. Math. Appl.]{} [64]{} (10) (2012) 3351–3366. [arXiv:1201.5747]{}
T. Odzijewicz, A. B. Malinowska and D. F. M. Torres, Fractional calculus of variations in terms of a generalized fractional integral with applications to physics, [Abstr. Appl. Anal.]{} [2012]{} (2012) 871912, 24 pp. [arXiv:1203.1961]{}
T. Odzijewicz, A. B. Malinowska and D. F. M. Torres, Fractional calculus of variations of several independent variables, [European Phys. J.]{} [222]{} (8) (2013) 1813–1826. [arXiv:1308.4585]{}
T. Odzijewicz, A. B. Malinowska and D. F. M. Torres, Green’s theorem for generalized fractional derivatives, [Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal.]{} [16]{} (1) (2013) 64–75. [arXiv:1205.4851]{}
T. Odzijewicz, A. B. Malinowska and D. F. M. Torres, A generalized fractional calculus of variations, [Control Cybernet.]{} [42]{} (2) (2013) 443–458. [arXiv:1304.5282]{}
M. D. Ortigueira, [Fractional calculus for scientists and engineers]{}, Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, 84, Springer, Dordrecht, 2011.
I. Podlubny, [Fractional differential equations]{}, Mathematics in Science and Engineering, 198, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1999.
A. D. Polyanin and A. V. Manzhirov, [Handbook of integral equations]{}, CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 1998.
F. Riewe, Nonconservative Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, [Phys. Rev. E (3)]{} [53]{} (2) (1996) 1890–1899.
F. Riewe, Mechanics with fractional derivatives, [Phys. Rev. E (3)]{} [55]{} (3) (1997) 3581–3592.
S. G. Samko, A. A. Kilbas and O. I. Marichev, [Fractional integrals and derivatives]{}, translated from the 1987 Russian original, Gordon and Breach, Yverdon, 1993.
\[pgCAbdio\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Problem Statement {#sec:rq}
=================
The Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP) is a classic NP-hard problem in combinatorial optimization, which is to minimize the total travelling distance in visiting a set of points $V = \{v_1, v_2, \cdots, v_n
\}$. In this paper, we study TSP in a 2-dimensional space, where the Euclidean distance between two points $v_i$ and $v_j$ is given as $d(v_i, v_j)$, and we focus on circuit TSP by which the traveling needs to return to the starting point after visiting the last point. Here, let a permutation $\Pi = (\pi_1, \pi_2, \cdots, \pi_n)$ represent a visiting order, where $\pi_i$ is to visit a point $v_j \in
V$ in the $i$-th position. The circuit TSP (or simply TSP here) is to find a permutation $\Pi$ over $V$, where the distance of the circuit TSP by the permutation, denoted as $D(\Pi)$, is minimized. $$D(\Pi) = \sum_{1 \leq i < n} d(\pi_i, \pi_{i + 1}) + d(\pi_n, \pi_{1})$$ In the following, without loss of generality, we call one set of points $V$ one TSP instance.
In the literature, many algorithms are proposed to solve TSP in decades. The state-of-the-art approximate TSP solvers include Helsgaun’s Lin-Kernighan Heuristic (), Generic Algorithm with Edge Assembly Crossover (-), and Multi-Agent Optimization (). And there are algorithms proposed that integrate the techniques in , -, and . Such solvers attempt to find the near-optimal solution for a TSP instance. However, it is well-understood that it is impossible to identify one single solver that can find the near-optimal solution in reasonable time for any possible TSP instances [@DolpertM97; @Dolpert2002]. This fact suggests that, in addition to design and development of new solvers, it also needs to consider how to select one solver among a set of TSP solvers for a TSP instance in a given collection of TSP instances, which is known as TSP solver selection problem.
: Given a set of TSP instances, $\mathcal{I} = \{I_1, I_2, \cdots I_n\}$, and a set of TSP solvers $\mathcal{S} = \{S_1, S_2, \cdots S_m\}$, the TSP solver selection problem is to find a per-instance mapping $\mathcal{M}: \mathcal{I}
\rightarrow \mathcal{S}$ that minimizes the penalized average running time (PAR) of $\mathcal{I}$. Here, the penalized average running time (PAR) [@DBLP:journals/ai/BischlKKLMFHHLT16] is a widely used hybrid performance measure for combinational optimization. In our problem setting, with PAR, a penalty, $c \cdot T$ is given to a solver $S_i$, if $S_i$ cannot find the optimal answer for $I_j$ in $T$ time, where $T$ is known as cutoff time and $c$ is a constant (e.g., $c = 10$). In other words, the max running time for a solver to handle any TSP instance is $c \cdot T$. With such $T$ given, the penalized average running time can be obtained for a solver $S_i$ to handle $\mathcal{I}$. To evaluate the solver selector $\mathcal{M}$, as given in the literature, it needs to compare with two baselines, namely, the virtual best solver () and single best solver (). Here, is the perfect selector which always selects the best solver for each instance in $\mathcal{I}$ without any selecting cost. The is treated as the upper bound of a solver selector that can achieve ideally. Due to imperfect selection and the overhead, there are no solver selectors that can achieve . On the other hand, is one solver selected from the candidate solver set $\mathcal{S}$, which has the minimum penalized average running time over $\mathcal{I}$. In real practice, is determined by some algorithm specialists. It requires us to find $\mathcal{M}$ that outperforms the , by taking the selection cost into consideration. Due to the setting that a solver will terminate when it finds a high-quality solution, we focus on the solvers’ efficiency to deal with TSP instances, which is non-trivial. The challenges of finding such a solver selector are two-fold. First, the selector to be found should be able to select an efficient solver for any single TSP instance by leveraging the features hidden in the TSP instance. Second, the selector should be able to balance its selection error to achieve an overall improvement for the entire collection of TSP instances.
A Deep Learning Approach {#sec:method}
========================
There are two prevailing models, the graph convolutional network (GCN) [@DBLP:conf/iclr/KipfW17] and the convolutional neural network (CNN) [@DBLP:conf/iscas/LeCunKF10], that can be adopted to learn a TSP solver selector, as the models are designed to handle geometric and spatial data (e.g., TSP data). We explored both options, and adopt CNN. We explain why GCN does not perform well below. In order to use GCN, a TSP instance needs to be transformed into an edge-weighted complete undirected graph $G =
(V, E)$. Here, the node set $V$ is the same set of the points in the TSP instance, and $E$ is the edge set for all node pairs. The weight of an edge $(v_i, v_j)$ is the distance between points $v_i$ and $v_j$ in the TSP instance. Thereby, solving TSP for the given instance is equivalent to find the shortest Hamilton circuit on $G$. This edge-weighted graph, $G$, can be directly fed into a message-passing GCN to predict the best solver. However, in practice, GCN is infeasible to serve as a TSP solver selector for several reasons. First, the graph convolution layer is regarded as a special Laplacian smoothing on the node features for new features generation. However, the points in a TSP instance do not have hands-on features except their coordinates. Second, when the input is a complete graph, GCN degenerates into a graph network variant [*Deep Sets*]{} [@DBLP:conf/nips/ZaheerKRPSS17]. The over-smoothing problem [@DBLP:conf/aaai/LiHW18] of GCN will be aggravated as the model aggregates all points. Third, as the time complexity of training a GCN is linear to the number of edges, for most TSP instances that are with hundreds even thousands of points, it is untraceable to train a GCN even through some sampling-based models can reduce the complexity of the complete graph.
A CNN-based Approach {#sec:ctas:model}
--------------------
Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) is a well-known deep neural network architecture, which is commonly applied in the field of image processing and computer vision. A typical CNN is generally composed by multiple alternative convolutional layer with non-linearity and the pooling layer, followed by the fully-connected layers. For input data whose layout is a 2-dimensional grid, the convolutional layers extract features from small blocks by shareable weights, i.e., the filters. The pooling layer aggregates the information from local blocks, reducing the representation size and making it to be more learnable, thereby preventing overfitting. The fully-connected layer is used for specific learning task (e.g., image classification, object detection, image segmentation) equipped by the loss criterion. The success of CNN in image data lies in the fact that (i) the convolutional layers preserve the spatial connection between pixels and their neighbors, and (ii) the pooling layers make the convolution process invariant to translation, rotation and shifting. The time complexity of the training and inference by CNN is given in [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/He015]. The total time complexity of all convolutional layers is $O(\sum_{l = 1}^d n_{l - 1} \cdot s_{l}^2
\cdot n_l \cdot m_{l}^2)$, where $n_{l - 1}$ is the number of output (input) channels for the ($l$-$1$)-th ($l$-th) layer, $s_l$ and $m_l$ are the size of the filter and the output feature map of the $l$-th layer, respectively.
From TSP Instance to Image
--------------------------
Given a TSP instance of $n$ points $\{v_1, v_2, \cdots, v_n\}$, where each point $v_i$ has its $(x, y)$ coordinate as $(v_i.x, v_i.y)$. The raw coordinates in a TSP instance are re-scaled to an interval $(0,
1)$ by min-max normalization. As Fig. \[fig:trans:raw\] shows, all the points of one TSP instance fall into a $(0, 1)^2$ square after the normalization. There are two ways to represent a TSP instance in a 2-dimensional map: distance-based and density-based.
By distance-based, for a TSP instance with $n$ points, a distance map is constructed by an $n \times n$ matrix $M$ where $M(i,j) = d(v_i,
v_j)$. The distance-based is not effective for two main reasons. First, $M$ becomes different in size for different TSP instances with different $n$. Second, an $n \times n$ matrix $M$ to be constructed for a given TSP instance with $n$ points has greatly affected the learning performance. This is because the matrix $M(i, j)$ constructed implies an order of points. However, the prearranged order among points introduces a spatial-related bias, which greatly influences the learning of CNN. We have explored different ways of constructing a matrix. There does not exist an order among points in constructing a matrix, which can lead better performance.
By density-based, a density map, that preserves the spatial connection among points and does not implies any ordering among points, is constructed as a $c \times c$ matrix $M$ by uniformly dividing the entire $(0, 1)^2$ square into $c \times c$ cells where $M(i, j)$ counts the number of points falling into the $cell(i, j)$ (Eq.(\[eq:dm\])). $$M(i, j) = |v|, v \in \cell(i, j), i, j \in \{1, 2, \cdots, c\}
\label{eq:dm}$$ Fig. \[fig:trans:grid\] shows this discretization transformation when $c$ is set as 256. It transforms the $n$ coordinates of continuous value into a fixed size matrix of integer value. After this step, a TSP instance can be learned as a regular image. A potential problem of Fig. \[fig:trans:grid\] is that the density map tends to be sparse. About 800 points are scattered in $256 \times
256$ cells, where almost all cells are empty. To alleviate the sparsity regarding density, we reduce the number of cells by up-scaling the image with neighborhood interpolation. This image enhancement also improves the resolution of the image, which is favourable for CNN to learn features via deep layers. Fig. \[fig:trans:interpolate\] shows up-scaling a $64 \times
64$ density map by 4 times, resulting in a $256 \times 256$ image. Compared to Fig. \[fig:trans:grid\] of the same size, the up-scaled image is more clear and sharper.
We adopt the density map to represent an TSP instance for the reasons that it maintains the spatial connections among points and it does not depend on any node ordering to be used.
Loss Function Choices {#se:losschoices}
---------------------
Given $n$ TSP instances, $\mathcal{I} = \{I_1, I_2, \cdots I_n\}$, and $m$ solvers, $\mathcal{S} = \{S_1, S_2, \cdots S_m\}$, the performance for $m$ solvers to deal with $n$ instances is represented as $\mathcal{T} = \{\bf{t_1},\bf{t_2}, \cdots, \bf{t_n}$}, where $\bf{t_i} \in \mathbb{R+}^{m}$ is an $m$-element vector such that $t_{ij}$ is the running time of solving instance $I_i$ by solver $S_j$. We aim at building a model which maps a TSP instance represented as a density map to its best solver. There are two approaches. One is to treat $m$ solvers as $m$ classes with which we train a CNN classifier with $m$ classes. One is to to treat it as a regression problem to train CNN based on the estimated performance of the $m$ solvers.
Consider to train a CNN classifier with $m$ classes as to deal with an image classification task. The loss of multi-class classification for one instance $I_i$ is given in Eq. (\[eq:loss:ce\]). $$\label{eq:loss:ce}
L_{CE}(I_i) = \sum_{j = 1}^{m} w_{ij} \cdot p_{ij} \cdot \log(q_{ij})$$ Here, ${\bf p_{i}} \in [0, 1]^m$ is the empirical distribution of selecting the $m$ solvers for instance $I_i$, which can be set as a function of ${\bf t_{i}}$; ${\bf q_{i}} \in [0, 1]^m$ is the predicted likelihood of $I_i$, which is the output of CNN followed by the softmax function; and ${\bf w_i}
\in \mathbb{R}^m$ is an optional weight vector of $I_i$.
However, the main issue that need to be reconsidered is whether the cross entropy loss (Eq. (\[eq:loss:ce\])) is suitable for TSP solver selection. The answer is negative. First, there are TSP instances where multiple solvers perform the similar best. For these instance, setting ${\bf p_{i}}$ to 0-1 hard label for one of them will neglect the other best candidate solvers, while setting ${\bf p_{i}}$ to probabilistic soft label will blur the supervision of the label. Second, it does not meet the objective of the solver selection which is to minimize the penalizing average running time for a collection of TSP instances.
In this work, we also model solver selection as a regression problem. Instead of directly predicting a solver, we build a performance estimator and choose the solver with the best estimated performance. We use the mean square error (MSE) as the loss of the regressor. $$\label{eq:loss:mse}
L_{MSE}(I_i) = \sum_{j = 1}^{m} w_{ij} \cdot \sqrt{(q_{ij} - t_{ij})^2}$$ In Eq. (\[eq:loss:mse\]), the output of CNN, ${\bf q_i} \in
\mathbb{R}^m$ is the estimated performance of the $m$ solvers on the instance $I_i$. Optionally, ${\bf w_i} \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is the weight vector regarding to $I_i$. The benefit of regression is that it directly leverages the differences of the running time in the learning process.
\[fig:trans\]
Data Augmentation for TSP
-------------------------
To train a CNN for TSP density maps, we need a large amount of training data. The more the training data, the better the generation ability the CNN can achieve. We consider using data augmentation for TSP density maps, as a common technique used for images including cropping, rotation, translation, and noise injection [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1712-04621; @DBLP:journals/jbd/ShortenK19], to enlarge the data diversity. However, some issues need to be considered on how the data augmentation techniques can be safely applied to TSP solver selection. Here, the safety of data augmentation method refers to its likelihood of preserving the label post-transformation [@DBLP:journals/jbd/ShortenK19]. It is important to note that, different from conventional computer vision tasks, TSP is a combinatorial optimization problem and a solver to be identified is sensitive to local disturbance. In other words, this requests that the data augmentation for the TSP instances strictly preserve the spatial distribution of the original points, in order to make the performance of TSP solvers on the pre-transformed and post-transformed instance consistent. From this viewpoint, the commonly used cropping, translation, and noise-injection are unsafe data augmentation for TSP solver selection. We explain it below. Here, cropping crops a central patch of the image, and translation shifts the image to one direction and fills the remaining pixels to a constant. This implies that some points will be droped from the TSP density map, which we need to avoid. As for noise injection which injects a matrix of random value drawn from a Gaussian distribution, it will disturb the distribution of the TSP density map, and will affect learning performance. In this work, for TSP solver selection, we use the data augmentation rotation and flipping techniques. Note that: flipping over any straight line is safe for TSP instances, and rotation can be regarded as a kind of lossless translation of TSP instance.
: The easiest flippings are horizontal flipping and vertical flipping, which flip all the coordinates in $(0, 1)^2$ by line $x = 0.5$ and $y = 0.5$. The flipping of Fig. \[fig:trans:interpolate\] are shown in Fig. \[fig:trans:hflip\] and Fig. \[fig:trans:vflip\], respectively. In the figures, we can observe that the flipping brings symmetric images as well as the features, and preserves the labels by keeping the relative position and the distance between all pairs coordinates. There are two ways for flipping. One is to flip the density map and the other is to flip the raw coordinates. We have to flip the raw coordinates instead of density image. This is because the points around the border of $(0, 1)^2$ could not fall into $(0,
1)^2$ any more, if we flip an image by any straight line (e.g., $y =
x$). Thus, we perform the flipping on the raw coordinates of a TSP instance followed by the min-max normalization and the gridding.
: Given $\theta \in (0, 2\pi)$, the rotation will rotate all coordinates of a TSP instance by degree $\theta$, Fig. \[fig:trans:rotate\] shows the density map which rotates Fig. \[fig:trans:interpolate\] by $\frac{\pi}{2}$. Rotation can be regarded as a kind of lossless ’translation’ of TSP instance, and is safe for TSP, for any $\theta \in (0, 2\pi)$. Similar to flipping, we also conduct rotation on the raw coordinates of the TSP points. The data augmentation flipping and rotation, essentially only change the appearance of the density map image. They are not image transformation but coordinate transformation, the nature of a TSP instance (i.e., the distance between all pairs points) is intact. Therefore, the CNN filters can still learn the spatial features of different direction symmetrically from any TSP instance. The flipping and rotation are independent, which means one transformation cannot be derived by the other. Therefore, two kinds of flipping and rotation to $d$ directions can achieve $2 * d$ extra images for one TSP instance. In the training, the CNN is trained by feeding randomly flipped and rotated density map.
\[fig:tsp\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is shown how to construct exactly gauge-invariant $S$-matrix elements for processes involving unstable gauge particles such as the $Z^0$ boson. The results are applied to derive a physically meaningful expression for the cross-section $\sigma(e^+e^-\rightarrow Z^0Z^0)$ and thereby provide a solution to the long-standing [*problem of the unstable particle*]{}.'
address: |
Randall Laboratory of Physics\
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1120\
USA
author:
- 'Robin G. Stuart'
title: |
Gauge Invariance\
and the\
Unstable Particle
---
/\#1[0= 0=0 1= 1=1 0>1 \#1 / ]{}
Introduction
============
A resonance is fundamentally a non-perturbative object and is thus not amenable to the methods of standard perturbation theory. In order to describe physics at the $Z^0$ resonance one is forced, therefore, to employ some sort of non-perturbative procedure. Such a procedure is Dyson summation that sums strings of one-particle irreducible (1PI) self-energy diagrams as a geometric series to all orders in the coupling constant, $\alpha$ and effectively replaces the tree-level $Z^0$ propagator by a dressed propagator, $$\frac{1}{s-M_Z^2}
\rightarrow\frac{1}{s-M_Z^2}
\sum_n\left(\frac{\Pi_{ZZ}(s)}{s-M_Z^2}\right)^n
=\frac{1}{s-M_Z^2-\Pi_{ZZ}^{(1)}(s)}
\label{eq:DysonSum}$$ where $\Pi_{ZZ}(s)$ is the one-loop $Z^0$ self-energy. The problem here is that electroweak physics is described by a gauge theory. Results of calculations of physical processes must be exactly gauge-invariant but this comes about through delicate cancellations between many different Feynman diagrams each of which is separately gauge-dependent. The cancellation happens at each order in $\alpha$ when all diagrams of a given order are combined. The $Z^0$ self-energy, $\Pi_{ZZ}(s)$, is gauge-dependent at ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ and hence the rhs of eq.(\[eq:DysonSum\]) is gauge-dependent at all orders in $\alpha$.
If the dressed propagator is used in a finite-order calculation the result will be gauge-dependent at some order because the will be no diagrams available to cancel the gauge-dependence beyond the order being calculated. This gauge-dependence should be viewed as an indicator that the approximation scheme being used is inconsistent or does not represent a physical observable.
In constructing amplitudes that represent physical observables, one must take care to respect the requirements that are laid down by analytic $S$-matrix theory [@AnalyticSMat]. These conditions are derived from general considerations such as energy conservation and causality and it will be found that appealing to them leads to a procedure for generating gauge-invariant amplitudes with no flexibility in the final result. The procedure will also make it possible to give an answer to the [*problem of the unstable particle*]{} that was put forward by Peierls in the early fifties [@Peierls]. Much of what appears here can be found in ref.s[@Stuart1; @Stuart3; @Unstable].
Gauge-invariant $S$-matrix elements
===================================
We will begin by reviewing what is known about $S$-matrix elements for processes containing unstable particles. An unstable particle is associated with a pole, $s_p$, lying on the second Riemann sheet below the real $s$ axis. The scattering amplitude, $A(s)$ for a process which contains an intermediate unstable particle can then be written in the form, $$A(s)=\frac{R}{s-s_p}+B(s)
\label{eq:AnalyticAmp}$$ where $R$ and $s_p$ are complex constants and $B(s)$ is regular at $s=s_p$. The first term on the rhs of eq.(\[eq:AnalyticAmp\]) will be called the resonant term and the second is the non-resonant background term. It is known that $s_p$ is process-independent in the sense that any process that contains a given unstable particle as an intermediate state will have its pole at the same position. It can also be shown from Fredholm theory that the residue factorizes as, $R=R_i\cdot R_f$, into pieces that depend separately on the initial- and final-state. One can prove, by very simple arguments, that $s_p$, $R$ and $B(s)$ are separately and exactly gauge-invariant [@Stuart1].
>From analytic $S$-matrix theory it is known that production thresholds are associated with a branch cut. Branch points for stable particles lie on the real $s$-axis and those for unstable particles, such as $W$ bosons, lie significantly below it. Provided there are no nearby thresholds the amplitude, $A(s)$, can be adequately described in the resonance region by a Laurent expansion about the pole, $s_p$. It should be emphasized that $A(s)$ can always be written in the form (\[eq:AnalyticAmp\]) even when thresholds are present. In that case $B(s)$ will be an analytic function containing a branch point and the rhs of (\[eq:AnalyticAmp\]) continues to be an exact representation of $A(s)$. Laurent expansion refers to how the resonant term is identified. The aim is only to separate $A(s)$ into gauge-invariant resonant and background pieces and there is no necessity to perform a Laurent expansion beyond its leading term although this can provide a useful way for parameterizing electroweak data [@SMatData].
Let us consider the production process for a massless fermion pair in $e^+e^-\rightarrow f\bar f$. Away from the $Z^0$ resonance it is known how to calculate the amplitude to arbitrary accuracy in a gauge-invariant manner. Near resonance we must perform a Dyson summation and then separate the amplitude into its resonant and background pieces. Doing so allows expressions for the gauge-invariant quantities, $s_p$, $R$ and $B(s)$ to be identified in terms of the 1PI functions that occur in perturbation theory. The scattering amplitude for $e^+e^-\rightarrow f\bar f$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
A(s,t)&=&{R_{iZ}(s_p)R_{Zf}(s_p)\over s-s_p}\nonumber\\
&+&{R_{iZ}(s)R_{Zf}(s)-R_{iZ}(s_p)R_{Zf}(s_p)\over s-s_p}
+{V_{i\gamma}(s)V_{\gamma f}(s)\over s-\Pi_{\gamma\gamma}(s)}
+B(s,t)
\label{eq:ExactAmp}\end{aligned}$$
in which $$\begin{aligned}
R_{iZ}(s)&=&\left[V_{i\gamma}(s)
\frac{\Pi_{\gamma Z}(s)}{s-\Pi_{\gamma\gamma}(s)}
+V_{iZ}(s)\right]F_{ZZ}^{\frac{1}{2}}(s),\\
R_{Zf}(s)&=&F_{ZZ}^{\frac{1}{2}}(s)\left[V_{Zf}(s)
+\frac{\Pi_{Z\gamma}(s)}{s-\Pi_{\gamma\gamma}(s)}
V_{\gamma f}(s)\right].
\label{eq:ResidueFactor}\end{aligned}$$ The pole position $s_p$ is a solution of the equation $$s-M_Z^2-\Pi_{ZZ}(s)
-{\Pi_{Z\gamma}^2(s)\over s-\Pi_{\gamma\gamma}(s)}=0
\label{eq:PoleEqn}$$ and $F_{ZZ}(s)$ is defined through the relation $$s-M_Z^2-\Pi_{ZZ}(s)
-{\Pi_{Z\gamma}^2(s)\over s-\Pi_{\gamma\gamma}(s)}
={1\over F_{ZZ}(s)}(s-s_p).
\label{eq:FZZdef}$$
It should be emphasized that eq.(\[eq:ExactAmp\]) is exact and valid anywhere on the complex $s$-plane. The effect of $Z^0$-$\gamma$ mixing has been included. The quantity $\Pi_{\gamma\gamma}(s)$ and $\Pi_{Z\gamma}(s)$ are the photon self-energy and the $Z$-$\gamma$ mixing respectively. $V_{iZ}(q^2)$, $V_{Zf}(q^2)$ are the initial- and final-state $Z^0$ vertices, into which the external wavefunctions have been absorbed, and $V_{i\gamma}(q^2)$, $V_{\gamma f}(q^2)$ are the corresponding vertices for the photon. Here $B(s,t)$ denotes 1PI corrections to the matrix element that include things like as box diagrams. The first term on the rhs of eq.(\[eq:ExactAmp\]) is the resonant part of $A(s,t)$ and the three terms on the second line taken together are form the non-resonant background.
Calculations are most conveniently performed in terms of the real renormalized parameters of the theory such as the renormalized mass, $M_Z$. Eq.(\[eq:PoleEqn\]) can be solved iteratively in terms of $M_Z$ to give $$s_p=M_Z^2+\Pi_{ZZ}(M_Z^2)+...
\label{eq:PoleSoln}$$ The rhs of eq.(\[eq:PoleSoln\]) may be substituted for $s_p$ where it appears in eq.(\[eq:ExactAmp\])–(\[eq:ResidueFactor\]). Taylor series expansion can then be used to obtain perturbative expressions for $s_p$, $R$ and $B(s)$ in terms of Greens functions with real arguments up to any desired order. At any given order these perturbative expressions will be exactly gauge-invariant as will scattering amplitudes constructed from them.
A couple of points should be noted here. The appearance of Greens functions with complex arguments in eq.(\[eq:ExactAmp\]) is a natural consequence of the analyticity of the $S$-matrix. The $S$-matrix itself is never evaluated with complex $s$. The arguments of $A(s,t)$ on the lhs of eq.(\[eq:ExactAmp\]) is real as is the ‘$s$’ in the denominator of the first term on the rhs.
In the procedure described above, one starts by extracting the resonant term in a scattering amplitude by Laurent expansion about the exact pole position $s_p$ and then specializes to lower orders by further expanding about the renormalized mass. Other authors [@AeppCuypOlde; @AeppOldeWyl] have attempted to apply the techniques described above by first expanded about the renormalized mass and then added a finite width in the denominator of the resonant part by hand. That procedure cannot be justified and leads to problems when one treats processes like $e^+e^-\rightarrow W^+W^-$. It gives rise to spurious [*threshold singularities*]{} or complex scattering angles due the production threshold’s being incorrectly located on the real axis. In section IV the process $e^+e^-\rightarrow Z^0Z^0$ will be treated and no threshold singularities or complex scattering angles will arise.
The Problem of the Unstable Particle
====================================
We have thus succeeded in our goal of producing exactly gauge-invariant scattering amplitudes to arbitrary order. One might ask whether what has been done is just a mathematical trick, in which case the gauge-invariance is accidental, or does it have some physical interpretation. In this section it will be shown that the latter is true.
Recall that the coordinate space dressed propagator for a scalar particle has an integral representation $$\Delta(x^\prime-x)=\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}
\frac{e^{-ik\cdot(x^\prime-x)}}
{k^2-m^2-\Pi(k^2)+i\epsilon}$$ The integrand has a pole at $k^2=s_p$ where $s_p$ is a solution of the equation $s-m^2+\Pi(s)=0$ and as in the previous section we define $F(s)$ via the relation $s-m^2+\Pi(s)=(s-s_p)/F(s)$. The dressed propagator can then be written as $$\Delta(x^\prime-x)=\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}
e^{-ik\cdot(x^\prime-x)}
\left[\frac{F(s_p)}{k^2-s_p}
+\frac{F(k^2)-F(s_p)}{k^2-s_p}\right]
\label{eq:splitprop}$$ that separates resonant and non-resonant pieces. Performing the $k_0$ integration resonant gives $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(x^\prime-x)&=&-i\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3 2k_0}
e^{-ik\cdot(x^\prime-x)}\theta(t^\prime-t)F(s_p)\nonumber\\
& &+\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{F(k^2)-F(s_p)}{k^2-s_p}\\
& &-i\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3 2k_0}
e^{ik\cdot(x^\prime-x)}\theta(t-t^\prime)F(s_p)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $k_0=\sqrt{\vec{k}^2+s_p}$. The non-resonant term contributes only for $t=t^\prime$ and so represents a contact interaction. The resonant part spits into two terms that contribute when $t>t^\prime$ or $t<t^\prime$ and therefore connects points $x$ and $x^\prime$ that are separated by a finite distance in space-time.
The problem of the unstable particle [@Peierls] is may be roughly stated as follows: $S$-matrix theory deals with asymptotic in-states and out-states that propagate from and to infinity. Unstable particles cannot exist as asymptotic states because they decay a finite distance from the interaction region. Indeed it is known [@Veltman] that the $S$-matrix is unitary on the Hilbert space spanned by stable particle states and hence there is not even any room to accommodate unstable particles as external states. How can one use the $S$-matrix to calculate, say, the production cross-section for an unstable particle when it cannot exist as an asymptotic state?
In the first part of this section it was shown that the resonant part of the dressed propagator connected points with a finite space-time separation. When a similar analysis is applied to a physical matrix element, such as eq.(\[eq:ExactAmp\]), one concludes that the resonant part describes a process in which there is a finite space-time separation between the initial-state vertex, $V_i$, and the final-state vertex, $V_f$. In other words, the resonant term describes the finite propagation of a physical $Z^0$ boson. The non-resonant background represents prompt production of the final state. As these two possibilities are, in principle, physically distinguishable, they must be separately gauge-invariant.
We can thus use finite propagation as a tag for identifying unstable particles without requiring that they appear in the final state. This is, after all, the way $b$-quarks are identified in vertex detectors. A production cross-section for an unstable particle is obtained by extracting the resonant part of the matrix element for a process containing that particle in an intermediate state and summing over all possible decay modes.
The process $\lowercase{e^+e^-}\rightarrow Z^0Z^0$
==================================================
In this section we will calculate the cross-section for $e^+e^-\rightarrow Z^0Z^0$. This is of both theoretical and practical importance. On the theoretical side it represents an example of a calculation of the production cross-section for unstable particles. On the practical side, at high energies $e^+e^-\rightarrow Z^0Z^0$ will be a dominant source of fermion pairs $(f_1\bar f_1)$ and $(f_2\bar f_2)$ due to its double resonant enhancement and hence $\sigma(e^+e^-\rightarrow Z^0Z^0)$ is an excellent approximation to the cross-section for 4-fermion pair production. If the experimental situation warrants it, background terms can also be included without difficulty.
In the case of $e^+e^-\rightarrow f\bar f$, dealt with in section II, the invariant mass squared of the $Z^0$, $s$, is fixed by the momenta of the incoming $e^+e^-$. For the process $e^+e^-\rightarrow Z^0Z^0$ the invariant mass of the produced $Z^0$’s is not constant and must be somehow included in phase space integrations. It is not immediately clear how to do this and without further guidance from $S$-matrix theory there would seem to be considerable flexibility in how to proceed. A new ingredient is required and that is to realize that an expression for an $S$-matrix element can always be divided into a part that is a Lorentz-invariant function of the kinematic invariants of the problem and Lorentz-covariant objects, such as $\slash{p}$ etc. The latter are known as [*standard covariants*]{} [@Hearn; @Hepp1; @Williams; @Hepp2]. It is the Lorentz invariant part that satisfies the requirements of analytic $S$-matrix theory and from which the resonant and non-resonant background parts are extracted while the Lorentz covariant part is untouched.
To calculate $\sigma(e^+e^-\rightarrow Z^0Z^0)$, we begin by constructing the cross-section for $e^+e^-\rightarrow Z^0Z^0\rightarrow (f_1\bar f_1)(f_2\bar f_2)$, and will eventually sum over all fermion species. The part of the full matrix element that can give rise to doubly resonant contributions can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}&=&\sum_i [\bar v_{e^+} T^i_{\mu\nu} u_{e^-}]
M_i(t,u,p_1^2,p_2^2)\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times\frac{1}{p_1^2-M_Z^2-\Pi_{ZZ}(p_1^2)}
[\bar u_{f_1}\gamma^\mu(V_{Zf_L}(p_1^2)\gamma_L
+V_{Zf_R}(p_1^2)\gamma_R) v_{\bar f_1}]
\label{eq:fullZZ}\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times\frac{1}{p^2_2-M_Z^2-\Pi_{ZZ}(p_2^2)}
[\bar u_{f_2}\gamma^\nu(V_{Zf_L}(p_2^2)\gamma_L
+V_{Zf_R}(p_2^2)\gamma_R) v_{\bar f_2}]
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $T_{\mu\nu}^i$ are Lorentz covariant tensors that span the tensor structure of the matrix element and $\gamma_L$, $\gamma_R$ are the usual helicity projection operators. The squared invariant masses of the $f_1\bar f_1$ and $f_2\bar f_2$ pairs are $p_1^2$ and $p_2^2$. The $M_i$, $\Pi_{ZZ}$ and $V_{Zf}$ are Lorentz scalars that are analytic functions of the independent kinematic Lorentz invariants of the problem.
To extract the piece of the matrix element that corresponds to finite propagation of both $Z^0$’s we extract the leading term in a Laurent expansion in $p_1^2$ and $p_2^2$ of the analytic Lorentz-invariant part of eq.(\[eq:fullZZ\]) leaving the Lorentz-covariant part untouched. This is the doubly-resonant term and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}&=&\sum_i [\bar v_{e^+} T^i_{\mu\nu} u_{e^-}]
M_i(t,u,s_p,s_p)\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times\frac{F_{ZZ}(s_p)}{p_1^2-s_p}
[\bar u_{f_1}\gamma^\mu(V_{Zf_L}(s_p)\gamma_L
+V_{Zf_R}(s_p)\gamma_R) v_{\bar f_1}]
\label{eq:resZZ}\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times\frac{F_{ZZ}(s_p)}{p_2^2-s_p}
[\bar u_{f_2}\gamma^\nu(V_{Zf_L}(s_p)\gamma_L
+V_{Zf_R}(s_p)\gamma_R) v_{\bar f_2}]
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $F_{ZZ}$ defined by a relation like (\[eq:FZZdef\]). It should be emphasized that eq.(\[eq:resZZ\]) is the exact form of the doubly-resonant matrix element to all orders in perturbation theory that we will now specialize to leading order. It is free of threshold singularities noted that were found by other authors [@AeppOldeWyl]. In lowest order eq.(\[eq:resZZ\]) becomes, up to overall multiplicative factors, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}&=&\sum_{i=1}^2 [\bar v_{e^+} T^i_{\mu\nu} u_{e^-}]M_i\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \times\frac{1}{p_1^2-s_p}
[\bar u_{f_1}\gamma^\mu(V_{Zf_L}\gamma_L+V_{Zf_R}\gamma_R)v_{\bar f_1}]
\label{eq:lowestZZ}\\
& &\ \ \ \ \times\frac{1}{p_2^2-s_p}
[\bar u_{f_2}\gamma^\nu(V_{Zf_L}\gamma_L+V_{Zf_R}\gamma_R)v_{\bar f_2}].
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $T^1_{\mu\nu}=\gamma_\mu(\slash{p}_{e^-}-\slash{p}_1)\gamma_\nu$, $M_1=t^{-1}$; $T^2_{\mu\nu}=\gamma_\nu(\slash{p}_{e^-}-\slash{p}_2)\gamma_\mu$, $M_2=u^{-1}$ and the final state vertex corrections take the form $V_{Zf_L}=ie\beta_L^f\gamma_L$ and $V_{Zf_R}=ie\beta_R^f\gamma_R$, The left- and right-handed couplings of the $Z^0$ to a fermion $f$ are $$\beta_L^f=\frac{t_3^f-\sin^2\theta_W Q^f}{\sin\theta_W\cos\theta_W},
\hbox to 2cm{}
\beta_R^f=-\frac{\sin\theta_W Q^f}{\cos\theta_W}.$$
Squaring the matrix element and integrating over the final state momenta for fixed $p_1^2$ and $p_2^2$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^3\sigma}{\partial t\,\partial p_1^2\,\partial p_2^2}
&=&\frac{\pi\alpha^2}{s^2}
(\vert\beta_L^e\vert^4+\vert\beta_R^e\vert^4)
\rho(p_1^2)\ \rho(p_2^2)\label{eq:diffxsec}\\
&\times&\left\{\frac{t}{u}+\frac{u}{t}
+\frac{2(p_1^2+p_2^2)^2}{ut}
-p_1^2p_2^2\left(\frac{1}{t^2}+\frac{1}{u^2}\right)
\right\}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(p^2)&=&\frac{\alpha}{6\pi}
\sum_f(\vert\beta_L^f\vert^2+\vert\beta_R^f\vert^2)
\frac{p^2}{\vert p^2-s_p\vert^2}
\theta(p_0)\theta(p^2)\\
&\approx&\frac{1}{\pi}
.\frac{p^2 (\Gamma_Z/M_Z)}{(p^2-M_Z^2)^2+\Gamma_Z^2 M_Z^2}
\theta(p_0)\theta(p^2)\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over fermion species. Note that $\rho(p^2)\rightarrow \delta(p^2-M_Z^2)\theta(p_0)$ as ${\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(s_p)\rightarrow 0$ which is the result obtained by cutting a free propagator. The variables $s$, $t$, $u$, $p_1^2$ and $p_2$ in eq.(\[eq:diffxsec\]) arise from products of standard covariants and external wave functions and therefore take real values dictated by the kinematics.
Integrating over $t$, $p_1^2$ and $p_2^2$ leads to $$\sigma(s)=\int_0^s dp_1^2
\int_0^{(\sqrt{s}-\sqrt{p_1^2})^2} dp_2^2
\sigma(s;p_1^2,p_2^2)\ \rho(p_1^2)\ \rho(p_2^2),
\label{eq:ZZxsec}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(s;p_1^2,p_2^2)&=&\frac{2\pi\alpha^2}{s^2}
(\vert\beta_L^e\vert^4+\vert\beta_R^e\vert^4)\\
&\times&
\left\{\left(\frac{1+(p_1^2+p_2^2)^2/s^2}
{1-(p_1^2+p_2^2)/s}\right)\ln\left(\frac{-s+p_1^2+p_2^2+\lambda}
{-s+p_1^2+p_2^2-\lambda}\right)
-\frac{\lambda}{s}\right\}\end{aligned}$$ and $\lambda=\sqrt{s^2+p_1^4+p_2^4-2sp_1^2-2sp_2^2-2p_1^2p_2^2}$. For $p_1^2=p_2^2=M_Z^2$ this agrees with known results [@Brown].
R. J. Eden, P. V. Landshoff, D. I. Olive and J. C. Polkinghorne, [*The Analytic $S$-Matrix*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1966).
R. E. Peierls, [*Proceedings of the 1954 Glasgow Conference on Nuclear and Meson Physics*]{}, Pergamon Press, New York, (1955) 296.
R. G. Stuart, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 262**]{} (1991) 113.
R. G. Stuart, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**70**]{} (1993) 3193.
R. G. Stuart, hep-ph/9504215.
R. G. Stuart, hep-ph/9602300.
A. Aeppli, F. Cuypers and G. J. van Oldenborgh, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 314**]{} (1993) 413;
A. Aeppli, G. J. van Oldenborgh and D. Wyler, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 428**]{} (1994) 126.
M. Veltman, [*Physica*]{} [**29**]{} (1963) 186.
A. C. Hearn, [*Nuovo Cimento*]{} [**21**]{} (1961) 333.
K. Hepp, [*Helv. Phys. Acta*]{} [**36**]{} (1963) 355.
D. N. Williams, preprint UCRL-11113 (1963).
K. Hepp, [*Helv. Phys. Acta*]{} [**37**]{} (1964) 11.
R. W. Brown and K. O. Mikaelian, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 19**]{} (1979) 922.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.